MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Sunday, September 22nd, 06:47 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. "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(s) 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. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
10. 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% support to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% support to win. If the required support threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then 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 canceled by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for writing guidelines and talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled 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: "September 22, 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. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 subject page of the talk page 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

• Split truck into cargo truck and pickup truck (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split the navigation template for Donkey Kong between arcade and Game Boy versions (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64) to Crocodile Isle (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Prune "sports" games from Black Shy Guy in line with White Shy Guy and Red Boo (discuss) Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider the "Blurp" and "Deep Cheep" in the Super Mario Maker games an alternate design of Cheep Cheep with the former twos' designs as a cameo rather than a full appearance of the former two, in line with the game's own classification (discuss) Deadline: September 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add English to {{foreign names}} and retitle to {{international names}} (discuss) Deadline: September 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Allow usage of {{Release}} as a generic "flag list" template (discuss) Deadline: September 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Preying Mantas with Jellyfish (discuss) Deadline: September 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create article(s) for the SM64DS character rooms (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create an article for the Peach doll from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (discuss) Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove the remaining non-Super Mario "stage gimmicks and hazards" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Remove non-Super Mario "stage cameos" from Super Smash Bros. (discuss) Deadline: October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Rename {{Manga infobox}} to {{Publication infobox}} (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Play Nintendo secret message puzzles (discuss) Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge categories for Donkey Kong Country remakes with their base game's categories (discuss) Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

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 New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended July 19, 2024)

Do not use t-posing models as infobox images, Nightwicked Bowser (ended September 1, 2024)

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)

Tag sections regarding the unofficially named planets/area in Super Mario Galaxy games with "Conjecture" and "Dev data" templates, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 10, 2024)

Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles, GuntherBayBeee (ended September 19, 2024)

Add WikiLove extension, Super Mario RPG (ended September 20, 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 Bowser's Flame from Fire Breath, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

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

Writing guidelines

Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables

Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen here, this is awkwardly written as

• "[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"

and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of

• "[number] + (∞ x [number]),"

with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Altendo (talk) - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.
#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I don't see the benefit of changing this. The current wording is straightforward and succinct, I'd expect the reader to understand "6 (not including the infinite Goombas spawning from one Warp Pipe)" easily. Changing it to "6 + ∞" just makes it less clear for no reason, I'd definitely be confused if I saw that and didn't know this specific context. The fact that the other support votes have also brought up how doing this risks losing the specific information completely (and suggested a more long-winded solution that seems to contradict the proposal) compels me to oppose this more.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Hewer.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
4. Axii (talk) Per Hewer
5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) we don't need to throw a mathematical equation at people
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I realized that this only makes sense if you have it explained to you like in the proposal description, which defeats the purpose.
9. Arend (talk) I feel that "[number] (+ [number] infinite spawn points)" would be less awkward to write than what we currently do and more understandable fir most people than what is proposed here

Comments

@Hewer - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like {{infinite respawn|5|3}} that would produce "5 + (∞ × 3)". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

I'll refrain from voting because I have a visceral reaction to anything that resembles a math formula, and I want as little as possible for personal preference to seep into my vote. That's not to say I don't understand what's being proposed, in fact it makes perfect sense if you're aiming strictly for concision, but you'd need to take into account how accessibly that information is communicated--you'd need to establish that "infinity symbol" stands for infinite enemy spawning point, which is not immediately clear. At that point, you'd go for a relatively lengthy explanation nonetheless. Though, I agree that the phrasing in that page you linked doesn't sound inclusive. I think something like "5 individual, 3 infinite spawning points" works better if we're going down this path.
If the proposal passes, I'd like to see it implemented in the manner Jdtendo suggests above.
EDIT: I'm aware there's already plenty of math on this wiki that has potential to confound people, but in that case, not only is its succinctness a better way to explain how the game's scoring system works (as opposed to paragraphs-long descriptions), but it's taken straight out of the game as well. I'd say, use math formulas only when you're sure prose would be of less service to its intended audience: people looking up how many enemies are in a level aren't necessarily interested in complex gameplay dynamics. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:12, September 19, 2024 (EDT), edited 14:55, September 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "3ω+5", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers is not commutative. Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. Salmancer (talk) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes

Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door came out, for example, it listed both Kevin Afghani (Mario's current voice actor) and Charles Martinet (who voices Mario in The Thousand-Year Door from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet Jen Taylor (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:

• Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
• Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
• Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
• Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).

With regards to mixed use of voices, if multiple voice actors voice a single character in a single game, the latest person who voiced the character as of the game's release takes priority, meaning that archival voices from retired actors will not appear in the infobox if the character in that game is also (and especially mostly) voiced by the current actor for that character. As for other media (like The Super Mario Bros. Movie), whether or not the game/other media actor takes priority or if both should be listed is also of question, but I will likely wait until the follow-up to create that proposal.

EDIT: With regards to Tails777's vote, I don't know exactly how it will play out if Option 3 passes, although I will say if a game (like a compilation) does have a single character voiced by more than one voice actor who isn't the current one, the latest voice actor whose voice clips are used in the game as of the game's release will be the second option added to the infobox (like Peach in 3D All-Stars, who would've listes Samantha Kelly as her current and Galaxy voice actress, as well as Jen Taylor as her Sunshine voice actress, although I don't think it would be that consistent because it would exclude Leslie Swan, her 64 voice actress, but since Jen Taylor was the more recent of the two, she is the one who is listed).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Only add in the current voice actor

1. Altendo (talk) Primary choice. "Latest portrayal", to me, means the person who last voiced the character, and I don't think archival voices should count as this, especially since those voices were recorded before the current voice actor. This also avoids the issues of multiple voice actors voicing a single character in compilations and switching/adding or removing voice actors when reissues and original games come out (as described below).
2. Shadow2 (talk) Re-using old sound clips has no bearing on a character's "Latest portrayal". Charles does not voice Mario anymore, and to list him as such just because of older re-used sound clips is misrepresentative.
3. Hewer (talk) Per both, this is the less misleading option (the infobox doesn't specify whether the "latest" voice actor was just re-usage of old voice clips, so listing both Charles and Kevin gives the impression that they're both actively voicing Mario, which is wrong).
4. Scrooge200 (talk) The Mario franchise re-uses voice clips all the time. Having Charles listed there under a new game could give the false impression that he returned to voice Mario for that.
5. Tails777 (talk) The main supporting vote here has a better point, now leaning more to this one.
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) After considering it, this makes the most sense to me; it's the most straightforward option and avoids possible misrepresentation.

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.

Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game

#Altendo (talk) Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like Super Mario 3D All-Stars) comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like Princess Peach, who had three voice actresses in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.

Add both current and latest voice actor

1. Tails777 (talk) Leaning to a secondary vote; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.

#Altendo (talk) Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations only contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for 3D All-Stars, it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's Super Mario Galaxy voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.

Comments

I'm conflicted between simply listing only whoever is currently voicing the character vs. potentially opening a can of worms by listing multiple actors from archival clips, even though that would respect the portrayals from the most recent game whether it used newly recorded or archived voices. No matter how this proposal ends up, I think that a future proposal should consider standardizing the "Portrayals" header in the character articles themselves. For Mario, the list of portrayals does a great job at comprehensively documenting everyone who has officially voiced Mario, but falters in conveying the inconceivable magnitude of media in which Martinet has voiced Mario, and how much he has contributed to the character's brand recognition to the point where many people will continue to see him as the voice of Mario, even moving forward as Kevin Afghani takes on that role. ThePowerPlayer 23:57, September 16, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.