MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
(Redirected from Proposals)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the proposals page

Current time:
Wednesday, July 9th, 01:09 GMT

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • 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.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
  3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  5. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
  6. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  7. 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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • 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.
  8. 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 "(blocked)" 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.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  11. 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.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  14. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  15. 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.
  16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  17. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
  18. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  19. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  20. 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.
  21. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  22. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  23. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 20 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".

===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Deletions

None at the moment.

Moves

Merges

Splits

Miscellaneous

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
Note: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 2025)
Ditch classic course prefixes in Mario Kart course article names (for real now), YoYo (ended June 21, 2025)
Decide on a standardized romanization system to be used for all Cantonese text, Dominoes (ended June 23, 2025)
Overhaul sponsor pages, Seandwalsh (ended June 26, 2025)
Reorganize recurring theme articles to use history sections, Ahemtoday (ended July 2, 2025)

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)
Note: Missing Robo-Rabbit and flag articles.
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Split the Animal Crossing series (now Crossovers with Animal Crossing), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red) (Draft page), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article (Draft page), EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 2025)
Split the Story Mode chapters from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 13, 2025)
Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)
Split text changes in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (Draft page), Technetium (ended May 29, 2025)
Split gold variants of Pests, Sorbetti (ended June 7, 2025)
Determine which subjects belong in Category:Aliens, Technetium (ended June 14, 2025)
Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.
Re-order Template:Ratings template based by country and region, PanchamBro (ended June 30, 2025)
Split The Super Mario Bros. Movie's book adaptations, Rykitu (ended July 2, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Adopt a romanization system for Russian

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on July 12, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Even to this day, many Mario games are translated into Russian and there are currently thousands of Russian names listed on the wiki in "Names in other languages" sections. Problem is: the romanization of those names is inconsistent, and whilst there exists dozens of systems for romanizing Russian, none of them has received much popularity.

There are two categories of Russian romanization systems currently in use on the wiki: an Anglophone system with English consonants ("ch", "sh", "zh"…) that is the most widely used but has some discrepancies, and a scholar system with Czech-like consonants ("č", "š", "ž"…) that is much less used on the wiki. I propose that we adopt one of the following two systems for Russian romanization that are based on the two categories above.

Anglophone romanization system
This system is aimed to be easy to read and write for Anglophones. It is based on BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, but using only ASCII characters, and is nearly identical to the romanization system used by Bulbapedia.
Scholar romanization system
This system is based on GOST 16876-71, itself based on scientific transliterations of Russian used by linguists.

Here is the transliteration table for both systems:

Here are a few examples to compare both systems:

English word Russian word Anglophone romanization Scholar romanization
Yoshi Йоши Yoshi Joši
Peach Пич Pich Pič
Luigi Луиджи Luidzhi Luidži
Famitsu Фамицу Famitsu Famicu

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: July 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Adopt the Anglophone romanization system (Luidzhi i Yoshi)

  1. Jdtendo (talk) I think that this romanization system is more intuitive to the English-speaking users of the wiki.
  2. Shadow2 (talk) I tend to favour the romanization system that's also used by Google Translate, which in this case is this one. I think most of the internet uses this one, tbh... Also, transliterating ц as "c" is just wild...
  3. Arend (talk) This is an English wiki, why wouldn't we use the more English romanization? Also people are definitely going to be confused with ц being romanized as a regular "c" instead of "ts".
  4. YoYo (talk) Per arend
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, and also Arend; we should definitely use the "more English" one, if that makes sense.
  6. Сяхоу Ба (talk) Per proposal. This one is easier to grasp for English users, and it's much easier to understand "ч" as "ch" than č and я as "ya" than "ja".
  7. Altendo (talk) Per Shadow2 on the previous proposal.
  8. фанат йоши (talk)Per

Adopt the scholar romanization system (Luidži i Joši)

Do not adopt either system for Russian

Comments (романизация)

Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information

This proposal aims to implement a new guideline for the creation/formatting of articles and is borrowed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia notably has a metric ton of extremely rigid rules and restrictions that are usually done in the name of accessibility but ultimately lead to things being a more cluttered mess or become harder to read for the average reader. However, the one rule of theirs that I've always fully agreed with and feel quite strongly about is their rule that color should not be used as the sole means of conveying information. This is a guideline that's usually applied to tables, where things such as the color of text, the color of the background, or the color of a symbol is used to denote information about the table entry.

This is a problem for multiple reasons. It can be confusing to colorblind users, as some of the chosen colors may appear extremely similar or exactly the same to them. Color is also not conveyed to readers who use screen-readers or devices/printers that don't show color. At the end of the day, color looks nice and it's a nice easy way to convey information for most users, but it's not the only option and there are easy ways to convey this information for others as well.

A few examples:

So what does this mean if the proposal passes? Any current usage of color on the wiki to convey information does not need to be changed. All color indicators can remain as they are, as they are still a valid and very effective way of conveying information to most users. However, this proposal would dictate that an additional measure be introduced. For example, on the proposal archive, a small three-letter identifier could be used next to each entry such as "PAS" for passed, "FAI" for failed, "NOQ" for no quorum. (This is just an example, and does not need to be the methodology we use) Symbols can also be used. The essential bottom line is that anything needs to be understandable if the page is viewed in grayscale.

This change would apply to all pages across the wiki, including mainspace pages, Mariowiki and help pages, and talk pages. It would not apply to User Pages. Users can be free to color their page however they want. (However, for purposes of communication, it would apply to User Talk pages)

Proposer: Shadow2 (talk)
Deadline: July 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Color cannot be the sole identifier

  1. Shadow2 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Potato3003 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal. Plus, conveying information is easier with symbols than with an arbitrary color scheme ("Camera minigames are colored pink").
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) In addition to the points brought up, we feel like this would improve things dramatically for screen reader users. While color can be handy, it should never be the only method of conveying information. As it stands, we don't actually know if the colorblind--or blind blind--can properly decipher the proposal archives. That's a pretty glaring oversight!
  6. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal and Cam.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. (Can we also stop using images as the sole way to present information too, please?)
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) please and thank you!
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I especially dislike the rainbow mess in some Mario Party minigame lists that end up using up to 5 different colors! Two of which being yellow and silver. Insane.

Color can be the sole identifier

  1. Altendo (talk | contribs) I personally don't have an issue with this; the color coding information is already placed on either the introduction or section paragraph. It's also not like color is the only identifier here (the Mario Kart Tour lists also put in letters to indicate course type Edit on 11:38, July 6, 2025 (EDT): the fact that "the proposal archive uses ONLY color to convey the outcome of the listed proposals on its table" is false; hovering your mouse over the "ended (date)" section also shows the outcome of the proposal, and I think conveying information through text would just be an unnecessary third method of communication there).

Colo(u)rful Comments

@Altendo The information conveyed by color in the Mario Kart Tour lists is distinct from the information conveyed by letters, so color is still the sole identifier for the information it conveys. Jdtendo(T|C) 01:31, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Bad example, sorry. Updated my comment attached to my vote. Altendo 11:39, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

I suppose this is similar to how RPG enemy templates previously used text formatting to communicate if something was a normal enemy or a boss, giving no wiggle room for subjects that could be encountered as either. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:44, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, do screen readers know about hover text? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 12:55, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

would this also affect the colored usernames staff members get? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:46, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. For accessibility reasons it probably should be, though I think that's beyond the scope of what normal users like me are able to do. Shadow2 (talk) 22:23, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

@Altendo @Camwoodstock I cannot personally confirm this, but I have been told that "tooltip mouseover text", which is used in the proposal archives as you described, also cannot be detected and read by screen readers. If anybody can confirm or deny this, please do. Plus, I think some mobile devices can't read mouseover text...I know my old phone used to not be able to, although my current phone is able to. Also, Altendo, the fact that you've said "the color coding information is already placed on either the introduction or section paragraph" indicates that you may not have fully understood this proposal. Yes, the information about color coding is posted on the page. However, how does that help someone who doesn't know what yellow looks like? Shadow2 (talk) 22:23, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Although I don't think it works on mobile, the hover text works perfectly fine with me. Also, I'm not exactly against allowing alternate methods of communication; I'm just simply against prohibiting color to be the sole communication factor. Altendo 07:46, July 8, 2025 (EDT)
Why, though? Shadow2 (talk) 21:01, July 8, 2025 (EDT)
The hover text works fine on mobile for me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:02, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

Mandate the use of straight apostrophes

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on July 13, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

There are several characters that can be used as an apostrophe — usually the straight apostrophe (') or the curly apostrophe (’). Many publishers and websites have a guideline about which apostrophe should be used (e.g., Wikipedia mandates straight apostrophes), but the Super Mario Wiki doesn't have one. Considering that the straight apostrophe is overwhelmingly used throughout the wiki and is easier to type on any keyboard, I propose that we also mandate the use of a straight apostrophe in our writing guidelines.

However, some article names such as "Meet Luigi: Mario’s Brother and Nervous Hero" contain a curly apostrophe like the corresponding Play Nintendo video, and one may argue that preserving the curly apostrophe is needed to reflect the original suject's name faithfully. In that case, should we also move Behind Chain Chomp's Gate and other Super Mario 64 (DS) mission names that contain an apostrophe to use a curly apostrophe instead, considering those games use a curly apostrophe? And for articles of subjects from other games, check if they are written in-game with a straight or curly apostrophe?

To make matter worst, Nintendo's use of apostrophe is very inconsistent. For instance, contrary to the "Mario’s Brother" example above, other Play Nintendo videos use a straight apostrophe such as "Games with Toads: Mario's Loyal Friends!" (and bafflingly, the corresponding article uses a curly apostrophe instead!). On Nintendo's website, Luigi’s Mansion™ 3 is written with a curly apostrophe whereas Luigi's Mansion™ 2 HD is written with a straight apostrophe — and it's the complete opposite in the Switch's software list! Nintendo, usually a stickler for the name formatting of their products, does not seem to care about what apostrophe character they use, which suggests that the kind of apostrophe used is not ontologically part of the name.

Just like we typically don't include "™" in game titles and we convert UPPERCASE TITLES to Title Case Titles, I think we should also use the straight apostrophe in article titles regardless of the specific character used in the source.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: July 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Mandate straight apostrophes in article titles and text body

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Proposal's good (and inconsistent apostrophes aren’t)
  3. SGoW (talk) Per proposal. The "curly apostrophe" technically isn't even an apostrophe, it's actually intended to be a quotation mark.
  4. AmossGuy (talk) Best to be consistent with this. A tad surprised this wasn't already in the guidelines.
  5. Genesis Does (What Altendon’t) Not pern’t proposal.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is pretty dang overdue. Per proposal.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) I actually thought we did this already.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal, and thank you very much!
  9. Shadow2 (talk) "Smart quotes" must DIE
  10. SleepyRedHair (talk) I'm surprised this wasn't already the case. Per all.

Mandate straight apostrophes in text body, but not in article titles

Do not mandate straight apostrophes (status quo)

  1. Polley001 (talk) It's not so much that I don't think this should be mandated whatsoever, but in a similar fashion to how these options don't really allow for other possibilities, I think this is too restrictive as described. Some cases make more sense than others when it comes to being accurate. For example, there was recently a proposal passed to not include prefixes in Mario Kart course article titles. However, courses can still be written with their prefix where relevant, despite a somewhat similar consensus that the prefixes aren't actually part of their names. The need for accuracy can vary greatly, and I'm of the opinion that even something as minute as this should not be exempt from that.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Polley001, I think this should be case-by-case rather than having a strict policy that limits our accuracy.

Comments (Jdtendo's Apostrophe’s Proposal™)

I'd like some clarification. In the Super Mario Galaxy section of List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music, the tracks "Peach’s Castle Stolen" and "Bowser’s Stronghold Appears" use the curly apostrophe, just as they're written on the service itself. Would this mean that they'd have to be written with a straight apostrophe? If that were the case, I'd actually prefer if this only applied to article titles. Polley001 (talk) 14:10, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, they would be need to be written with a straight apostrophe for consistency. The logic that I explained for article titles also applies here: the kind of apostrophe used is not ontologically part of the name, and I don't think we need to mimic different typographic rules. Jdtendo(T|C) 15:14, July 6, 2025 (EDT)
To clarify my thoughts, I feel like a case-by-case basis would be arbitrary at best, or completely defeat the purpose of the proposal at worst. If we make an exception for Nintendo Music track names to preserve byte-by-byte accuracy, then why shouldn't we also format the Super Mario 64 mission list to include "BEHIND CHAIN CHOMP’S GATE" — not just with a curly apostrophe, but also in uppercase considering it's how it's formatted in-game? Jdtendo(T|C) 03:00, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Decide the fate of the footnote template

This proposal aims to decide the fate of the {{footnote}} template. According to this:

“I think this template should be marked deprecated and deleted, since the footnotes at the bottom of an article are more noticeable and not this small text that is hardly readable. It shouldn't be controversial to mark this as a deprecated template and start removing instances of it.”
Super Mario RPG, 22:26, February 3, 2025 (EST)
“Hm. I'm definitely not happy with this template as it currently exists — it's... a subpar recreation of footnote functionality that doesn't even achieve all of it. Jdtendo has the right of it above, in my opinion. But something doesn't seem quite right about just using the same thing we use for citations for this. And the labeling system we have to use bugs me — [a 11] doesn't quite look good and [note 11] is unsuitable for tables. I think my ideal solution would be having something like [Inkipedia's note template], which actively uses the citation function within it but manages to have a unique letter-based labeling scheme. Though I'm not sure if it's possible to have multiple lists with that, as it exists...”
Ahemtoday, 02:18, February 6, 2025 (EST)

As such, I offer three options:

Option 1
Redesign the {{footnote}} template in a similar style to Inkipedia's {{note}} template.
Option 2
Add the lower-alpha group and replace every use of the {{footnote}} template with <ref group="lower-alpha"></ref> and <references group="lower-alpha"/>.
Option 3
Keep the {{footnote}} template as is.

If the proposal passes with option 1, the template will be redesigned similarly to Inkipedia's {{note}} template. For example, typing

{{icon|SM64DS-Star}} [[Big Bob-omb's Revenge]]{{footnote|name=DS-only mission|Neither Big Bob-omb's Revenge, Switch Star of the Fortress, Switch Star of the Bay, Switch Star of Cool, Cool Mountain, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Dark World, Switch Star in the Basement, Underground Switch Star, Flaming Silver Stars, Tox Box Switch Star, Koopa Surfin' Switch Star, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Fire Sea, the Balloon Mario mission from Behind the Waterfall, the Switch Star mission from The Secret Under the Moat, Yoshi's Ice Sculpture, Snowman's Silver Star, Soaked Silver Stars, 5 Secrets of the Mountain, Switch Star on the Island, Tick Tock Silver Stars, Switch Star of the Manor, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Sky, the Black Brick mission from Over the Rainbows, the 8 Red Coins from the Mushroom Castle, Through the Looking Glass, nor the Rabbit Challenge mission appear in the original.}} {{icon|SM64DS-Mario}} {{icon|SM64DS-Luigi}} {{icon|SM64DS-Wario}}

will result in this:

Power Star Big Bob-omb's Revenge[b] Mario Luigi Wario

However, if the proposal passes with option 2, the lower-alpha group will be added to the <ref> tag, and we will replace every use of the template with both <ref group="lower-alpha"></ref> and <references group="lower-alpha"/>. For example, typing

[[Sunshine Isles]]<ref name="DS-only course" group="lower-alpha">Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original.</ref>

will result in this:

Sunshine Isles[c]

Likewise, we will also add a Footnotes section to pages that do not have one if option 2 passes.

Just so you know, the {{footnote}} template could be either redesigned or depreciated.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: June 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Redesign the template

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice
  2. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal. The current template is not mobile friendly.

Option 2: Add the "lower-alpha" reference group and replace every use of the template

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice
  2. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.

Option 3: Keep as is

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We earnestly cannot tell what this proposal is asking for, and in the absence of clarification for what exactly would happen in terms of "footnotes" when the result of that code is identical to just. Some Page[letter], with no clue where the actual footnote parameter goes in that case, we're just going to vote for the status quo option here. If someone could actually explain to us where the footnote text would go, we might change our vote...?

Comments (footnote suggestions)

There should be a option for replacing uses of {{footnote}} with grouped <ref>s, such as <ref group=a>...</ref>. I think that "[a 11]" does not look any bad, and it's actually a good thing to use the same mechanism for citations and footnotes instead of having to learn two different systems that technically do the same thing. BTW, I don't think options 1 and 2 allow several footnote lists on the same page. Jdtendo(T|C) (the guy from Ahemtoday's quote) 11:59, June 14, 2025 (EDT)

I disagree. I do believe that the "lower-alpha" group could be better than you think.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBayBeee (talk).

We do not understand the sample provided in the least. Is the idea that the text "Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original." would appear in the references section? Where, exactly, does that text go? As it stands, the provided sample is effectively identical to "Sunshine Isles[c]", just with using &lbrack ; instead of just. The [ key on the keyboard, and vice versa for the right bracket, which only serves to confuse the conversation more. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 12:21, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

As one of the people quoted here, I feel obligated to weigh in, so here goes. I'd like to put practicality aside for a moment and just talk about what my ideal system for footnotes looks like for the end user. I think distinguishing footnotes from citations — again, on the front end, not necessarily on the back end — is useful because the two serve different purposes. One is clarification and the other is evidence. This is the reason why I like using the lower-alpha numbering scheme for footnotes; it's the most distinct from citations (by virtue of not including any numbers) and therefore the most clear on what is what. When it comes to multiple groups of footnotes, I think I'd most want the lettering scheme to just keep going between the first group and second. For instance, on Mario Kart (series), the character footnotes would go up to L, and then the course footnotes would start at M. I'm not sure if that's possible, and I'm not sure if it's best done by remodeling or deprecating the current footnote template, but that's how I think footnotes should work. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:34, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

Okay then. Can we do option 1, option 2, or both? Sorry for the late reply by the way. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 09:35, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock I disagree. Ahemtoday said that the lower-alpha group could be recommended because it's not only more distinctive from citations, but also clearer. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 13:14, July 7, 2025 (EDT)

...Where does the information in the description actually go? The provided sample doesn't showcase it whatsoever; the text "Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original." does not appear anywhere within the resulting "Sunshine Isles[c]" text. It doesn't matter how "clear" it is in terms of syntax if said syntax seems to be dropping a vast majority of its contents, and none of the presumed clarifications have done anything to illuminate just where that text actually goes, the closest thing being a vague mention of a "Footnotes" section, without any example of what that may look like. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 13:23, July 7, 2025 (EDT)

Decide how to handle images on Mario Party board pages

I kind of alluded to this proposal in Jdtendo's proposal, but I feel like this also needs to be addressed. I was actually planning on doing this earlier, but I didn't know when would be a good time to do so (and I kind of forgot about this) until said proposal was made.

Regardless, the current way that most Mario Party board pages have their images shown is inconsistent. Specifically, the board logo and the image used for other modes (like solo modes). In the Nintendo 64 entries and Mario Party 8, the logos jut into the page, as explained in Jdtendo's proposal, and Salmancer's comment, "Article text starts at the leftmost point of the content area. That's just natural reading, and it makes sense to move the logos away to adhere to it." Jdtendo's proposal aims at moving the logos for consoles to the infobox, which I have planted by support vote in (you can also see the allusion to this proposal there). However, while moving the logo to the infobox will be an option, there will also be options to move them to the gallery (the board pages for the Nintendo GameCube entries and Mario Party DS do this already), put logos that aren't in the top left in the top left (like the Nintendo 64 entries and Mario Party 8), move them below the infobox (like with the Duel Battle image for Koopa's Tycoon Town), or to just leave them as is (jutted logos will remain jutted and gallery logos will remain in the gallery).

Similarly, the solo mode image locations are also inconsistent. Mario Party 5 and Mario Party 8 have them in the main bulk of the page, while Mario Party 7 has them in the infobox. The options to move these image locations will remain the same as logos. You can see examples for both here (I will make every possible version there later).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)

Logos

Deadline: July 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Move them to the infobox
  1. Jdtendo (talk) Primary choice. I think that highlighting the logo of the board makes sense considering that the board image usually does not feature the board's logo, contrary to the boxart of a game.
Move them to the gallery
  1. Altendo (talk) I prefer moving the logos here. Some pages already do this. I am not against moving them to the infobox, but if game logos don't appear there, I don't see why board logos should unless there is no image of a board (and why wouldn't there be any?). EDIT ON 07:48, June 27, 2025 (EDT): Rainbow Road Drifter's point about SMP not even having logos is also valid.
  2. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Board logos don't add anything to the infobox, and some games (Super Mario Party for example) do not even have logos for their boards, so their infoboxes would be inconsistent.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) Secondary choice.
Move them below the infobox
Move them to the left side
Keep them where they are

Solo mode images

Deadline: July 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Move them to the infobox
  1. Altendo (talk) I like how Mario Party 7's board pages handle these the best.
  2. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Makes sense if the layout is different in Solo Mode.
  3. Jdtendo (talk) Per Rainbow Road Drifter.
Move them to the gallery
Move them below the infobox
Move them to the left side
Keep them where they are

(IMAGE GOES HERE) Comments

Keep Boss-only minions merged with their bosses

Enemies that are only seen alongside the boss of the fight they appear in should not be separate. E.g. Crystal Bits only appear in Crystal King's fight and should not receive an article separate from him. This also applies to same -basis cases like the Petit Piranhas and Lava Buds which should be merged with Lava Piranha. The "helper snakes" or "mini hisstocrats" aren't separated from Hisstocrat so why should other cases that are much the same as this be any different?

As per request, a list of other boss helpers to better illustrate what I mean:

  • Tutankoopa's chomp is already merged to Tutankoopa but is an example of a boss helper that only appears in the one fight alongside the boss
  • Bulb (already merged to General Guy)
  • Shy Squad (split from General Guy)
  • Cortez' weapons (merged to Cortez)

There are probably others I forgot but this should give a good gist of what I mean.

Proposer: Pizza Master (talk)
Deadline: July 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

These minions have separation anxiety (Merge/Support)

  1. Pizza Master (talk) per

Case-by-case basis (Merged or Split based on "official recognition")

  1. Pizza Master (talk) per DBB's comment.
  2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per my comment.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) This proposal, as it stands, is a bit too wishy-washy for us to feel comfortable with the sweeping changes it's presenting. The comments suggesting yet another merge for the colored Kameks from Dream Team, while the proposal itself seemingly not doing that, is extremely disconcerting to us; even if that was addressed, there's not much about other sorts of edge cases; cough-cough, the rather contentious boss minions for Super Mario 3D World's boss fights (hi Hisstocrat.) We'd definitely prefer a more case-by-case basis for this sort of thing, and maybe we can codify something after that.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) there's some cases where they're better merged, and some cases where they're better split. "boss-only minions" encompasses a very wide range of complexity
  5. Tails777 (talk) Best tackle these based on their situations. Per all.
  6. Gru (talk) Character artwork of a Roketon.
  7. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Minions are Minions! (Oppose/Status Quo)

Comments

Are the examples you mentioned the only pages that this would affect? If not, you should provide a full list of affected pages. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

I'd vote for an option that supports keeping minions recognized officially as unique enemies on their own pages, such as Crystal Bits, Eggbert, and Helio, but merges minions that are not recognized as such such as Slave Basa. This comment was edit-conflicted, by the way; keeping it separate from the above question. The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe This is me, D-B-B! The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 15:33, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

There are other pages like fights where a minion that appears only when the boss appears and only in their battle happens like when certain magicians create magic clones of themselves for that battle only. (Kamek (white), (red), and (green) would be merged with Kamek, for example)--Sprite of a fatter Baby Fat, from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars.

Pizza Master Waluigi using the Bitsize Candy from Mario Party 8 15:42, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

@DryBonesBandit I disagree with having that as an option since having a name shouldn't mean a character should get their own page. MC Ballyhoo & Big Top are merged despite having different names since they are never seen apart and this is quite similar to that. --Pizza Master (talk)
That's not what I mean. They have unique stats and descriptions alongside names, which is what I mean by "recognized officially as unique enemies". The colored Kameks are literally clones of Kamek that I'd support merging. MC Ballyhoo & Big Top is a different case imo, as they are a duo of characters that aren't unique separately; both just happened to have names. The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe This is me, D-B-B! The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 15:51, July 1, 2025 (EDT)
I see. I could get behind that.--Pizza Master (talk)

I don't think a proposal like this should have a "decide case-by-case" option, since it's basically the same as the status quo option. We don't need to pass a proposal to be able to make case-by-case decisions. I agree with the sentiment of "split when they're officially recognised as distinct", but we can't objectively define that, so the option is just vague and would probably require discussions for each specific case anyway. Maybe a broad, sweeping proposal isn't the best fit here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:16, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

Hewer's point is a good one imo. I'd rather not have a large, sweeping proposal for this; I thought adding an option for official distinction was good but it is kinda vague, soo... The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe This is me, D-B-B! The emblem of Dry Bones from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe 16:18, July 1, 2025 (EDT)
@Pizza Master: So uh, if the "case-by-case" option passes, is it supposed to actually do anything (besides leaving individual cases up for discussion, which was already the status quo)? I'm not sure I understand what the difference is meant to be between the "case-by-case" option and the "status quo" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:57, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

Stop linking to other wikis for the first usage of a title on an article

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on July 12, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

...The title for this might be confusing, so let me explain. Take the Super Smash Bros. for Wii U article, for example. The first instance of "Super Smash Bros. for Wii U" on the article links to the SmashWiki article for the game...which...has started to feel a bit weird to me. It's almost like it's telling the reader "Hey! Our article sucks! Go read this one instead!," which, isn't what we really want. I think it's best to link to other wikis' versions of the same article at the end of our article, by using templates like Template:NIWA or Template:Wikipedia, or even an "External links" section, like as seen here. However, I'm fine with it in some situations, like Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, Mario Bros., as that only links to articles on our wiki, and is only present to prevent an unnecessary sentence like "Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, Mario Bros. is a compilation of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, and Mario Bros."

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: July 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Wikipedia has an article on Support.

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal...and my...uhh...Wikipedia article?
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Yeah, this is something I ended up thinking about with the Donkey Konga articles — if we have a template for this specific purpose, why would we ever do this instead?
  3. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Links to other NIWA wikis are only necessary if there is more information on a subject that isn't related to the Mario franchise. Our article for Smash for Wii U covers all of the game's content, so readers likely won't need to go to another NIWA wiki's article for more information. There is still a Smashwiki link at the bottom of the page, so we don't lose anything by removing it from the opening sentence.
  4. Wikipedia DOES NOT have an article on Rykitu (talk) Per all. But wait... I DO!!?!!?!
  5. Wikipedia ALSO DOES NOT have an article on Altendo, so this is inconsistent. Per proposal.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. This is why we have the "external links" section. Of course we don't have a Wikipedia article, we've acknowledged that object shows exist before, dooming us to eternal non-notability.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  8. Nintendo101 (talk) absolutely.
  9. Rering644 (talk) Per all. Linking to the wikipedia article for YOU.
  10. WPfan08 (talk) It's a-me! No really, it's me! (Per all)

Wikipedia has an article on Oppose.

Wikipedia has an article on Comments.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.