MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, June 10th, 04:42 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 10, 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

• Move the chef-based recipe lists (such as List of Tayce T. recipes) to game-based ones (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge the corresponding chef-named recipes (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Silver Credit and Gold Credit to Silver Card and Golden Card, respectively (discuss) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Moo Moo back to cow (discuss) Deadline: June 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Spike Top derived from both Buzzy Beetles and Spinies (discuss) Deadline: June 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Samus from List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: June 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move attack info from Super Hammer to Spin Hammer and move the latter to Super Hammer (move) (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add Mario Bros. as a related game to the Super Mario series (discuss) Deadline: June 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Chain Chompikins from Madame Broode to Big Chain Chomp (discuss) Deadline: June 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move List of Toad Town News in Paper Mario to simply "Toad Town News" (discuss) Deadline: June 18th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Young Link and Toon Link info to Link's article (discuss) Deadline: June 20th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Baby Donkey Kong to Baby DK (discuss) Deadline: June 21st, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Grifty to be a Little Mouser (discuss) Deadline: June 22, 2024, 23:59 GMT

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.

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)

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:

• 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).
• 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 baseball teams they lead, etc.

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.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject

These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) and Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch). However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).

I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support change

1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like Hottest Dog or Goomboss Battle, we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you need the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
3. Shadow2 (talk) Trim! Trim the excess!
4. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
5. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content only if the article already needs a distinguisher. Nostalgic Tunes's title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does Gold Medal need to? Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"
6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per Camwoodstock and Dive Rocket Launcher.
8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all for nintendo switch
9. SeanWheeler (talk) Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like 100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii).

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all

Oppose change

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely why this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
2. Scrooge200 (talk) Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick I disagree. "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; that would be "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in some game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Would you recommend moving Switch (Donkey Kong) to "Switch (Donkey Kong for Game Boy)" then? Or Floor (Mario Bros.) to "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)"? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:33, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Floor (Mario Bros.) is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it only appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in all versions of Mario Bros., so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. rend (talk) (edits) 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

But it doesn't appear in the original. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:46, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

...the lesser known one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. rend (talk) (edits) 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. this revision justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS) - which would have to have such a name because 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U) also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after this proposal has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. rend (talk) (edits) 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see Switch (Donkey Kong)), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

That ignores that the arcade one was in development first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the Mario Bros. (game) article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

Only tangentially related, but why are the three Gold Medal items split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like Apples just because they happen to work differently across games. And then Medal is also split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)

Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games (Power Plus (badge) and Power Plus (Super Paper Mario) for example). Dive Rocket Launcher 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

This reminds me to back when this failed proposal tried to merge Cog (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) and Cog (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) to Cog (obstacle), even though the former two are collectables and the latter one is an obstacle or platform. I had suggested in my oppose vote to merge the former two in a new article "Cog (item)" instead (which I stand by after finding out there's a mission in Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon where gears had to be collected, which would also fit perfectly for a potential "Cog (item)" page), but proposer Super Mario RPG never added an option for such a thing despite many others agreeing that it would be a good idea. rend (talk) (edits) 12:30, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life. MegaBowser64 (talk) 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? Shadow2 (talk) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, yeah. Whoops. MegaBowser64 (talk) 10:25, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

We couldn't find if the "rename the wiki" proposal is the proposal with the most opposes, but we can tell you right now it'll never have the most opposition by percentage! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:54, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

You sure there aren't better options? rend (talk) (edits) 18:59, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite being the creator of the proposal, whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think this one ever had a supporting vote either. Dive Rocket Launcher 20:49, June 4, 2024 (EDT)

This is another example. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:57, June 5, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.