MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
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 <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==Removals==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Remove the [[Template:a|a]] and [[Template:id|id]] templates===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
{{early notice|May 24, 2025}}
#*Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
Back in December, both the [[Template:a|a]] and [[Template:id|id]] templates were created. One of them was from a [[Mariowiki:Proposals/Archive/72#Add an abbreviation template to type out full game titles|proposal]], and maybe the second one too? I don't know, I couldn't find it in the archives.
#*Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
#*Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals can not be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
#If the Sysops 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.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
 
The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
 
 
==New Features==
===User Game Reviews===
Ahem, this is my first proposal so please go easy on me if I do something wrongI had an idea that users could review Mario games which they had played and recommend to other people. The link for them might be eg. "Super Mario 64/Review". I know we have a review corner in The Shroom but it's a nightmare looking through the archives to find the game you're looking for. The users could also use ratings such as "out-of-five-stars" or percentages. Of course the sysops could remove pointless negative reviews such as "this game sucked and I disliked it for no apparent reason".
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi Koshi Moshi}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 27th, 2009 17:00 pm
 
====For User Game Reviews====
 
====No User Reviews ====
#{{User|Time Q}}: We're an encyclopedia based on objective ''Mario'' information, thus we can't put game reviews in the mainspace. However, there certainly is a way to improve The 'Shroom section if it has any flaws (I don't really read The 'Shroom, so I don't know).
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - As Time Q said, we're an encyclopedia, and as such we shall not have to endure subjective or biased material.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per TimeQ, you can suggest something so they can be found easier.
#{{User|Yoshario}} &ndash; Per Time Q
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Time Q.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This wiki does not allow the use of "you" in an article (there's a template for it, {{tem|Rewrite-you}}), why would we be aloud to make reviews for users? It just seems a bit unfair, baby steps. Per TQ.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! I don't really care of the pain of waitting for the next 'Shroom to see the next review, since most of them are complete opposites of actual reviews. And we are a Marioverse based encyclopedia not IGN. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Marwikedor}} This is a wiki for information, not a site for reviewing games!!
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Time Q and all, this should be an informational wiki, and should generally stay that way.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Mr. Q.


====Comments====
Anyways, both of these templates aren't really used at all. The a template was created for the purpose of shortening game titles, but I have not seen anyone actually use it. Same thing with the id template. Many users are used to typing out the entire game articles anyway, myself included.


===Quote Box===
This proposal aims to remove both templates and fix the articles that have them.
Alright, as my first proposal, I want a quote box to be in articles. I feel that people should get a users feel on a person or item when a viewer is reading through the page. An example would be (Imagine me putting this on Chief Chilly's page)


''"He was a worthy foe, powerful indeed, but he succumbed to his own strength, and was easily defeated"''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Sparks}}<br>
            -Runeon12
'''Deadline''': May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposer''': {{User|Runeon12}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 29, 2009, 17:00


====For Quote Boxes====
====Delete them both!====
#[[User:Runeon12]]
#{{User|Sparks}} Someone needs to put these templates out of their misery.
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} I'll take care of these templates, no problem! Do I have a plan? ...Not really, but I'll do fine, I'm sure!
#{{User|Technetium|T}} These templates are so confusing man. Like my name in this vote! That's how it feels trying to edit pages with these templates on them.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't see "id" used too often, but "a" has been actively detrimental to articles.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock|Ctccm}} These templates, which ostensibly exist for ease of editing, have only really served to make it ''more'' confusing for editors. Your average editor shouldn't have to memorize which abbreviation is which to edit a page, especially when ''some'' abbreviations already require further elaboration as-is, and the list used lacks parity between the actual abbreviations we commonly use for redirects. Does "MF" lead to ''[[Mario Factory]]'', ''[[Mario's FUNdamentals]]'', or ''[[Mario Family]]''? Trick question--MF ''isn't in the list at all''. On the other hand, "W" is used as the abbreviation for [[Wii]], but [[W]] is actually a redirect for [[Wario]], thanks to [https://web.archive.org/web/20010429172148/http://www.warioland3.com/strategy/body.asp?key_id=N2_SILVER&land_id=N2 an old guide on the ''Wario Land 3'' website]. And considering that deprecating this template could easily be done by siccing PorpleBot on the task... Yeah, we can't say we're endeared to it. It should be deprecated, left with an Abandoned tag so that page histories don't become unreadable, and ''maybe'' we could repurpose a version of [[Template:A/list|the list subpage]] as a maintenance page, to properly showcase the abbreviations we use for games and consoles, when they actually exist; it actually has a rather decent form factor, the list is just... entirely proprietary to the abbreviations we actually use.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Both of these templates seem likely to cause more confusion than anything else. I can see the reasons that one might want to keep them but I don't think they're good enough to justify the potential harm caused by these, especially "a".
#{{User|Hewer}} These remind me of Bulbapedia's linking templates, which is not a good thing. Per Camwoodstock and Pseudo.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} the minute benefits these templates add aren't enough to counteract how unwieldy they are to use. per all
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Are we really THAT lazy that we can't be bothered to type out the full title of a page? Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} These templates may be handy when you are the one who type them, but they're cumbersome for all other editors that will encounter them afterwards.
#{{User|Altendo}} Per EvieMaybe (see comments). EDIT on 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT): The pipelinking for fully-typed out game titles with the identifier and certain italics don't really matter to me, as even though they are somewhat of a burden, I already don't really type out the identifier in whole when linking these types of pages.
#{{User|Mario}} In this case, the longer route is the shortest way home. Trying to figure out what "YCW" is seeing the latest appearance in an infobox from <code><nowiki>{{a|YCW|l}}</nowiki></code> wastes my time, as well as my expressing bafflement at the 1 parameter here, not immediately knowing what the hell "1" does. If that's a bureaucrat's editing here for 15+ years reaction to this, have mercy on newer editors. I've expressed annoyance at the inefficiency dealing with these templates.[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Skeleton_Goonie&diff=4896199&oldid=4896191] At first, I thought it might be a good idea to try to shorten some abbreviations here but the execution is taking an axe to a relatively localized problem. Maybe there are better answers to writing out "Mario & Sonic at the Melting 2025 Winter Olympics at Antarctica" but right now, the solution here creates more problems in the process.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per Mario. These templates can indeed be helpful, but the parameters can end up being very confusing. I... also may have voted yes on the proposal to bring one of these into existence.
#{{User|Platform}} I've made my objections in the comments.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Per all.


====Against Quote Boxes====
====Delete a, keep id====
#{{User|Time Q}}: Same as for the above proposal. We're an encyclopedia, thus we don't need POV in our articles.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} So, here's the thing with me — I make fairly frequent use of {{tem|id}}... but it's ''never'' been for its abbreviation functionality. I use it purely as a quick way to avoid having to type pipe-link text that's just the same thing as the article text. And I think that's a great template to have. It's convenient; it saves space; it gets rid of an annoying redundancy. I have an edit comment somewhere where I say I like the template, unprompted, just because I like it that much. But again: none of that has anything to do with the game abbreviations part of the template. I never interfaced with any of that stuff because it seems cumbersome and I don't understand why you'd want to use it. I expect {{tem|a}} shares its backend with that somehow (maybe it's literally part of {{tem|id}} somewhere) so that functionality would probably break if {{tem|a}} went, but I'd be perfectly fine with that. Getting rid of the repetition in linking to, say, {{id|Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker|microgame}} the microgame is what the use case of {{tem|id}} is to me, and it's a fantastic thing to have a template for. Let's not throw that out with {{tem|a}}.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - Per Time Q... again.
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Weak support now. To clarify, the identifier template was created by Porple through [[MarioWiki Talk:Proposals#Identifier template?|a discussion]] relating to [[Category talk:Game series#Remove "(series)" identifier from titles that don't need it|a tied proposal]] that I sided for. The main point of me proposing this template (which I went back to after [[/Archive/72#Add an abbreviation template to type out full game titles|the abbreviation proposal passed]]) was to avoid pipelinking, which I agreed with as I didn't want to write the name of the title, the identifier, and the title again (see [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]]'s comment) just to avoid a redirect or writing the title multiple times. While I do get the point of identifiers for these specifically existing so people don't have to memorize which pages have the identifiers or not, I think that pipelinking is just tiring, especially when dealing with multiple of them. EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): I still feel like this template has a bit of merit for a certain use (see my comment below), but now that Evie's comment explained how to bypass this in the first place (mooting the discussion surrounding the creation of this template), this is no longer my primary choice.</s>
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per
====Delete id, keep a====
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per Time Q.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I guess if we want template clutter down...
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Time Q.
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Weak support, if we have to keep one of these. The point of a template made to ease editing is that they are ''optional'', and experienced editors don't necessarily have to use them; both templates show that they are not required to be used, but I still use both on an occasional basis when adding new stuff (I previously replaced links with these templates before I realized the template told me not to do so for preexisting links and only for newly added ones).</s>
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - This will be just another excuse to bring in fan point of views. When I read an article, I don't want to read. "''ZOMG! Luigi PWNS!''" or "''LOL! Wario is a fat man! XD''" or "''Dry Bones SUCKS!''" It just seems kinda ridiculous.
====Keep both====
#{{User|Yoshario}}: Per Time Q.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I've used them, and they'd probably have more widespread use if not for the fact using "a" in a section header is discouraged. (That forces people to type out full game names at least once, which as one might expect encourages copy and pasting that.) Anyhow shortform versions of long phrases are helpful when you're in a hurry and have lots of text to write. Especially if you need to go back and forth between base game and remake behavior, or are in similar situations. Clipboards can only carry one phrase at a time, which makes copy and pasting from the section header much slower when juggling multiple games. "id" is generally less useful due to "link autocomplete" and the "pipe trick", but I believe "link autocomplete" is optional and therefore "id" serves a niche for people who are not using the autocomplete.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per my other vote. I strongly believe {{tem|id}} is a good and useful template. It's not for {{tem|a}}-related reasons, but if keeping {{tem|a}} is the only way to keep {{tem|id}}, I'll do it.
#{{User|Tails777}} I for sure get the idea behind this, but I feel like we need more guidelines on their use. Using them for something as small as Nintendo DS or Wii is not something that should be encouraged, but using them for titles like ''[[Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey]]'' or ''[[Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games]]'' is still a sense of convenience at least. I'd rather create some rules on their use before flat out removing them.
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} I often use {{tem|a}} in conjunction with {{tem|id}}, especially since it saves a lot of bytes on a page and shortens subjects even more. I mean, I'm ''fine'' with getting rid of {{tem|a}}, but it does further ease the {{tem|id}} template, especially since names are shortened even more. I don't want to type out "<nowiki>[[Captain Goomba (Mario & Luigi series)|Captain Goomba]]</nowiki>". I want to shorten it by writing "<nowiki>{{id|Captain Goomba|M&LSERIES}}</nowiki>". It's a lot easier and shorter.Weak support, I guess, per an unsolved(?) question in the comments.</s>
<s>#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} "both of these templates aren't really used at all." I mean, false. I've been using {{tem|a}} a lot (*cough* when I remember it exists). The reason it doesn't seem used all that much is because its documentation discourages users from reformatting existing game titles with it, and with the site going on 20 years even before the template was created, yeah, obviously the previous method is gonna be way more widespread. As for "id", the reason I haven't used it is simply because I wasn't aware of it.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
Although I must say that I enjoy it to have in-game-quotes on articles (say f.e. a character in a Mario game says something about Warp Pipes and that quote could be put on the Warp Pipe article.). But of course, no fan-made content. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
These templates would actually be worthwhile if there were a way to automatically substitute <code><nowiki>{{a|SMB}}</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>''Super Mario Bros.''</nowiki></code> when the page is saved, in the same way that <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code> gets substituted with the user's signature; but I'm not sure that this is technically possible. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:43, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
 
==Removals==
===Remove BJAODN===
BJADON is pointless and does not serve the wiki in any way. We are not the UnMarioWiki, we are the MarioWiki, and therefore "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense" should not be allowed here. The only purpose it serves is the purpose it says on the page, "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!". That is clearly not our goal at the MarioWiki. We are wasting server space with completely irrelevant and nonsensical.
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Yoshario}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' Wednesday, 27 October 2009, 17:00
 
====Support====
#{{User|Yoshario}} &ndash; Per above.
====Oppose====
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Well, this ill be clearly polemical. I say no. After all the effort I put into it? And it is just like a way of diversion. I find it really funny.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} I think you are being a bit harsh there, Yoshario. Many users contribute there, and many users would be upset to see it go. BJAODN is kind of like the 'Shroom, it provides some comic relief to the members of the wiki (I'm not saying that the 'Shroom is a joke, which it IS NOT.), and getting rid of it would get rid of a lot of good stuff on the wiki.
#{{user|TehDman}} It keeps users entertained. And when it doesn't, it teaches new users how not to be humiliated.
#{{user|Master Lucario}} Per FunkyK38. And BJAODN also shows new users what not to do.
#{{user|Totodile3456}} - removing it would be a bad idea, since a lot of users like to add the dumb stuff that noobs make, it would be kind of like deleting the Mario article. even if it has some content that is irrelevant to the mario series, it still has some stuff related to it, so no
#{{user|MC Hammer Bro.}} Well I see that Yoshario has a great and persistent argument I think we could meet a compromise using SMB's comment below...
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} While the BJAODN may include alot of funny and weird BS, I don't support removing it. Did you know Wikipedia has a BJAODN? So you think theyre uninformative and unorganized? Seems like it. Your going '''way too''' overboard. We have unlimited server space, don't we? Well not unlimited, but '''alot'''. MarioWiki is a community, not a place where everyone just edits and thats it. Removing BJAODN is like removing User Talk, because oh, most of the time people just say "hay sup" and archive like 20 headers in 10 archives. I'm not saying User Talk is just a place to talk with your friends and what not, because people can give warnings and reminders and what not and help the user out.
#{{User|T.c.w7468}} Per all. I also think we can come to a compromise using SMB's comment below.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} - I should only have to say "I'm the creator duh", but I'll also add there's some legetimate, obvious bad writing archived in there. If it's "useless", then so is the 'Shroom because it's also irreverent and nonsensical lol.
#{{User|Grapes}} - Per all.
#{{user|Toadbert101}} - Yoshario is just mad cause he hates us all now, and is trying to remove part of the community. Besides, BJAODN doesnt harm us, waste space, or put us backward from our goal of haivng the most mario stuff, even if it doesnt get us any closer.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - BJAODN is a fun way for people to express themselves and show creativity. Many users may not stick around after there is nothing left for them to do. Users have put so much effort into it, it would be a shame to delete it now.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per my comment below.
#{{user|Jdrowlands}} - I remember ages ago when I created a proposal for the deletion of LOLcats from user space, because "it's just wasting server resources". That phailed miserably, just like this is going to. You just got pwnd, Yoshario.
#{{User|Cobold}} "Wasting server space" can hardly be an argument. I don't see how BJAODN is different from The Shroom.
#{{user|Electrobomber}} - Bah, using your logic, all userspaces and pages including the words "fun,happy,good," or any other kind of positive content should be removed. >:P
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} No way! The BJAODN is too funny to delete! It's amazing what people will write!
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Glowsquid and Stooben Rooben. While not everyone will find everything funny (as Super Mario Bros. pointed out), real life satire is always better than manufactured "bad writing" exemplars: honest laughs will be remembered much longer. Compared to The 'Shroom, chat and the forums, the amount of space BJAODN eats up is a mere pittance, and a small price to pay for the simple joy it offers our editors - who might just learn a thing or two about what not to do while they're at it.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per all.
#{{User|Katana}} - Per FawfulFury. I love reading BJAODN, and deleting it would make Mariowiki a dull place. :(
 
====Comments====
I do neither support the removal of BJAODN, nor do I think that we have to keep it by all means. I think I will abstain from voting here. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:@Tucayo: Despite some people finding it "really funny", that's not our goal here. An how is it a way of "distressing us"? {{User|Yoshario}}
::@FunkyK38: How am I being harsh? Many users contributed to their userspace, yet we removed it because it was a distraction from the mainspace. ''This'' is worse, as it's completely nonsensical and doesn't help the wiki reach it's goal. If members want comic relief, they can visit the many joke wikis out there. {{User|Yoshario}}
We have new rules that prevent adding comments, which was the m ain distraction {{User|Tucayo}}
:We still waste server space with BJAODN. By keeping this, you're saying that a page which purpose is "To have bad word documented, the most silly and dum word in the wold!" fits our scope. {{user|Yoshario}}
::Well, we have things that waste more space. And I dont consider it to be a waste of space. Have you read it? {{User|Tucayo}}
:::What other things waste more space? And yes, I have read it. Most of it seems to be inane and ridiculous. (e.g. "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.") {{user|Yoshario}}
:::::@TehDman: The wiki isn't meant to be fun, it is supposed to be informative. If you don't find this wiki's goal "fun", then it's your own issue. We should not amend our scope so users can have "fun". {{User|Yoshario}}
::::::Then let's remove the Forums, Chatroom, 'Shroom, and even our skin. Because we're informative, right? {{User|Crypt Raider}} 18:19, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:::::::The Forums and Chatroom were made so people could discuss non-wiki things. {{user|Yoshario}}
I don't get it. What is BJAODN? Bad Junk And Other Deleted Nonsense... how are we to get rid of something that's already gone? And where is the BJAODN? {{User|Dry Paratroopa}}
: The [[MarioWiki:BJAODN]] is an archive of deleted content that was removed because it was ridiculous in some way, but was too amusing to delete it completely. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::<s>I feel we should remove TehDman's and Master Lucario's comments, as they do not help the situation in any way</s>. Also, perhaps we could just go through the completely pointless crap (like the "Madden is a game not in the mario sieries that is football made by EA sports.") and remove it? we could keep the jokes and other things, but not those stupid one line and poorly written articles that have triggered this proposal. And, a joke wiki... That gives me an idea. Let's see how my first idea goes though. {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
::: I agree to an extent with SMB. I think the page should be filtered removing things like the Madden articles and such that are one liners and completely not that funny. I've also noticed that the latest additions to the pages were very minor. I think the way it has been updated is a much better system. {{User|MC Hammer Bro.}}
<s>Super-Yoshi: Actually, that "unlimited" serverspace is moaning and cracking under the weight of unnecessary material, to such extents that we have server slowdowns and such. A certain dager of overload is present. I am not saying that removing BJAODN is an appropriate measurement to solve that problem (that's why I don't vote), but it is not like we have unlimited server space.</s> UPDATE: It seems like I have been misinformed, so this comment isn't of validation anymore.  - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
Yoshario, what's your stance on the 'Shroom. Most of it isn't exactly NEEDED and PURPOSEFUL either (lol faek news).
 
Also, no removing of ANYTHING. Humour is in the eye of the beholder.
 
The argument about sever space is '''ridiculous'''. A few text files and some images take, like, 2 MB at most? Purging BJAODN would do to the server what drinking a glass of water do to the ocean. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 20:05, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
 
People, this is just an OPINION! Stop overdramatizising it and come down to a constructive level again! And ditch the personal attacks. They poison our community! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
...are you serious
 
This whole "server space" thing is becoming a rather invalid reason for a lot of issues. '''One page''' is not going to cause enough of a dent in the server space to justify getting rid of it. Hundreds of non-beneficial user sub-pages does cause a fairly minimal negative effect on the server, but one page? Come on. [[MarioWiki:The 'Shroom|If]] [[MarioWiki:Anniversary|you]] [[MarioWiki:PipeProjects|want]] [[MarioWiki:Administrators|to]] [[MarioWiki:Patrollers|delete]] [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrat|that]] [[Special Moves|page]], [[Characters|you]] [[Enemies|might]] [[Allies|as]] [[Items|well]] [[Places|delete]] [[Games|all]] [[Donkey Kong Games|of]] [[Wario Games|these]] [[Yoshi Games|pages]] [[Games by Date|too]]. (The first three are community projects, just like BJAODN; the next three explain stuff that users can ask an experienced member -- and is common sense, on some level; the rest of them are pages that act as a category.) I could find many more, but I think I've made my point there. All of those pages cause about as much damage to the server as BJAODN, which isn't much. And for that matter, the comments added to BJAODN don't cause enough of a difference in server space to justify disabling users' rights to add their two cents to that page. You might as well outlaw casual conversations on user talk pages if you're going to go that far. (Unlike BJAODN, that actually creates a dent in server space that's "not beneficial to the wiki". If users want to talk to each other, they should just use the forum or chat, right? And for that matter, we may as well ask Steve to get rid of 95% of the forum and the chatroom because they're not beneficial to the wiki either.) I never liked the idea of disabling comments on BJAODN to begin with; this is taking that insane motion a step further. Besides, BJAODN isn't just for laughs; it's also a 'what not to do' guide. The bottom line here is that server space is ''not'' the issue here. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
 
:Edo: yea we always have slowdowns and stuff lol. I was just saying what st00by basically just said. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
 
Concerning the "IT DOESN'T ADVANCE US" argument, how does [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_give_the_developers_ideas this] page advance the goal of the mother of all wiki, or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FLAMEBOX this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facial_hair_is_required_for_administratorship this]? If the sticklers at Wikpedia have dozen of pages on the most ridiculous things, I don't see why we can't have one page.
 
I also like how you imply opposer to your proposal "don't give a damn about the community," and that it's "common sense" to vote for your side. Mature, real mature. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 06:49, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
 
Bah, stop bein' a flipping baby Yoshario. I can't recall the person at the moment, but I agree with their argument that MarioWiki is a ''community'', not a ramrod straight '''ONLY FORMAL WIKI'''. Because the impression I'm getting right now is that you're trying to tell us that you're the only perfect person here. {{User|Electrobomber}}
 
@Glowsquid Meh, more mature than "yoshario iz evil lol" or "anything yoshario likes I hate". And I am part-right. Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here. And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal. Oh, and when you compared it to Wikipedia's BJAODN, I'd like to say that that's gone, and they moved it to an external wiki. :| @Electrobomber: I'm not perfect, when did I imply that? It seems that you aren't taking the goal of the wiki that seriously. The wiki is a community, and non-wiki things can be discussed in #mariowiki. {{user|Yoshario}}
 
"Common sense" is stuff no one with a certifiably working brain can disagree with. Claiming no one with common sense can disagree with you makes you look petulant (Especially since at least two other administrators are disagreing with you(. Also, you didn't respond to what I said about The 'Shroom. Surely, reading about (fake) news about characters that don't exist shurely fits the site goal.
 
The Wikipedia BJAODN may have been moved, but the "Best Of" and many individual articles are still kept, which is quite a lot. Not to mention a lot of alternative language (French, and I assume German) Wikipedia still have it as an active project. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] 19:17, 21 October 2009 (EDT)
 
To everybody that has mentioned the 'Shroom, look at the proopsal name, it has nothing to do with the 'Shroom, so dont even get it into this deleting stuff. Thank you {{User|Tucayo}}
 
This is getting ridiculous, so everyone '''SHUT UP AND STOP ARGUING!''' A strong community is a happy community, and a happy community is not one that argues. Back on topic, we should get rid of any non-Mario (not even partially) stuff that is in the BJAODN, because even if it is funny, it didn't even belong here in the first place. {{User|Dry Paratroopa}} Note: It may sound like it, but I'm not taking credit for the idea. Someone put it somewhere above...
 
'''Yoshario''':
 
''"Katana, ML, and TehDman aren't even active here." -- Yoshario''
 
Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive ''a lot'' lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki.
 
''"And it is common sense to vote for my side because BJAODN does not benefit the wiki and does not fit into the wiki's goal." -- Yoshario''


If that were the case, the chatroom would never have been created, and all the boards (except for the Admin boards) on the forum would never have existed. They may not benefit the encyclopedic aspect of the wiki, but they do benefit the communicative part of it. Besides, it's not like it's doing any harm. If it were actually posing a threat to the site, then it would be smart to get rid of it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I'm not too familiar with these templates but my experience with them has been negative. When articles get renamed, merged, or split, the templates break or get linked to the wrong article.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 10:59, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
:Pretty sure we can just use <nowiki>{{subst:a|SMB}}</nowiki>. This will save it as the full link upon saving the page. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 11:05, May 17, 2025 (EDT)


Now, I will agree that the Yoshario-hate in this proposal is outlandish. (Although, most of it seems to be gone now.) He made a proposal you don't like; '''get over it'''. Not everyone has to have the same point of view to get along.
::TEST: <!---{{#if:{{a/list|SMB}}|
{{#if:|
[[{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|'''}}|''}}|{{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|l|{{PAGETITLE|{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|(series)|series}}|(franchise)|franchise}}}}|{{{2}}}}}]]
|
{{PAGETITLE|{{#replace:{{#replace:{{a/list|SMB}}|(series)|series}}|(franchise)|franchise}}}}
}}|SMB{{#if:||<sup style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[invalid parameter]</sup>{{#if:{{CONTENTPAGE}}|[[Category:Articles with invalid template parameters]]}}}}}}---> EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): Removed coding per Evie's comment.


'''Tucayo''': We weren't saying that The 'Shroom is a waste of space; we were using it as an example of why BJAODN should stay. (Or at least, I was.) -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::Oh, wow. It did ''not'' go as planned, as it copied the entire template code onto the page, instead of just the link. Visibly, this doesn't look any different, but on the inside, it looks ugly. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 11:07, May 17, 2025 (EDT)


@Stooben Rooben: The chatroom and forum were created as an alternative to the wiki where you can talk about whatever you want. For example, we don't talk about Mario on [[Talk:Mario]], we talk about the article, and direct Mario-related discussion to the forum.
:So ask Porplemontage to tinker with the related parameter when that happens. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:36, May 17, 2025 (EDT)


"Well, for starters, being inactive =/= not caring about the wiki. If Steve just randomly decided to nuke the MarioWiki, do you not think they would care? I've been inactive ''a lot'' lately, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the wiki."
i want to point out that you can type any link with an identifier as <code><nowiki>[[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|]]</nowiki></code>, with the vertical bar at the end, and it'll come out as "[[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1-1]]" when submitted. <br>
also, {{@|Altendo}}, whatever your test did is messing with the automatic syntax highlighting add-on. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:32, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
:Wai-WHAAAT? How long has ''that'' been a thing? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:41, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
::Second test: ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]''


Even so, it the ones who aren't active on the wiki vote something like "BJAODN is all I read on the wiki". He didn't say it were the articles were all he reads, and contributes to, he said BJAODN. {{User|Yoshario}}
::Well, that actually worked! I might still see a bit of usage in the {{tem|id}} template as sometimes pipelinking is ''required'' (like when italicizing game titles with identifiers where the full title should be shown, which requires writing the page name twice but the second game name is italicized, if there is also a way to bypass this it would be great), but now that I know about this, it should simplify things a lot more!  [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
 
::Doc, I seriously don't know if you're just playing it up or not. I knew about the parenthesis {{wp|Help:Pipe trick|pipe trick}} for YEARS... {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:50, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
Yoshario: I read BJAODN because I can't contribute to Mariowiki. I don't have many Mario games, and there's already good articles on them. >_> I don't really care about the wiki a ton, but I'm allowed to have an opinion, right? My opinion is that we should keep BJAODN. [[User:Katana|Katana]]
:::I actually didn't know that just adding the pipe (which I didn't know was "<nowiki/>|") and nothing more would display the page title without the parenthesis... I thought it would have just made blank space. If I knew this earlier, I wouldn't have even made the id template discussion to begin with. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 13:12, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
 
::::I can excuse you for not knowing, you've only joined the wiki in 2022, while Doc joined in 2017. But I suppose I might as well be the jaded one here, I first joined the wiki in 2006/2007 after all. Not to mention that I recently found out (as in, a couple months ago I think?) that commas also trigger a pipe trick, so maybe I'm just stupid for assuming that people should know better. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:45, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
==Splits & Merges==
:Well, I went down a bit of a rabbithole investigating exactly how long this feature has been a thing... Turns out it's so old it's [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/d82c14fb4fbac288b42ca5918b0a72f33ecb1e69/includes/Article.php#1444 in the very oldest version of the MediaWiki source code available in its git repository,] which [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/core/+/d82c14fb4fbac288b42ca5918b0a72f33ecb1e69 dates back to April '''2003'''.] So, to say the least, it's not new. [[User:AmossGuy|AmossGuy]] ([[User talk:AmossGuy|talk]]) 13:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
''None at the moment.
:Huh. That definitely seems to cover the use case I was using {{tem|id}} for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:37, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
::I definitely wasn't aware of this feature. Deleted my vote entirely because, eh, I don't actually care that much what happens to the other template. Auto-fill is useful, too. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:24, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|Nelsonic}} I don't think you voted on the proposal for the {{tem|a}} template or discussed the {{tem|id}} template, either. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT)
:{{@|Altendo}} Ah. Okay. I remember seeing it when it was active, I just wasn't sure whether I had voted or not. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 12:25, May 20, 2025 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Change Goomba's Shoe to Kuribo's Shoe===
''None at the moment.''
From SMB3, Kuribo's Shoe is my childhood remembrance of this super-special item so exclusive this world 5-3 and never seen again.  I believe that it's name was part of what made it so unique.  So make the title of the article "Kuribo's Shoe" for the sake of tradition. I'm not saying don't mention in the article Kuribo's shoe means Goomba's shoe in Japanese.  But the main title should be it's original and more well-known name.  So what if the GBA remake called it "Goomba's Shoe."  It's the little things like the name Kuribo's Shoe and the fond memories it invokes that are like a big, juicy steak in our nostalgic minds.  I implore, urge the Mario wiki users to vote YES.  And lest you folks forget, it was refered to as the Shoe of Kuribo in [[Super Paper Mario]].


==Miscellaneous==
===Tighten the definition of "item" used by some games' subcategories===
Within the context of, say, ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'', an "item" is a specific class of game entity that goes in its own tab on the pause menu and tab in the battle UI, and can be used in and out of battle. However, this specificity is not reflected in our category system, under which [[:Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door items]] contains the likes of [[Badge]], [[Hammer]], [[Heart (item)]], and [[Star Piece (Paper Mario series)]]. I think things like these sharing a category with the games' definition of "item" is counterintuitive. Should this proposal pass, "items" such as these, no longer contained within the tightened definition, will be placed into the main category; or their own subcategory if there are enough (though I'm not sure what such a category would be called).


'''Proposer''': {{User|Marwikedor}}<br>
If it's preferable that the "items" label be kept consistent with the rest of the wiki, I would also be fine with splitting these items off into a subcategory (or simply renaming the category if the "normal items" are too few in number) — {{Fake link|Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door consumable items}}, for instance.
'''Deadline''': October 29th, 2009 17:00 pm


====Change the title to "Kuribo's Shoe"====
Games and series for which I believe this should be done include:
#{{User|Marwikedor}} &ndash; Per above.
*''[[Super Mario RPG]]'', the ''{{id|Paper Mario|series}}'' series, the ''{{id|Mario & Luigi|series}}'' series, and ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]''. These all share the definition of "item" used in the example at the top of the proposal.
#{{User|Monteyaga}} - Per first person
*Various games in the ''{{id|Mario Party|series}}'' series, wherein items are specific things that can be acquired and used at the start of your turn.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per my friend with #1
*''[[Mario is Missing!]]'' and ''[[Mario's Time Machine]]'' (though the latter already seems to abide by this). I'm more familiar with the former, but [[taxi token]]s and [[walkie-talkie]]s being mixed in with these games' fetch quest items. Mario is Missing tends to use "artifacts" for these objects, so maybe that's the term we should be using here.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} - Per Marwikedor.


====Leave it as is====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
#{{User|Lego3400}} 00:59, 23 October 2009 (EDT) As per the policy. You can't make exceptions due to nostalgia or people will keep asking.
'''Deadline''': May 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Knife}} - This is the more recent name.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - It goes against policy, which will cause an inconsistency. Per all.
#{{User|Grandy02}} - Next time, change Princess Peach to Princess Toadstool due to nostalgia? We have the policy to use the more recent name. We don't go by personal preferences. No inconsistencies, please.


====Comments====
====Tighten the "item" category on these games====
Was it called Kuribo's Shoe in Super Mario Bros. 3? If so, then I support. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
:It was, but they changed it to "Goomba's Shoe" in the remake. As per policy, we do use the most recent name of characters/items/whatever... - {{user|Bloc Partier}}
#{{User|Altendo|Itemdo}} Sounds good from what I can see.
::Well, if the Policy dictates that, then I can't do anything about it. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


==Miscellaneous==
====Split these item classes into their own categories====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Oh, I meant to vote here as well but forgot.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Distinguishing these items from other types of item is useful and important, but I would strongly contend that stuff like Badges and Star Pieces ''are'' items, just a different category from consumable items that are sometimes labeled as just "items".
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We prefer this, personally. It'd be nice to have a clear distinction between types of items found in RPGs aside from just... "Item". Mario Party also has a few color-coded categories for [[Orb]]s in ''5'' to ''7'', and [[Candy (Mario Party 8)|Candy]] in ''8'', which we could potentially distinguish with this.
#{{User|Altendo|Altem Class}} Second choice, per all.
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} The term is used in RPGs to refer to something that can be bought or sold in a shop, used as the action during the player's turn, and is listed in an Items section in the menu. If an object isn't considered an "item" in the game, it should be in a separate category.


<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
====Do nothing====
&nbsp;
====Comments (item category proposal)====

Latest revision as of 22:47, May 22, 2025

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Friday, May 23rd, 02:47 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.
  • 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. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. 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

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)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025)
Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series, Koopa con Carne (ended May 4, 2025)
Rework "References" sections, EvieMaybe (ended May 5, 2025)
Create a separate list for physical games, Nelsonic (ended May 20, 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)
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)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
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 the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 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 the individual Picross NP volumes from Picross NP, Nelsonic (ended May 14, 2025)
Move SMB3 info from Floor (block) to Floor, and move Floor (block) to Mario Bros. Block, PopitTart (ended May 21, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove the a and id templates

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on May 24, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Back in December, both the a and id templates were created. One of them was from a proposal, and maybe the second one too? I don't know, I couldn't find it in the archives.

Anyways, both of these templates aren't really used at all. The a template was created for the purpose of shortening game titles, but I have not seen anyone actually use it. Same thing with the id template. Many users are used to typing out the entire game articles anyway, myself included.

This proposal aims to remove both templates and fix the articles that have them.

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: May 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Delete them both!

  1. Sparks (talk) Someone needs to put these templates out of their misery.
  2. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I'll take care of these templates, no problem! Do I have a plan? ...Not really, but I'll do fine, I'm sure!
  3. T (talk) These templates are so confusing man. Like my name in this vote! That's how it feels trying to edit pages with these templates on them.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't see "id" used too often, but "a" has been actively detrimental to articles.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ctccm (talk) These templates, which ostensibly exist for ease of editing, have only really served to make it more confusing for editors. Your average editor shouldn't have to memorize which abbreviation is which to edit a page, especially when some abbreviations already require further elaboration as-is, and the list used lacks parity between the actual abbreviations we commonly use for redirects. Does "MF" lead to Mario Factory, Mario's FUNdamentals, or Mario Family? Trick question--MF isn't in the list at all. On the other hand, "W" is used as the abbreviation for Wii, but W is actually a redirect for Wario, thanks to an old guide on the Wario Land 3 website. And considering that deprecating this template could easily be done by siccing PorpleBot on the task... Yeah, we can't say we're endeared to it. It should be deprecated, left with an Abandoned tag so that page histories don't become unreadable, and maybe we could repurpose a version of the list subpage as a maintenance page, to properly showcase the abbreviations we use for games and consoles, when they actually exist; it actually has a rather decent form factor, the list is just... entirely proprietary to the abbreviations we actually use.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Both of these templates seem likely to cause more confusion than anything else. I can see the reasons that one might want to keep them but I don't think they're good enough to justify the potential harm caused by these, especially "a".
  8. Hewer (talk) These remind me of Bulbapedia's linking templates, which is not a good thing. Per Camwoodstock and Pseudo.
  9. EvieMaybe (talk) the minute benefits these templates add aren't enough to counteract how unwieldy they are to use. per all
  10. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Are we really THAT lazy that we can't be bothered to type out the full title of a page? Per all.
  11. Jdtendo (talk) These templates may be handy when you are the one who type them, but they're cumbersome for all other editors that will encounter them afterwards.
  12. Altendo (talk) Per EvieMaybe (see comments). EDIT on 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT): The pipelinking for fully-typed out game titles with the identifier and certain italics don't really matter to me, as even though they are somewhat of a burden, I already don't really type out the identifier in whole when linking these types of pages.
  13. Mario (talk) In this case, the longer route is the shortest way home. Trying to figure out what "YCW" is seeing the latest appearance in an infobox from {{a|YCW|l}} wastes my time, as well as my expressing bafflement at the 1 parameter here, not immediately knowing what the hell "1" does. If that's a bureaucrat's editing here for 15+ years reaction to this, have mercy on newer editors. I've expressed annoyance at the inefficiency dealing with these templates.[1] At first, I thought it might be a good idea to try to shorten some abbreviations here but the execution is taking an axe to a relatively localized problem. Maybe there are better answers to writing out "Mario & Sonic at the Melting 2025 Winter Olympics at Antarctica" but right now, the solution here creates more problems in the process.
  14. Nelsonic (talk) Per Mario. These templates can indeed be helpful, but the parameters can end up being very confusing. I... also may have voted yes on the proposal to bring one of these into existence.
  15. Platform (talk) I've made my objections in the comments.
  16. PanchamBro (talk) Per all.

Delete a, keep id

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) So, here's the thing with me — I make fairly frequent use of {{id}}... but it's never been for its abbreviation functionality. I use it purely as a quick way to avoid having to type pipe-link text that's just the same thing as the article text. And I think that's a great template to have. It's convenient; it saves space; it gets rid of an annoying redundancy. I have an edit comment somewhere where I say I like the template, unprompted, just because I like it that much. But again: none of that has anything to do with the game abbreviations part of the template. I never interfaced with any of that stuff because it seems cumbersome and I don't understand why you'd want to use it. I expect {{a}} shares its backend with that somehow (maybe it's literally part of {{id}} somewhere) so that functionality would probably break if {{a}} went, but I'd be perfectly fine with that. Getting rid of the repetition in linking to, say, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker the microgame is what the use case of {{id}} is to me, and it's a fantastic thing to have a template for. Let's not throw that out with {{a}}.

#Altendo (talk) Weak support now. To clarify, the identifier template was created by Porple through a discussion relating to a tied proposal that I sided for. The main point of me proposing this template (which I went back to after the abbreviation proposal passed) was to avoid pipelinking, which I agreed with as I didn't want to write the name of the title, the identifier, and the title again (see SeanWheeler's comment) just to avoid a redirect or writing the title multiple times. While I do get the point of identifiers for these specifically existing so people don't have to memorize which pages have the identifiers or not, I think that pipelinking is just tiring, especially when dealing with multiple of them. EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): I still feel like this template has a bit of merit for a certain use (see my comment below), but now that Evie's comment explained how to bypass this in the first place (mooting the discussion surrounding the creation of this template), this is no longer my primary choice.

Delete id, keep a

  1. Salmancer (talk) I guess if we want template clutter down...

#Altendo (talk) Weak support, if we have to keep one of these. The point of a template made to ease editing is that they are optional, and experienced editors don't necessarily have to use them; both templates show that they are not required to be used, but I still use both on an occasional basis when adding new stuff (I previously replaced links with these templates before I realized the template told me not to do so for preexisting links and only for newly added ones).

Keep both

  1. Salmancer (talk) I've used them, and they'd probably have more widespread use if not for the fact using "a" in a section header is discouraged. (That forces people to type out full game names at least once, which as one might expect encourages copy and pasting that.) Anyhow shortform versions of long phrases are helpful when you're in a hurry and have lots of text to write. Especially if you need to go back and forth between base game and remake behavior, or are in similar situations. Clipboards can only carry one phrase at a time, which makes copy and pasting from the section header much slower when juggling multiple games. "id" is generally less useful due to "link autocomplete" and the "pipe trick", but I believe "link autocomplete" is optional and therefore "id" serves a niche for people who are not using the autocomplete.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per my other vote. I strongly believe {{id}} is a good and useful template. It's not for {{a}}-related reasons, but if keeping {{a}} is the only way to keep {{id}}, I'll do it.
  3. Tails777 (talk) I for sure get the idea behind this, but I feel like we need more guidelines on their use. Using them for something as small as Nintendo DS or Wii is not something that should be encouraged, but using them for titles like Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey or Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games is still a sense of convenience at least. I'd rather create some rules on their use before flat out removing them.

#Altendo (talk) I often use {{a}} in conjunction with {{id}}, especially since it saves a lot of bytes on a page and shortens subjects even more. I mean, I'm fine with getting rid of {{a}}, but it does further ease the {{id}} template, especially since names are shortened even more. I don't want to type out "[[Captain Goomba (Mario & Luigi series)|Captain Goomba]]". I want to shorten it by writing "{{id|Captain Goomba|M&LSERIES}}". It's a lot easier and shorter.Weak support, I guess, per an unsolved(?) question in the comments. #Koopa con Carne (talk) "both of these templates aren't really used at all." I mean, false. I've been using {{a}} a lot (*cough* when I remember it exists). The reason it doesn't seem used all that much is because its documentation discourages users from reformatting existing game titles with it, and with the site going on 20 years even before the template was created, yeah, obviously the previous method is gonna be way more widespread. As for "id", the reason I haven't used it is simply because I wasn't aware of it.

Comments

These templates would actually be worthwhile if there were a way to automatically substitute {{a|SMB}} with ''Super Mario Bros.'' when the page is saved, in the same way that ~~~~ gets substituted with the user's signature; but I'm not sure that this is technically possible. Jdtendo(T|C) 06:43, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not too familiar with these templates but my experience with them has been negative. When articles get renamed, merged, or split, the templates break or get linked to the wrong article.--Platform (talk) 10:59, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

Pretty sure we can just use {{subst:a|SMB}}. This will save it as the full link upon saving the page. Altendo 11:05, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
TEST: EDIT on 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT): Removed coding per Evie's comment.
Oh, wow. It did not go as planned, as it copied the entire template code onto the page, instead of just the link. Visibly, this doesn't look any different, but on the inside, it looks ugly. Altendo 11:07, May 17, 2025 (EDT)
So ask Porplemontage to tinker with the related parameter when that happens. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:36, May 17, 2025 (EDT)

i want to point out that you can type any link with an identifier as [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|]], with the vertical bar at the end, and it'll come out as "World 1-1" when submitted.
also, @Altendo, whatever your test did is messing with the automatic syntax highlighting add-on. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:32, May 19, 2025 (EDT)

Wai-WHAAAT? How long has that been a thing? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:41, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
Second test: Super Mario RPG
Well, that actually worked! I might still see a bit of usage in the {{id}} template as sometimes pipelinking is required (like when italicizing game titles with identifiers where the full title should be shown, which requires writing the page name twice but the second game name is italicized, if there is also a way to bypass this it would be great), but now that I know about this, it should simplify things a lot more! Altendo 12:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
Doc, I seriously don't know if you're just playing it up or not. I knew about the parenthesis pipe trick for YEARS... ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:50, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
I actually didn't know that just adding the pipe (which I didn't know was "|") and nothing more would display the page title without the parenthesis... I thought it would have just made blank space. If I knew this earlier, I wouldn't have even made the id template discussion to begin with. Altendo 13:12, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
I can excuse you for not knowing, you've only joined the wiki in 2022, while Doc joined in 2017. But I suppose I might as well be the jaded one here, I first joined the wiki in 2006/2007 after all. Not to mention that I recently found out (as in, a couple months ago I think?) that commas also trigger a pipe trick, so maybe I'm just stupid for assuming that people should know better. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 13:45, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
Well, I went down a bit of a rabbithole investigating exactly how long this feature has been a thing... Turns out it's so old it's in the very oldest version of the MediaWiki source code available in its git repository, which dates back to April 2003. So, to say the least, it's not new. AmossGuy (talk) 13:34, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
Huh. That definitely seems to cover the use case I was using {{id}} for. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:37, May 19, 2025 (EDT)
I definitely wasn't aware of this feature. Deleted my vote entirely because, eh, I don't actually care that much what happens to the other template. Auto-fill is useful, too. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:24, May 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Nelsonic I don't think you voted on the proposal for the {{a}} template or discussed the {{id}} template, either. Altendo 12:22, May 20, 2025 (EDT)

@Altendo Ah. Okay. I remember seeing it when it was active, I just wasn't sure whether I had voted or not. Nelsonic (talk) 12:25, May 20, 2025 (EDT)

Changes

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

Tighten the definition of "item" used by some games' subcategories

Within the context of, say, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, an "item" is a specific class of game entity that goes in its own tab on the pause menu and tab in the battle UI, and can be used in and out of battle. However, this specificity is not reflected in our category system, under which Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door items contains the likes of Badge, Hammer, Heart (item), and Star Piece (Paper Mario series). I think things like these sharing a category with the games' definition of "item" is counterintuitive. Should this proposal pass, "items" such as these, no longer contained within the tightened definition, will be placed into the main category; or their own subcategory if there are enough (though I'm not sure what such a category would be called).

If it's preferable that the "items" label be kept consistent with the rest of the wiki, I would also be fine with splitting these items off into a subcategory (or simply renaming the category if the "normal items" are too few in number) — Category:Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door consumable items, for instance.

Games and series for which I believe this should be done include:

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: May 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Tighten the "item" category on these games

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Itemdo (talk) Sounds good from what I can see.

Split these item classes into their own categories

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Oh, I meant to vote here as well but forgot.
  2. Pseudo (talk) Distinguishing these items from other types of item is useful and important, but I would strongly contend that stuff like Badges and Star Pieces are items, just a different category from consumable items that are sometimes labeled as just "items".
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We prefer this, personally. It'd be nice to have a clear distinction between types of items found in RPGs aside from just... "Item". Mario Party also has a few color-coded categories for Orbs in 5 to 7, and Candy in 8, which we could potentially distinguish with this.
  4. Altem Class (talk) Second choice, per all.
  5. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) The term is used in RPGs to refer to something that can be bought or sold in a shop, used as the action during the player's turn, and is listed in an Items section in the menu. If an object isn't considered an "item" in the game, it should be in a separate category.

Do nothing

Comments (item category proposal)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4904927"