MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 5: Line 5:


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes===
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being [https://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/Mario1c.jpg dumb], but hear me out.


==Removals==
A few years after [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/31#Remove the "Affiliation" parameter from infoboxes|this proposal]] passed, this wiki added a [[Template:Group infobox|group infobox]] for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would '''only''' be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
I've come up with two options:
===Trim ''Super Smash Bros.'' navigational templates===
*Option 1: [[Template:Character infobox]] and [[Template:Species infobox]] get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. [[Goomba]] and the like would link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[Vivian]] would link to [[Three Shadows]], etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
Over time, this wiki has, with good reason, significantly reduced its coverage of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. However, as has been the subject of multiple other proposals, there are a lot of vestigial remnants left over from when ''Smash'' still received full coverage.
*Option 2: these infoboxes would also get a separate "Leader of" parameter. [[Bowser]] would use this to link to [[Bowser's Minions]], [[King K. Rool]] would use this to link to [[Kremling Krew]], [[Captain Syrup]] would use this to link to [[Black Sugar Gang]], characters and species-characters would link to the [[:Category:baseball teams|baseball teams]] they lead, etc.


One of the most prominent and blatant cases of this is found in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' navigational templates, namely [[Template:SSB]], [[Template:SSB moves]], [[Template:SSBM]], [[Template:SSBM moves]], [[Template:SSB4]], [[Template:SSB4 moves]], [[Template:SSBU]], and [[Template:SSBU moves]].
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).


Each of these templates contains links to subjects that no longer have dedicated articles, and take the reader to a subsection of a list article instead. The "move" templates are especially rough, since the majority of ''Smash Bros.'' moves are no longer even covered on the articles that these links redirect to. I propose that these navigational templates should be ''significantly'' trimmed down, much like the ongoing efforts to clean up the various "series" categories.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT


Furthermore, without the unnecessary links to subjects that no longer are within this wiki's scope, having moves in a separate template from the main navigational template for those games may no longer be necessary, so it might also make sense to remove the "move" templates entirely, moving the links to ''Super Mario''-related ''Smash Bros.'' moves to the main ''Smash'' navigational templates.
====Option 1====
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} First choice per proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
====Option 2====
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Second choice per proposal.


====Remove all redirect links from ''Super Smash Bros.'' navigational templates====
====Do nothing====
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place.  Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the [[Template:Character infobox]] is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. [[Excess Express]] passengers, [[Mario Kart 8]] racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances.  In the [[Goomba]] example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions.  What about the Goombas in [[Goomba Village]] or [[Rogueport]] or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas.  You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per DrBaskerville.


====Remove all redirect links from ''Super Smash Bros.'' navigational templates ''and'' delete the "move" templates entirely====
====Comments====
#{{User|JanMisali}} First choice, per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly surprised this hasn't been done sooner. Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per proposal
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Please do. The excessive amounts of ''Super Smash Bros.'' coverage is a huge pet peeve of mine, since it hinders accessibility for ''Super Mario'' content.


====Do nothing====
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
===Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary===
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, ''very'' long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the ''TTYD'' remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and ''then'' go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?


====Comments====
I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'']] or ''TTYD'' remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'', but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)
You forgot the navigational templates for ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', [[Template:SSBB]] and [[Template:SSBB moves]]. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 12:11, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
:Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Forbid the use of images without captioning them===
This proposal aims to ban the use of images without captions, both in text and galleries. It's for a similar reason as why one should add a reason when adding a maintenance template, and without it, unfamiliar readers may ask themselves, "What's the subject? What does it do? What's it trying to illustrate?"


I looked around for an example, and I'll use the [[Icicle]] page. Quite a few sections add sprites without captioning them. While the section heading alone would be enough to suggest that it's a sprite from the game, additional context could be at risk of being left out. ''Mario Bros.'' has been re-released many times, so when I see the icicle sprite, I may ask myself, "What version is it from? The arcade? The NES? The Game Boy Advance?" While it's true that sprites can't easily display captions, due to being small images, there could be a way to make it easier to caption them.
My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.


This problem also applies to infoboxes. On the [[Itsunomanika Heihō]] page, what's going on in the infobox image? There's so many things in it, and it doesn't make clear who Itsunomanika Heihō is, which is the Shy Guy.
I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe]]'' that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.


On a bit of a side note, too many articles have images that feel added in the text just for the sake of adding images, and captionless images seem among them. Why does the [[Lubba]] page have three images in the ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' section? Are they essential enough to be included or could they just be addendums to a gallery? Two of the images are just Lubba saying a quote, something that's hardly as much of interest as, let's say, Mario's first meeting with Lubba. Should this proposal pass, perhaps a separate proposal, or a precedent, could be set for tightening the use of images in article sections unless they are plot-essential, show a major difference between games, or for historical context, such as when something first appeared.
This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long ''TTYD'' section might, but something like ''Super Mario Advance'' could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|DryKirby64}} As proposer.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Tails777}} Forbidding is a strong conclusion if you ask me. Simply adding a caption or moving images to a gallery is enough rather than just outright forbidding a captionless image.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Tails777. This would be a pretty big policy change, and it would be better to handle it on a case-by-case basis.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} It's really not a big deal at all if there are a few images without captions. If you think one is necessary, then there's nothing stopping you from adding one but making this a strict policy is going too far.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all; we really ought to take these on a case-by-case basis, as while some of these instances are not clear like the ''Mario Bros.'' Icicle image... Other captionless images on that very same article, like the ''Mario Clash'' Icicle are very much clear enough as-is since ''Clash'' only ever had one platform it released on. And the [[Itsunomanika Heihō]] infobox really just needs a new image outright if you ask us; if the image used cropped out the Bandit and Baby Mario and ''giant in-game arrow pointing at them'', leaving the Shy Guy on Yoshi's back as the focal point, you'd fix the vast majority of the clarity issues. <small>(of course, don't go updating the image itself, as it's used on other articles, instead this'd have to be a new image.)</small>
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Best add a caption to the image sans caption, or just move it to a gallery page. Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per all, a blanket ban on uncaptioned images would do more harm than good. It'd be better to just fix the cases that ''are'' unclear.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Abso-huckin'-''lutely'' not.  The amount of times I've had to remove a caption from a tiny, tiny image that can't even support a caption I can't even count.
#{{user|YoYo}} oh please. i dont think i need to explain - but the comment below does perfectly.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, some images needing captions doesn't mean they all do.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. Also see the comments; trying to add a caption to a tiny game sprite says it all.
#{{User|Arend}} Yeah no, per all. Some images are just too tiny to add a caption to (tiny images being something this Icicle article that's being brought up is ''chock full'' of), but also too essential for a section to be outright removed. Doc perfectly demonstrates that in the comment section.
#{{User|Mario}} The ideal way to proceed with this is either make caption interesting or remove the caption and let the image do the talking.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} We should be working on captioning images that need it, not putting an umbrella ban over every image! This idea is more destructive that constructive, images are always good for context, even if they don't have written context themselves.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} As Don Lino from Shark Tale said it best... "Are you kidding me, are you outta your MIND?!". Per all.
====Comments====
[[File:SMB Goomba Sprite.gif|frame|left|In what universe is this even remotely acceptable? You can't even read it!]]
Please tell me how the image to the left is ideal. Because that's what this proposal's trying for. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:52, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
:In my argument in the proposal, I was talking about like a template or something that could use captions in such cases. Multiframe now comes to mind. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:08, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
::Which adds a lot of dead space in the image space itself. I'm fine with using that when they'd blend with the default background (see: [[Spray Fish]]), but using them for captions is superfluous. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:36, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Yeah, padded whitespace makes the page look relatively bigger when actually there is no content. It sucks for an article to have superfluous space created by overly long captions in floated tiny images. When creating an article, an article should look nice. {{User:PnnyCrygr/sig}} 18:39, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
{{br}}
I want to revisit this proposal to ask about the Icicle example... you say that a lack of caption would result in additional context being left out, to which I ask.... what additional context is there to a sprite of an icicle? Adding captions would simply make it extremely repetitive. "An icicle in Super Mario Bros 3" ... "An icicle in Super Mario World" ... "An icicle in..." and so on. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 10:27, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
:TBF the game Mario Bros. has a slew of versions across different systems, so in that particular icicle example it'd be beneficial to state which version it comes from. Not even the sprite's file page states the exact source. If it's a small sprite, surely there's some parameter that widens its frame to fit a caption, right? I could be wrong. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:41, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
===Broaden the scope of the {{tem|unreferenced}} template and/or create the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|more citations needed|Template:More citations needed}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template===
Like everyone in the Super Mario Wiki said, "We are not Wikipedia." I humbly ask if there's a possibility to decide whether to broaden the scope of the <code>{{tem|unreferenced}}</code> template and/or create the <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|more citations|Template:More citations}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template using the following options.
<big>Option 1: Broaden the scope of the <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki></code> template AND create the <code><nowiki>{{more citations}}</nowiki></code> template</big>
----
The <code>{{tem|unreferenced}}</code> template currently reads as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This <!-- {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section| -->article<!-- }} --> '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. 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]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</div>
However, since we are not Wikipedia, once the proposal passes with Option 1, the template will read as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
It has been requested that at least one '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|citation from a reliable source]]''' be added to this <!-- {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section| -->article<!-- }} -->.<br><small>This <!-- {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section| -->article<!-- }} --> should not contain any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for suggestions.</small>
</div>
In addition, after the proposal passes with Option 1, the <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|more citations|Template:More citations}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template will be created to read as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
It has been requested that at '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|more citations from reliable sources]]''' be added to this <!-- {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section| -->article<!-- }} -->.<br><small>This article should not contain any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for suggestions.</small>
</div>
<big>Option 2: ONLY broaden the scope of the <code><nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki></code> template</big>
----
Same as Option 1, but only the scope of the <code>{{tem|unreferenced}}</code> template will be broadened.
<big>Option 3: ONLY create the <code><nowiki>{{more citations}}</nowiki></code> template</big>
----
Same as Option 1, but only the <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|more citations|Template:More citations}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> will be created to read as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This <!-- {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section| -->article<!-- }} --> '''needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]'''. 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]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</div>
<big>Option 4: Do NOTHING.</big>
----
Neither broaden the scope of the <code>{{tem|unreferenced}}</code> template nor create the <code><nowiki>{{more citations}}</nowiki></code> template.
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBB}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Option 1====
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per proposal
====Option 2====
====Option 3====
====Option 4====
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} If a page needs more citations on top of the existing one(s), just use {{tem|ref needed}} to mark the uncited stuff.
#{{user|YoYo}} per Koopa.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Per Koopa.


====Comments====
====Comments====
this might just be one of the most difficult to read proposals i have seen on this site, its a real struggle to look at. is there a chance of tidying it up dramatically {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:54, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
::It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 19:28, June 10, 2024

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, June 11th, 10:11 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: "June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Rules

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)
Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles, GuntherBB (ended November 18, 2023)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts, JanMisali (ended April 18, 2024)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing, DrippingYellow (ended May 26, 2024)
^ Note: Requires action from admins.
Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject, JanMisali (ended June 9, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Add product IDs in game infoboxes, Windy (ended March 18, 2023)
Convert the lists of episode appearances for television series characters into categories, Camwoodstock (ended November 22, 2023)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 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)
Split Cheep Blimp (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) and Zeeppelin from the blimp page, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 28, 2024)
Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended June 9, 2024)
Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively, Blinker (ended June 9, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes

Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being dumb, but hear me out.

A few years after this proposal passed, this wiki added a group infobox for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would only be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.

I've come up with two options:

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).

Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) First choice per proposal.

Option 2

  1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice per proposal.

Do nothing

  1. DrBaskerville (talk) Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the Template:Character infobox is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. Excess Express passengers, Mario Kart 8 racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the Goomba example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in Goomba Village or Rogueport or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
  2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per DrBaskerville.

Comments

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Sprite of Toadsworth Dr. Baskerville Paper Mario Book- MLPJ.png 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4256546"