MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, November 26th, 14:14 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.

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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end 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.
4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
9. 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.
   • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
10. 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.
11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. After a proposal or talk page proposal passes, it is added to the corresponding list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
21. 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, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 26, 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

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, 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 {{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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)

Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)

^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 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)

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)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Create articles for "Ashita ni Nattara" and "Banana Tengoku" or list them in List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs, Starluxe (ended November 23, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)

This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

New features

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

Based on the early vote, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on November 28 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --Cheat-master30 (talk) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)

In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). Tails777 Talk to me!

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.