MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Saturday, November 23rd, 01:43 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 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 autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
   • Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
10. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
14. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
15. After a proposal or talk page proposal passes, it is added to the corresponding list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
18. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

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

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove identifiers for Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!), Starluxe (ended November 21, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

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

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

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

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

Writing guidelines

Encourage concise, consistent and minimalistic layouts and design for tables

Tables in game articles are a total playground. Overall, they often are as inconsistent and showy as they can be, and are often laid out in such a way that it makes them worse to read. Some are more extreme than others, like driver and track tables in Mario Kart articles, such as this and this. Those ostentatious charts look like they belong in a promotional website rather than in an encyclopedia, and do not prioritize ease of reading and data relevancy. Some are not all that exaggerated, but still look over the top, overstyled and are more spacious than they need to be. Maybe people think it is more fun to design them like that, but they look unprofessional.

That being said, these are the points I judged good ones to encourage when it comes to creating tables:

1. Uniformly use plain wikitable style for regular tables. Pages often use several styles for tables for no reason (the article for Paper Mario: Sticker Star uses four styles throughout, here, here, here and here). The wikitable style is pretty standard, so it makes sense to use it consistently.

2. Prefer to lay out table data in simple rows or columns. If the table data fits well in a "one entry per row or column" format, do it, rather than attempting to use more elaborate, arbitrary layouts. Some examples of such arbitrary layouts are this table, which is laid out like it is a grid of infoboxes, and this set of tables. If you judge it wouldn't work to make a table fit that minimal layout, try making it the closest possible to it.

3. Avoid using images of text in lieu of actual text. This is often done for the name of the subject, and it is purely for decoration purposes. Cases include Mario's name and stat names here and board names here (notice that the images in those examples are not there for mere visual reference, as they replace links; the editor likely wanted to add some flavor to the table). It makes the text less straightforward to read, in some cases duplicates it, because normal text is used alongside the image. Another common occurence is using images of stars or other icons to represent scales (such as "X out of 5 stars" scales), when you could use standard star characters (★ and ☆) instead. That does not mean to never use images instead of text, only consider whether it is worth it or not. For example, this is a good use of images replacing text because writing the names for each driver and part as text would make it harder for the reader to quickly find the desired info.

4. Avoid using more images than necessary to illustrate the subject. This is also often used for decoration and visual effect. As an example, playable character tables in sports games articles (such as this and this), where the playable characters' table entries often include both an illustration of the character and that character's in-game icon (which is just the character's head graphic), which is redundant (if I already have an illustration as visual reference for the character, an icon showing the same thing is unnecessary, and vice versa). This is a specific example but that happens with other kinds of tables, like the Mario Kart 64 track table featuring both an image of the track and the track's thumbnail. Consider whether adding extra images actually make sense or if it's just filler.

5. Avoid decoration in general, such as coloring text and cell backgrounds. Take the colored table here for example. As I said before, it is more about the visuals than the info, and it looks like some sort of promotional material. Instead, save coloring text and table cells for cases where it aids in reading data in some way.

Notice I've been proposing for these guidelines to be encouraged rather than enforced because some of them depend largely on the judgement of the editor.

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: November 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) The only thing this proposal is missing is encouraging tables to be horizontally aligned in accordance with web design standards, but otherwise, pretty spot on. I think a little visual flair with coloration is okay, but since this is more of a guideline to be encouraged, I'm fine voting for this as-is.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) I will say, I have used colors for some of the tables I have crafted for the mainline series articles I have worked on, but it is always with illustrative intent. When all the tables in an article look indistinguishable from one another, it can sometimes be easy to lose one's place or not easily understand how some bits of information relate to others. But otherwise, I thinks these are great guidelines and they have my support.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101; color has a time and a place, but stuff like the SM3DW character chart just kinda feels like a meld. That's not to say we should be replacing everything with the dull greys, of course, but we should probably dial it back at least a little bit. No real objections to the other parts, we should probably standardize as best we can.
5. Ninelevendo (talk) I just don’t like what’s been done to the Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour character table so whatever it takes to fix that.
6. Koopa con Carne (talk) per all
7. Lakituthequick (talk) Per proposal and per WT – I have indeed commented a few times on tables and how they should be used for tabular data (more notably for Mario Kart Wii), and this proposal will start enforcing tables to do that.
8. Cadrega86 (talk) Wholeheartedly agree with all your points. These tables are over-designed and often include superfluous information (e.g. the track table in the Mario Kart 64 page, why don't we also add staff ghost times and future appearances while we're at it?)
9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all.
10. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
11. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock and Waluigi Time
12. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
13. MCD (talk) Per all.
14. Sparks (talk) Per all.
15. Fun With Despair (talk) Per all. Information should remain accessible and easy to reference, and tables utilizing images instead of easily transcribed or copied text are the opposite of that.
16. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per all; MarioWiki is not a fansite, it's a wiki! A wiki's tables should therefore be formal and not unconventionally designed.
17. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Table design on this wiki has bothered me for a while, and these guidelines are a great solution.
18. Mario (talk) Current tables are too cluttered with information and are quite hostile to editing. This is a case of less is more imo.
19. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Tails777 (talk) I can agree that there should be a bit more consistency and organization on when and where to use certain elements for a table, but I also believe in making tables both informative and entertaining to look at. I see nothing wrong with using board logos to represent names for some of the earlier Mario Party boards that had them or using colored backgrounds on tables (something I've already supported). And while I can agree that some of the Mario Kart related tables are a bit all over the place, I believe we could take certain similar cases (tracks, boards, statistics, etc) and maybe make guidelines for each based on the topic. I get that this isn't outright enforcing the outage of these elements, but I don't really think we should actively enforce minimalist designs for tables, rather deciding what to do on a more case-by-case basis.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - As the person who made many of the more "showy" ones, I'm kinda societally obligated to oppose this as a matter of course. I can't let my MS in CS with a few classes on advanced web design/web app programming and an undergraduate Minor in Art go to waste and I find it more engaging and explanatory as to the different aspects of whatever entity is being described to have both an in-game graphic and either an artwork or a screenshot. Stat bars and star-bubble fill-in charts with color-coding are also a lot more immediately understandable than numbers alone. To quote Bowser, "Haven't you heard? A picture's worth a thousand words." (People also generally seem to approve of my tables for the Golf games...) Anyways, I'm not gonna make this a big to-do, since I still can be beautiful on my own page, but I still think it looks and functions better than a schedule-looking list with inconsistent image resizings and row heights.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all. Some consistency between tables in articles would be nice, but I feel the rules this proposal would put in place are a bit too much. I mean, we did recently pass a proposal allowing colorful tables again.
4. DesaMatt (talk) Per all. While consistency is good, there's a point where it becomes unnecessary and repetitive, and in my view this is that point. Also, I disagree with the idea that MarioWiki isn't a fan site. It will always be a fan site as long as it's not officially affiliated with Nintendo and is operated by fans.
5. Scrooge200 (talk) I actually really like the trend of giving games uniquely stylized tables, it helps give them a bit more personality. All the information is there and you can still read it effectively. I think I worked on some of the modern Paper Mario tables, and nobody seemed to have a problem with them until now.
6. Hewer (talk) Per all.
7. Salmancer (talk) Colored backgrounds are too much (as in, the ones where each entry has a different background), but I think there's a time and place for non-standard tables, so I wouldn't want a blanket ban.

Comments

@Tails777 Using images as a substitute for text is very poor for accessibility and searchability with ctrl+f, though. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 22:08, October 23, 2024 (EDT)

True and perhaps I can agree to not substituting text with images. But I still stand by what will be my main point: tables can be presentable and professional without being a bore to look at. I still see nothing wrong with colored tables at the very least. Tails777 Talk to me!

With regards to colours and visuals as is most often used as a counterpoint: I believe those are strictly speaking less important than being informative and clear, but I do love myself tables that look good as well. I can see a future proposal to establish some generic reusable table styles and colours for specific purposes. To take one back a while, Walkazo did just that for navigation templates, which, with updates, resulted in this chart to be created, still in use today. The 'Shroom for instance also features its own table styles which are pleasant to look at, and which use colours that match the page's theme. Lakituthequick 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm staunchly against using the fugly ass gray and grayer tables across all articles and I'm definitely perring LTQ's suggestion for themes. I like the red header in the Super Mario World article and the green header in the Yoshi's Island article, it's deliberately done to match the nav templates the articles use and I'd be in full support of making tables be consistent with that. Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:51, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

There are a ton of tables on here that use STRONG, EXTREME colours in attempt to look flashy but just end up being really hard to read, and I think above all else those need to go. Colour should be used very sparingly. I came across this recently looking at the MK8 Color Scheme tables for Standard Kart and Standard Bike. When you see things like Pink, White, Medium yellow, Yellow, Chartreuse, Light-gold, light-gold and especially Inklings, it's murder on the eyes... Shadow2 (talk) 04:45, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

Hmm, would it be acceptable if we kinda did what Inkipedia does with ink colors, and have a colored square show before the color terms? rend (talk) (edits) 12:31, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

e.g.   Pink,   White,   Medium yellow,   Yellow,   Chartreuse,   Light-gold. rend (talk) (edits) 14:55, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

@OmegaRuby the guidelines stipulate to "save coloring text and table cells for cases where it aids in reading data in some way." The colors used on those tables provide quick distinction between New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U, so I don't think they would be impacted by this proposal. - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:32, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

I hold my opposition on the idea of any tables not being colorful at all, regardless if it assists reading data or distinguishes things - like I said, while I believe there should be consistency in tables in wiki articles I do not believe more bland, grayscale tables should be pushed when adding a dash of color or an image representing a subject doesn't exactly harm readability if implemented correctly. I do know that the proposal pushes for encouragement towards this sort of standard, but I feel as if even the simple suggestion will sway many editors into setting this as a standard. I am also personally a fan of the pretty tables Doc has made, but looking at them from a readability standpoint I do know for sure they're a little too flashy and would hurt specifically the mobile wiki experience.-- OmegaRuby [ Talk / Contribs ] 08:28, October 25, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I question why exactly you keep bringing up the fact that you have a degree in web design and art in each of these table proposals as though it serves an argumentative point. I do not feel as though it tends to add much to the conversation, nor do I feel that anyone cares. Obviously it is good to have a level of professional training in a subject, however it comes across less as a point in your favor, and more as something you choose to flex whenever anyone disagrees with you on the matter of these tables, which hurts your arguments if anything. Personally as someone who uses a wiki, I would prefer information be conveyed in a simple manner across all the devices I use, and I would prefer that information be accessible and easy to reference in text form - which images hinder. I don't really care if someone with a degree says otherwise, because I know what I prefer - and many members seem to prefer the same thing with regards to simplified tables. Just bringing up your degree as an argument and excuse to ignore feedback does not make people impressed, just annoyed and like they're being talked down to when art is a completely subjective field to begin with. --Fun With Despair (talk) 15:05, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

I say that because it illustrates why I'm this weird combination of artsy and HTML-based in what I do, not to act high-and-mighty. As well as my massive inferiority complex coupled by my inability to get a job due to the current job market, I need to have something going for me or I'm worthless - and I need to do something with that training or it was all a waste of time, and I don't want to have wasted 7 years of my life. I don't think it's important or authoritative by any means - that's the reason it's shrunk. Also I like pictures. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:08, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

Doc, I say this with earnest respect for the struggle to find a job and an understanding that there are difficult times in our lives during which we may lean more heavily on external sources of validation, such as our accomplishments and creations, as founts of our self-worth. I also say this recognizing that, to some degree, there may be a bit of tongue-in-cheek exaggeration in your previous response. While I think it is commendable you have the self-awareness to recognize that some of your pointing to your degree again and again in these discussions arises from your struggles to land a job in an oversaturated market and the effect that has on your own perception of the effort you put into acquiring your degree, it would be prudent to further reflect on why it serves neither yourself nor the wiki to let those struggles color your decisions and discussions regarding wiki policy, and thus why it might rub others the wrong way to have the point repeated.

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in the work you have done for the wiki. As I understand, you have done a great deal. It doesn't serve you, however, to rely upon that work - especially any single element of it - to seek validation of your major decisions in life through that work. The nature of a wiki is collaboration and change. If not in the near future, if not through the decisions in this proposal, at some point the tables you have contributed to will change, whether it be because the collective aesthetic sensibilities of the userbase have changed, or because of a technical update necessitating it, or because someone sees an opportunity to add further information, or for any number of reasons. Staking the value of your degree to tables bound to change is building an edifice of sand by the ocean and expecting it to stand for years. Don't tie the value of your degree to transient projects; find the intrinsic value of your degree, such as the knowledge you gained in pursuing it, and use that to bolster your perception of it and yourself.

Further, while perhaps useful as additional context to other wiki editors explaining why your degree is so often referenced, this response also indicates this is not something which is actionable to other wiki editors. A self-described "inferiority complex" is a personal matter which only you can address, and the general wiki editor is not equipped to help you in this respect. If this is the driving factor behind your position, you may need to reevaluate whether it is truly germane to the best interests of the wiki.

So as not to stray too far off-topic, ultimately, I want to acknowledge that this is not necessarily your only reason for opposing this proposal and plainer tables, and it does not in any way invalidate or impact your other points. It is only a word of advice. You have shown the self-awareness to acknowledge what drives you to mention your degree; extend that thinking and see why, then, that is not relevant and should not be relevant to decisions and discussions on wiki policy. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 16:33, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

Thanks. Again, I used small text to display it as not-too-relevant in the grand scheme of things but part of my basis. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:36, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

As I said on the MarioWiki Discord, "i do believe practicality of a table should prevail over the aesthetics of a table. that way, the table can be easier to comprehend. the tables as of right now look more like they belong to a fansite [...] stop all these gaudy, garish tables".  ^P_nn^yC_ryg^r  21:50, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

To be fair, this is a fansite. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:20, October 25, 2024 (EDT)

Example

Entry Name Value A Value B First entry First name 1A 1B Second entry Second name 2A 2B Third entry Third name 3A 3B Fourth entry Fourth name 4A 4B Entry Description Another value A This is the description A for the first entry. 1A B This is the description B for the first entry. 1B C This is the description C for the first entry. 1C Entry Description Another value A This is the description A for the second entry. 2A B This is the description B for the second entry. 2B C This is the description C for the second entry. 2C Entry Description Another value A This is the description A for the third entry. 3A B This is the description B for the third entry. 3B C This is the description C for the third entry. 3C Entry Description Another value A This is the description A for the fourth entry. 4A B This is the description B for the fourth entry. 4B C This is the description C for the fourth entry. 4C

In my opinion, Wikipedia has an elegant way of dealing with color in tables: they rarely use it for the visuals, but when they do, it just makes sense to have it. Take for example how they present seasons of TV shows in the example. Also, maybe people think that articles would become "too boring" or "too gray" if tables were completely standardized with no decoration at all and whatnot, but that happens because articles overuse tables in my opinion. But that's a different topic. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 11:53, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

These examples are indeed in line with the idea of generic themes I mentioned above. Of course, these examples are still on the tamer side and other styles can be added on top, but it does already look less dull while still maintaining clarity. Lakituthequick 15:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Waluigi Time Thank you for the suggestion. I wanted to read about horizontally aligned tables being a standard, but I couldn't find anything about it. Do you have a link you can share? Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 11:53, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

Unfortunately I don't have a link on hand and wasn't able to find it myself - my knowledge on this admittedly comes from talking to people who are much more well-versed than me - but I've asked Lakituthequick to look into it. For what it's worth, the documentation I've looked at doesn't explicitly say anything about it, but all examples provided are horizontal. In the meantime, a few points in favor of horizontal alignment (in other words, one subject per row instead of per column):

• It preserves the natural left-to-right reading flow used by the rest of our content. I think screen readers also do this, so a vertical alignment ends up being especially confusing for anyone using one, which isn't good for accessibility.
• Only horizontal tables can be sorted, since that function works off of the headings.
• The code is much easier to understand and edit since all the information on one subject is kept together neatly. (e.g. Horizontally, you get Mario grouped with all of his stats in a game. Vertically, you're just left with a bunch of character names, and their stats are scattered in multiple chunks further down the page.) Incidentally, this criticism is what created that "grid of infoboxes" layout you mentioned to preserve the column alignment.

So if I was mistaken on this being an explicit standard, it still seems like best practice, at least. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 14:22, October 26, 2024 (EDT)

Can confirm this; additionally, web standards are just written in such a way that tables have headers and footers at the top and bottom, respectively (it is worth noting that wikicode doesn't support separating header, body, and footer elements in a table – heck, the parser actively rejects those elements when used directly). In print, this is not so much of an issue. Technically it is probably possible to rotate a table by 90° while maintaining the said pros, but this likely involves throwing a bunch of CSS (hacks) at it that require work to look good in each instance and may not be worth it in most cases. Lakituthequick 15:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually)

More often than not, if you look at a game's list of references to other games, you'll find something about how so-and-so character reuses voice clips from so-and-so game. This has been bugging me for a while because these just aren't references. Nintendo has been reusing voice clips for multiple decades now, so this isn't anything new. When a new Mario Kart game comes out and some of the drivers reuse some wahoos or hurt sounds or whatever else from an old Mario Party game, it's not because the developers wanted to give a nod to that Mario Party game, it's because they had those clips on hand and could easily repurpose them instead of dragging the voice actor back into the recording booth. I propose removing reused voice clips from the references to other games/references in later games lists, with one exception that I'll get to shortly.

For a particularly egregious example, here's all the "references" of this type currently listed on Super Mario Party. Notice how vague these entries are and how many of them don't even specify which characters have clips reused.

• Super Mario Strikers: Some of Hammer Bro's voice clips are reused from this game.
• Mario Party 8: Hammer Bro's artwork, as well as some voice clips, are reused from this game.
• Mario Kart Wii: Some voice clips are reused.
• Mario Super Sluggers: [...] Some voice clips are reused.
• New Super Mario Bros. Wii, New Super Mario Bros. 2, and New Super Mario Bros. U: [...] Some voice clips are reused.
• Super Mario Galaxy 2: Some of Yoshi's voice clips are reused from this game.
• Mario Kart 7: Flutter's voice clips are recycled from Wiggler's voice clips in this game.
• Mario Party 9: [...] Some voice clips are reused.
• Mario Party: Island Tour: [...] Some of Bowser Jr.'s voice clips are reused from this game.
• Super Mario 3D World: [...] Some voice clips are reused.
• Mario Kart 8: Some voice clips are reused from this game.
• Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash: Some of Mario's voice clips are reused from this game.
• Super Mario Odyssey: [...] Some of Mario and Luigi's voice clips are recycled.

The exception to this would be if a voice clip, within the context it appears in the game, is clearly a reference to another work. I'm not sure of any actual examples off the top of my head, but hypothetically, if Luigi reused some of the "MARIO!" voice clips from Luigi's Mansion in Luigi and the Haunted Mansion from Super Mario Galaxy, that would probably be considered a reference. In this case, the entry should explain exactly what clip(s) are being used and what it is about the situation that makes it a reference. That leads me into what should probably be a good rule of thumb for this exception: if you can't explain why it's a reference beyond just being in that game, then it's probably not a reference.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: November 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Waluigi Time's support vote is reused from this proposal.
2. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) These voice clips are most likely used without their game of origin in mind.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per both.
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Donkey Kong: Mario's mustache is reused from this game.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Repurposing an asset — voice clip or otherwise — is rarely a reference in isolation.
8. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I swear this has already been proposed and passed....
9. Arend (talk) I think this is more worth to be its own trivia subsection ("Reused assets"?) than treating it as a specific "reference" and lumping it among the more legit ones.
10. Shadow2 (talk) Per all.
11. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. Reuse of assets isn't really a "reference" in the usual sense, as there's plenty of non-callback reasons to do so. We don't think the re-used Charles Martinet lines in the TTYD remake were done out of wanting to do a cameo from Charles, they probably just didn't feel like bringing Kevin back into the recording booth when they already had a cohesive library of voicelines from the original game. ;P
12. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
13. DesaMatt (talk) per all.
14. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per all as This "reusal of voices" statement is getting done to death over and over again. And a reuse of assets is not an allusion/reference to something.
15. ThePowerPlayer (talk) ThePowerPlayer's "Per all" vote is reused.
16. Cadrega86 (talk), the same also goes for generic artwork (so unless it's specifically stylized or features stuff specific to a single game/subseries). These are not references but just "lazy" asset re-usage.
17. Technetium (talk) Per all.
18. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
19. Ray Trace (talk) Grunts, screams, and whoohoos aren't uttered with a specific game in mind and our articles shouldn't reflect that.
20. Scrooge200 (talk) This has been bugging me for a while. This is just asset reuse to save budget and because there's very few specific lines that need to be newly recorded.
21. Mario (talk) Just because it was first heard in a game doesn't mean it was recorded for this game. It might be a stock sound that went unused and eventually found its way into a future game. Additionally there are clips that are better known in other games than the one it originated in. "That's-a so nice!" Is commonly heard when Mario clears a level in New Super Mario Bros., but this quote is first heard in Mario Kart Double Dash, barely audible in the Awards Ceremony. Unless the clip itself is made specifically for a game (Mario vs. Donkey Kong!!! Finding its way in a Mario Kart game as a store speaker or something) it's best not to list as a reference. That being said, there should be ways to list if voices have been reused.
22. Tails777 (talk) This is on par with referencing Super Mario Galaxy every time Rosalina appears. Pretty sure we had a proposal at some point opting to exclude these types of recurring things from the references section and this is just following in suit. Per proposal.
23. DryBonesBandit (talk) Reusing a "per all" vote from previous proposals.
24. BlueBirdBlues (talk) Reusing assets are, in most cases, not references. That being said, I do feel like we should document these reused assets somewhere, perhaps on a separate List of reused assets article? Creating a new subsection in each article for these reused assets would work too, I suppose.
25. SeanWheeler (talk) Don't want to bloat the references section of each game's page.
26. ExoRosalina (talk) Reused are unlikely as references, especially voice clips.
27. Okapii (talk) Per all; voice lines in the Mario franchise have been reused so many times that what game they originated in feels almost meaningless, and making a note for every time any character reuses a specific line just feels like pointless bloat for the reference section.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I think a game reusing assets like voice clips from a previous one is still worth noting, and the reference sections are a handy place to do it. I don't see why we must restrict the section to only when "the developers wanted to give a nod".
2. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer. I do get that it's not an intentional reference per se, but this is still information worth documenting on the wiki (if a different place to note this information would be proposed, I'm all ears).

Comments

I do know Luigi's "Gotcha!" was made for Luigi's Mansion as a thing he says when he catches ghosts, then became a standard voice clip for him in 64DS and NSMB, despite no longer making as much sense there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:46, October 27, 2024 (EDT)

I would also like a place for people to note when new voice clips get recorded. I think the Protrayals section of character articles makes a fair amount of sense. Or maybe in Development sections of games? Salmancer (talk) 21:07, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

Encourage game-related "icon"-type images to have consistent file dimensions with each other when applicable to their origins

My last proposal related to this subject had too many holes in it due to being too wide to make an actual rule on the subject. Indeed, not all sprites really need the blank space, not all "icons" are sprites at all. To recap:

this looks good

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

this does not

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Notice how half of the MPT ones (second row) are awkwardly, inconsistently stretched in various gross ways that makes some of the pixels be rectangles, and none are at a proper size relative to each other - this is an obsessive-compulsive spriter's worst nightmare. Meanwhile, the MKDD ones (first row) look crisp, clean, and are at a nice size relative to each other. Why is this? Because since they are icons, they are programmed to occupy the same type of space in select screens and player standings in-game. They're supposed to be at around the same size, which is accomplished through the small amount of empty space some have in the upper right corners - which the origin images have in the game's files. We should reflect this for the simple reason that we're only going to be putting these in galleries and table cells with each other anyway, so it makes the most sense to have them take up the same amount of space here as well. They should either be at their raw parameters, or if they are cropped, cropped to the exact same size as all the others for that type in that game so as to not screw up formatting and table cell sizes (and we shouldn't be increasing the size of sprites that are at this size by default anyway). This goes for selection icons, rank icons, map icons, that sort of thing. Cropping them down needlessly leads to the grossness that the second gallery there displays.

This is already something of an unofficial rule on here; a majority of the games with this sort of icon have them uploaded at a consistent size already for the same pragmatic reasons I just listed. I'm just trying to make this more clear-cut. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it minorly affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. Also, I fail to see what the difference is between this and preferring screenshots be uploaded at native res rather than boosted resolution.

THIS DOES NOT COVER THE RARE INSTANCES GAME ICONS ACTUALLY DO HAVE DIFFERENT SIZES AS STORED IN-GAME. Instances of that are quite rare, especially for character icons that swap locations, but they can happen. Since they aren't the same size to begin with, there's nothing to match up with. It also does not apply to ones that are extrapolated from a singular group image containing all of them.

PLEASE NOTE THAT MOST IMAGES OF THIS TYPE ON THE WIKI ALREADY FOLLOW THIS RULE. Attempting to do the opposite, therefore, will take more effort for less reward.

ADDITIONALLY, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATING THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR NATIVE DIMENSIONS. Rather, it is saying that if you do decide to crop them, you should crop them to consistent parameters, ie, the width of the widest one and the height of the tallest one. Having to resize images on an individual basis is tedious and can lead to extra HTML bloating the page that would be a non-issue if they were uploaded at the same size to begin with.

EDIT: Here's a better illustration of why I think this is necessary:

Notice how with them cropped to content, their vertical (and horizontal if they were stacked, thanks to Klap Trap's muzzle and Diddy's hat) positions are all over the place. To someone with OCD, that's maddening. Not unlike bad kerning. This is what this proposal hopes to avoid. And no, that's not something a "rawsize" thing can do, that's gallery-only - and this inconsistent positioning would be an even bigger issue with the images in a gallery, since those don't have positioners available. And while technically, HTML can fix the positioning on the table (but again, not in a gallery), that would require a bunch of finagling span classes that would bloat the page's byte count unnecessarily - not to mention take potentially hours of trial and error depending on the image amount - when the obvious solution is to give the images the consistent parameters they were deliberately made to have - and yes, that's deliberate in more than just "limited by sprite parameters," because they used them to position them accurately in the character/level select, as I am doing with this table.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: November 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - consistent icons (change the few remaining icon images and make it a general rule for the future)

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Icon haz dead, never-funny-in-the-first-place memes about fast food sandwiches?
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) - Accurate to how the graphic or texture is stored in game.
3. Hewer (talk) Per fast food sandwiches
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
5. blueberrymuffin (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose - who needs consistency? (do nothing)

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Rawsize exists.
2. Koopa con Carne (talk) There's no sense in deliberately translating the functional limitations of a game onto a wiki. The site's educational purpose dictates that official material shown on a wiki be inherently recontextualized, and showing that material at a different scale than originally intended is in line with that idea. Even taking into account the niche interests of a sprite enthusiast (which TBH is fair, the wiki is a gateway to Mario material for anybody), the sprites in and of themselves are accurate to how they were extracted when you view them on their dedicated file pages; it's only their appearance on mainspace pages that is subject to alterations, and what to what degree that is beneficial is better scrutinized on a case-by-case basis than through a global proposal. TLDR If the sprites are too uncomfortably big just resize them, or use rawsize like Waluigi Time says.
3. Lakituthequick (talk) Per WT.
4. UltraMario (talk) Per all. This can easily be taken care of by either a gallery or a table's settings, I am very sure of that. We don't need to be unnecessarily tampering with perfectly cropped files. I am not 100% sure of the technical site of the wiki but I am very sure that there are better ways to go about fixing sizing of things in tables not being adequate without just having to overhaul image uploads entirely, rather than just playing around with a table.
5. Fun With Despair (talk) Seems like a huge amount of work for what is... honestly imperceptible to 99.9% of users such as in your example. Busywork for the sake of busywork.
6. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. I see no real benefit from this.
7. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We already have tools capable of representing these icons more accurately to their in-game versions as necessary without requiring deadzones or other such things to be baked into the image itself. In fact, baking it into the image itself can cause issues when attempting to use the same image on different pages not fitted for them; such as how the image on the infobox for Blooper (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door) is markedly smaller because it retains the blank space for the sake of the bestiary article. While we should strive for accuracy, we shouldn't let it get in the way of making the information actually accessible and readable; besides, if someone wanted the raw, original images, including any blank space around them, they would likely check The Spriter's Resource, not us.
9. Ray Trace (talk) Per Koopa Con Carne. Zero readers care if an asset is cropped to content to dimensions in the power of 8 or if they have the ripped dimensions, especially if all said images are there to illustrate a gallery and especially if there is copious amounts of empty space just to pad the image to appropriate dimensions for a game engine. We aren't a game engine (modern game engines are perfectly capable of having textures in resolutions not in powers of 8 by the way), official websites such as the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's official website crop to content because image editors know that it doesn't need to be in those dimensions (let's not get into how these assets are actually made, they're scaled down in the first place 100% for game engine reasons) icons should be cropped to editor's discretion without bludgeoning editors over the head about it, we should prioritize optimization and readability over faithfulness to asset dimensions. I can see cases where consistent sizes can work out, namely the character icons as listed in this proposal, but the general rule should be crop to content, but leave some in exceptions in regards to formatting tables, not the other way around.
10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
12. Shoey (talk) Per all.
13. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
14. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all, especially Koopa con Carne and Ray Trace.
15. Axii (talk) Per all.
16. SeanWheeler (talk) Some really small icons like the Super Smash Bros. series stock icons would look really bad if they were resized to be consistent with Mario Kart ranking icons.
17. Mario (talk) The additional caveats in the proposal trying to address this issue is nice I guess but it makes the proposal much less clear in what it's trying to accomplish and it comes off as this user trying to bludgeon over their approach to these images in opposition with several other people's while tacking on qualifications and caveats after the fact. It doesn't help that the terminology of the proposal is imprecise (what is a "game-related 'icon'-type image"?? Does the proposal apply to whatever is a "game related 'non-icon' type image"?) Per all.
18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I don't see the point in doing this.
19. Nintendo101 (talk) I will reiterate what I said below: if folks want to maintain unified dimensions around certain assets, like the ones in the Diddy Kong Pilot example, that is completely fine and okay to do. I agree it looks nice. However, folks should have the freedom to choose whether they want to do that or not with the tables and templates they have developed. To experiment. I agree with the opposition that cropping to the visual content of an asset is not inherently destructive, while recognizing there are real examples on this wiki where assets benefit from having unified dimensions outside of galleries. But those were choices made because they are visually appealing and convey information - not out of a unique reverence for how computer engines spatially store assets, and while I know this proposal is not explicitly advocating for that, it derives from similar arguments made in the previous one, and I wanted to touch upon that here. We adjust assets all the time for the sake of illustrative intent. We assemble disembodied sprites. Adjust/add colors to reflect in-game appearances (especially when they are not actually coded as such for older consoles). We pose models. We approximate lighting conditions. We crop out screenshot details for a focused view. We narrow displays to omit details that the player typically has no way of seeing. From my experience, none of these choices have been considered controversial, and they should not be. They are not dissimilar from taxidermy, art restoration, and similar curatorial techniques that are exercised in museums worldwide. To me, cropping to visual content - the pixels that people can actually see - is no different from these methods and not an inherent problem. If folks want to keep unified dimensions around the assets they are working with or see use outside of galleries, that is fine and good. This is the opinion of some other folks in the opposition, like fellow ripper Ray Trace, as evident here. However, if folks do not want to do that, or use tables built on the expectation that assets they are using are cropped to content, or they are cropping the content around assets that are only found in galleries, I think they should have that freedom too.
20. MCD (talk) Per all.
21. FanOfYoshi (talk) No. No, both look good in their own right. Per all.
22. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Waluigi Time - Rawsize doesn't help for tabular data. Only for galleries. Only way to get it there would be to separately size each cell, and even that doesn't keep them in the correct position within the cell. Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to just have the images at the correct size rather than having to mess with the HTML each time? And we do indeed use these for tabular data, like ghost times, tennis rivals, that sort of thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:43, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

And would that not be easily solved by displaying the image at its native resolution (or at least consistent resolutions for all of them) and centering it? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:51, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

No, it absolutely wouldn't. Because not all the icons are themselves centered, such as the MKDD ones above. They all come out of the lower-left corner. And that's not getting into how some games have a variant with an actual shaped background alongside clear-background ones, like Strikers Charged for example. It'd make the most sense to match those up relative to where the square bounds are for their respective size, IMO. Also, when they need shrunk for smaller tables, it's easier to do that when they have the same x-y parameters anyway so you don't have to check every. Last. One. And do the math each time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time - Rawsize also doesn't work for sizing images down. Only sizing them as-is or sizing them up. So it's still not a perfect solution for all occasions anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:48, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

All of these things can be fixed using text-align: center, vertical-align: middle, and the inherent ability of tables to size columns and rows based on their contents. Lakituthequick 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I already said that's not true, because not all of them are centered in their origin. If you want DK's image's left border touching the left border and his right border touching the right border, and the same to go for Luigi, that will absolutely not work unless they are uploaded at their intended size. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:58, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne - I thought you didn't want math to be forced onto the site. In order to resize them consistently if they aren't uploaded at the intended consistent size, you have to go through every single one and check their sizes individually, then apply whatever size change also individually in order to be consistent. Keeping them as they are intentionally incorporated into the game is much cleaner on both counts. If mediawiki had a "50%" in addition to the pixel resizing, that wouldn't be an issue, but they don't. And applying a same-pixel-size on sprites with different base sizes is just dirty. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:04, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

You're misconstruing my point about math on the wiki. I never suggested curbing the use of math in the back end by editors (even then, I don't recall ever actually mathing my way through editing a page other than establishing sizes of things like images and charts). It was strictly in reference to the math that is displayed, for one reason or another, to readers, specifically how serviceable it is for articles to show readers more complex formulas versus simple tallies of elements in a level. I've long digressed though, lol.
The issues you bring up are solvable on a case-by-case basis. I like consistency and tidiness, too, however, those ought to have a healthy marriage with the wiki's primary interest to educate. Here, you'll notice I purposefully enlarged the icon for the Giant Banana item relative to the regular banana peel, because it used to look about the same size, which was odd. I understand where you're coming from and I support giving a sense of scale to sprites of a certain type in a row if it would otherwise look too messy or unnatural, but I don't believe that has to be enforced among all these sprites indiscriminately. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:23, October 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 19:03, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Well this proposal isn't about "all sprites," it is specifically about icons within a particular family, ie, all MKDD character select icons are one family, all MKDD item icons are another family, all MKW select icons are yet another family, etc. etc. etc. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:30, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

I understand. That's what I meant when I said "sprites of a certain type in a row". That's a tad wordy, so I guess "sprite family" can indeed be used for the purposes of this proposal instead. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:59, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

OK so.... what is the negative you are seeing to this? It seems like you agree with what the proposal actually aims to do, so I'm not really understanding your opposition. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

What I agree with, is that assets extracted from the game shouldn't be tampered with before they are uploaded on the wiki. The native size and optimizations should still inherently be part of the asset. What I disagree with, is that such a principle should extend to their presentation on mainspace articles. An image gallery is not a sprite sheet, it's demonstrative. If you think a gallery of assets can benefit from a few fine adjustments to accommodate scale and aesthetic sensibility, by all means do it. I agree the Shy Guy icon you show in the proposal looks too large and should be scaled down a little, as I did with the giant banana I mentioned previously. Enforcing the standard you propose across a demonstrative gallery is shifting the priority on technical accuracy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

The actual argument of this proposal is different from the last one. This isn't specifically aiming for native dimensions, though that would still be the "easy way" imo. This allows for cropping as long as the cropping is to a consistent size for said related assets. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:40, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

@UltraMario - You... do realize that cropping the files is where the "tampering" comes into play, right? If they're displayed as they are in the game, they are untampered with. Cropping them down is, by definition, tampering with them. I think you need to reword that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

@Fun With Despair - Except most of them are already like this - this is just making an unofficial rule we've used for years an official one for practicality. In this case, doing the opposite would be busywork. And making them consistent is busywork I am willing to do. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:35, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Besides, being a lot of work hasn't stopped proposals that take even more work to implement from passing. It's a flimsy reason to oppose a change. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:02, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Not opposing because it's a lot of work, opposing because it's a lot of work in service of something that is unnoticed and not cared about by the vast majority of users. The citation proposal is a bad example because that is actually something important to the accuracy of information on the wiki. This doesn't do much of anything at all besides force small edits to many old images.--Fun With Despair (talk) 18:33, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

That could be said about proposals in general. If it doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it make more sense to not vote at all? If I see a proposal on a subject I don't care about, I just don't vote. After all, if it matters to someone, it matters in general and shouldn't just be opposed because of what amounts to "I don't care about this." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:36, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

I'd argue a majority (or at least significant number) of readers likely don't care either way about citations for names in other languages. But that doesn't mean people who do care about the change don't exist, or that it's inherently a bad change. I think "eh who cares" is also a flimsy reason to oppose a change. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:38, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Wait, so if this is already often the way things are, will the oppose option change that? That would mean this proposal lacks a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Oppose is a "do nothing." I'm not going to include an option for what I would consider a negative change. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:28, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Wasn't suggesting you should, just got confused since you were making comments about "doing the opposite". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:31, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

That was mainly directed at the "too much work" argument. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:32, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock - Things like the TTYDr bestiary images are not covered by this proposal, only small icon sprites that are intended to be square anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

For the record, we know that wasn't exactly what the proposal was targetting, we mostly mentioned it as it's a pretty striking example of how including these transparent margins in the images themselves can backfire (besides, it's one of the most recent examples of such a thing happening.) We hope that makes sense, anyway. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:48, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

I still don't see why it's preferable to be forced to use the HTML to make them somewhat close-ish to accurate when simply letting it have the one or two columns of blank pixels that it's supposed to have on one side of it would look better for practical reasons anyway. It's a lot simpler and doesn't hurt anything to do. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Because sometimes, you don't want them to be entirely accurate; while an original-resolution image might be wanted for, say, a gallery or a table, in an article, template, or especially in an infobox, you probably don't want the original size and would want something a lot more readily scalable, without transparent margins baked into the image that you need to futz with. At best, it would be too small to add a proper caption to; at worst, you basically gut the clarity of the image itself. For example, while not an "icon" in the sense of the original proposal, the articles for various objects from Super Mario Land upscale the images outside of their original context. Infoboxes on articles such as the Lift Block would be rendered borderline incomprehensible if the images were not enlarged like this. And the grown image size is accomplished not via baking it into the files themselves, but via using fairly basic wikiscript or HTML; that way, on the main article, they can still appear in their original format. This general philosophy applies to icons as well, which is why we bring it up.
Again, if someone was looking for the raw, unedited sprites, they would likely head to The Spriter's Resource and not us; our goal here is to make these images accurate, of course, but we need to make them both usable in articles and also keep them standardized between one another; baking transparent margins into the images themselves, even if technically accurate to the source material, does run counter to that latter goal. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 21:09, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

There are plenty of instances where we'd have to edit ripped textures anyway because they're ripped rotated or flipped. Cropping to content is similar to those nondestructive edits and I still fail to see how it's such a big issue, we don't need to preserve transparent pixels just because image editors deliberately padded out assets just for the game engine to decipher properly. Otherwise we should upload sprites without any color data and their palette data as separate entities. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:15, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

It's destructive to me. ._. Also, saying "zero" readers is obviously wrong if there's people supporting this. "Who cares" is never a good argument. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock - Boosting them by a consistent size factor (like 50%, 200%, 300%, etc) is perfectly fine - Lift Block, for example, is sized up by 1000%. And it's a lot easier to do that when they have consistent base dimensions so you don't have to look the specific dimensions to resize them by for each image separately. Having all the 32px images display at 64px is a lot simpler than having to look through each to see which needs to be at 64, which needs to be at 62, which needs to be at 58, and so on. That's pointless, tedious, and can be prevented completely by doing what this proposal aims for. And again, non-consistent size factors, like "just make them all display at 50px!" are really messy - see the Mario Power Tennis example above, and how Shy Guy's icon is ultra pixelated while Bowser's is fairly crisp. It's grossly inconsistent, and on a table, it can't just be rawsized with a percentage (and rawsize in galleries only works for making them bigger, not smaller). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:45, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

I was the one who uploaded these bestiary images, and I had a few reasons. The main one is that some images like Smorg are cut off by the borders and would look strange when cropped. Also, since each of the Tattle Log images display against a border and background that I was also able to rip, I was hoping we'd be able to fit the enemy images over the background and border so it'd be more accurate to how it appears in-game. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:30, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

By the way, a striking example of ripped assets that are extremely counterpoint to this proposal are the Mario Party: Island Tour space icons. Every single one of those icons are cropped from a single texture that compiles all of them, absolutely requiring you to crop images and then crop to content because none of the options suggested that would "encourage" them cover those instances. Hence why I think it's extremely pertinent to encourage crop to content except for formatting purposes in regards to tables. In addition, icons ripped may also come with engine gamma-fixes or even be outright flipped or rotated all which require correction in display for browsing purposes. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Hence "when applicable to their origins". As that one is done differently, it is not applicable. This textureMedia:MK8DX-BCP audience TVV.png was stored in a similar manner with all eight of its frames in a single image (evenly spaced), while there's also this group texture imageMedia:MKAGP audience.png that has someone sideways. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:06, October 28, 2024 (EDT)

Some important things to note:
1. The proposal only applies to icons that have a natural similarity, such as characters, items, board spaces, badges, etc. It does not apply to textures, screenshots, logos or scanners.
2. In fact, the wiki and the TSR do not have the same purpose. The wiki is not a graphics museum, nor does the TSR have informational content. But this has nothing to do with what the proposal suggests is the organizational factor.
3. "Who cares?" Yes, the readers and Super Mario enthusiasts who visit the site every day may not care. But the proposal is not for them. After all, are they the ones who vote here? The proposal is for the editors, for those who submit images and create galleries. Approving this would only be a way to better organize what is already common practice.
4. This prevents things like itMedia:M&S2014 Mii Costume 55.png.
blueberrymuffin (talk) 17:44, October 29, 2024 (-03 UTC)

What constitutes as an "icon" is entirely arbitrary in terms of graphics, there is technically no difference between graphics HUD of a character's disembodied head in a map and images used as flair in menus, or images of items in say Mario Party 4, or little images in the group photo in Mario Superstar Baseball. As for the "who cares" statement, that's specifically why I voted to oppose: I don't care about what this proposal wants to implement, I think it's way too draconian for the purposes of this wiki, and I am having my voice heard, and there is a discernible amount of people who share that sentiment. Editors use this wiki too. I also don't see the issue with the cropped Mii suits, MediaWiki has the tools to format those images should they be formatted. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:18, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

"MediaWiki has the tools," does it? Please tell me how, using the [[File:xxxxxxx.png]] type of image, you can implement a resizing of, say, "50%" rather than individually going in and checking the pixel dimensions and dividing it by two yourself. As far as I am aware, you cannot, and when there's 70 or so images all with different dimensions, that's adding a needless amount of tedious work when the obvious solution is to give them the same dimensions in the first place so it only needs done for one value. And obviously, what makes an icon is determined by whether it is used as an icon. That doesn't even need said, so I don't know where you were going with that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

I do not know if this has been mentioned or demonstrated yet, but this is what the Mario Kart: Toadstool Tour icons look in a gallery when rawsize is integrated:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

and this is what they look like when it is added to the gallery as laid out in this proposal, with heights and widths set to 72.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I do not know if this is apparent in all displays, but Donkey Kong and Bowser are smaller than they should be in the second row. This is happening because the dimensions set for the gallery (72) are smaller than the dimensions of the sprites for DK and Bowser. When the heights and widths are changed to 79 (the pxl height of the biggest sprite), it looks like this:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I do not know if has been alluded to elsewhere in the discussion or changes anything, but I just wanted to point this out. In galleries, you can use rawsize to accurately display assets to scale as long as their are no dimensions set for the gallery, or the dimensions set are larger than the largest sprite. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:04, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

But you can't shrink them or use that outside of galleries, so it is not a solution to the primary issue of "it screws up table cell widths and heights," and "you'd need to go in and resize each individually on a table since mediawiki doesn't have a percent-based standard image-resizer, only a pixel-based one, and that's an unnecessarily large amount of work and added HTML for adding proper-sized bounding boxes separately, needlessly bloating the page's byte count when the easy, practical, and obvious solution is to just upload them with the intentional shared dimensions in the first place." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:26, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

I honestly feel these are valid points. I found instances where it is easier to us certain assets in tables when they are all squared in dimension, and I personally have not heard persuasive reasons why easy integration into templates or tables should always take a backseat to their presence in galleries since we are primarily a resource to be read. Not just browsed. However, this is again a case where I feel allowing users to exercise discretion would be better than a rule. For example, I agree that squaring the Double Dash!! icons is nice, but I don't know how that really benefits the display for the Mario & Sonic Mii costumes.

For clarity, I would not support a proposal that insists we must always crop to content. I understand assets are not always restricted to galleries, and tables and templates are often setup with reliable size parameters. It is generally easier to edit an asset once rather than adjust all the tables it appears to ensure it is displayed in a preferred way, and while cropping to content is nice, I do not personally think it really "ruins" the display in a gallery if one or two assets are out of alignment with their neighbors or look smaller in preview. I at least do not think it is so unsightly that cropping to content should be prioritized over their utility outside of galleries. Users should have the ability to exercise discretion. It remains an important part of making this a communal space. - Nintendo101 (talk) 02:28, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

Keep in mind the proposal is not specifically about keeping the original dimensions, it's more about consistency - cropping can occur as long as that too is consistent. And if an icon is completely unique and not part of any "family" with other ones, then it doesn't matter. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:36, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I think you're missing the point the opposition here or in the previous proposal is trying to make. As far as I'm aware, no one's saying "never do this". It's already done on the wiki, and it's good when the circumstances call for it. I don't think the Diddy Kong Pilot example you posted is that bad but it's definitely better at the consistent dimensions, and I don't see anyone here clamoring to crop down the Double Dash icons either. What I take issue with, and I assume many of my fellow voters feel the same, is this proposal's goal to essentially enforce that across the wiki whether it's helpful and wanted for design purposes or not. The Mario Power Tennis icons you used as an example aren't currently used anywhere on the wiki where inconsistent dimensions actually matter. I assume the Mario & Sonic Mii costumes would also get caught up in this since they're technically icons, but in my opinion, consistent sizing is unnecessary and the images look worse with the extra space needed to accommodate the largest costumes. At the very least you can't say it looks objectively worse that they're not all centered in this case. You've mentioned having OCD several times in these types of discussions, so I recognize and sympathize that some of these inconsistencies can be frustrating for you, but your personal preferences and irritations aren't always going to reflect the majority of the userbase.

Also, the reason rawsize keeps getting brought up is because you were the one who started this proposal with a comparison of images in galleries and made it seem like a key point of your proposal. I'm not sure why you did that, and it feels misrepresentative of the situation at best since you were the one who proposed its wider usage a few months ago and should've known it was an easy solution to the specific problem you were presenting. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 14:59, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

I know I proposed that addition. I mainly used a gallery as an example here because it was convenient to bang out quickly, not at an illustration that it is the only issue brought on by this. In regards to making it a rule though, please recall I am not stating here it "has" to be the native dimensions specifically. Also, we have other image upload rules that some people and/or wikis might consider "draconian" but have been around long enough here that they make perfect sense to us (don't upload non-animated .gif's, don't convert .jpg's to .png's and especially don't give them transparency, don't optimize images with metadata, and the above proposed one with currently unanimous support regarding NES palettes), so I really don't see how this ends up any different. I specifically noted in the proposal and its very title that if it straight-up doesn't work in whatever context, that it doesn't need done for it, so I don't see how it ends up as a problem anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:58, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

This unfortunately contributes to the same problem I had with the previous proposal. Your reply here makes it sound like there would be no substantive or practical difference between how folks generally handle assets already, making it unclear what would actually change if the proposal were to pass. What would change? — Nintendo101 (talk) 16:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

Because when I tried to enforce "how folks generally handle assets already" it was treated as me going notably out-of-line. There's always gonna be someone who uploads a .jpg -> .png image because they don't know any better or don't realize it (I'm guilty of the latter from before I knew to check with the "save image as" function), and that needs to be corrected - it is how we "generally do things," but we do it because that is a thing that needs discouraged, hence there being a rule. I see this as no different from that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:52, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

This proposal is just going to result in a patchwork of interpretation of how to approach these assets. It's a sign of a very flawed proposal. Doesn't help that your entire bedrock of reasoning that led to this kind of proposal (that we should be encouraged to maintain the original dimensions of a ripped sprite), which I have deemed utter nonsense and I stand by it being utter nonsense, continues to be maintained. This leaves me with a not very confident impression you have any clue how these assets are created, stored, and used in a video game, that you understand why an asset is padded and has dimensions of 128x256 or something and why this doesn't mean a wiki should be necessarily maintaining these dimensions. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:33, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

I have explained time and time and time and time and time and time again that this proposal does NOT require the original dimensions. Just shared dimensions. I figured putting it at the top in ALL-CAPS BOLDED BRIGHT PURPLE would be enough to get people to actually read and realize this, but apparently not. Please acknowledge this and stop treating it as though that is my argument here when it is not. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:02, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

Let me clarify: when I mentioned the bedrock of reasoning, I meant to contextualize the situation that led up to the proposal. It's to support my criticism of your proposal, which was made in response to the earlier one that was canceled from mounting opposition, that this follow up proposal is poorly made. Due to the timing of things, it comes off as an attempt to simultaneously continue your practices of insisting that image dimensions are important information to maintain (they are not) but with flawed solutions designed around this flawed principle. To me, this is a confusing proposal that will lead to conflicting approaches to how an asset will be handled, and the examples used don't do a great job clarifying points (this example shouldn't even be a table imo). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 02:04, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

They absolutely are, but regardless of that, if it wasn't a table and were instead a gallery, the OCD-triggering vertical position issue would be even worse. (Seriously, I'd get less feeling of disgust from an animated loop of Wario puking up an endless stream of black dioxic squid ink onto Penny than I get from this - hell, that wouldn't even be half of it. This is trypophobia-level shit here.) In regards to that edit you made to your vote, obviously non-icons are completely unrelated to this. I worded this as specifically as I could to avoid it being abused. This is for icons and icons alone, and by "game-related," I mean such as "MKDD-related" or "MPT-related" to determine which group gets which parameters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:21, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

I think there was some misunderstanding amongst parties after the previous proposal was cancelled. I at least do not think anyone intentionally meant any harm. The impression I have is that a lack of familiarity with certain tools lead to some bad-faith interpretations of why folks did the things that they did. But regardless, I think a gentler, less heavy-handed approach to these types of things would be better going forward. I do not think this needs to be strict policy, or something staff and other users need to enforce. But generally, as a courtesy, if one wants to adjust assets that are being used in particular fashions outside of galleries, it does not hurt to reach out and ask if it would be okay to adjust their dimensions. And if a user cropped material, one should not invoke rules that do not exist as actual policy, or bring up some "innate" sprite-ripping principals that do not exist. (I understand the point of this specific proposal is to make certain rules concrete, but I am referring to some of the interactions I saw between users before this current proposal was raised.) Rather, there is no harm in explaining why it is helpful to keep certain assets at particular dimensions for tables and templates. I know some folks have mentions CSS coding, but no one has bothered explaining what that would look like, and generally, adjusting the empty space around an asset is the most user-friendly and intuitive path to take. - Nintendo101 (talk) 01:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: I believe the proposal is just for the icons within a particular "set" to be consistent with each other, not icons of different sets. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:46, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

@Killer Moth - See the Diddy Kong Pilot table above and the alignment issues it had before I enacted this principle on it, and how it's much more eye-pleasing afterward? That is the point. Without it, they tend to look gross - like that table did before. If you can't see why that's an issue, then I envy you, but it really looks bad - the version with the alignment lines is how my eyes see it even when they aren't there. And I have still yet to see any actual downside to this other than people trying to cram them into signatures, which is... not what the wiki is about and that absolutely should not take priority in presentation. Same reason we don't add fake armbands to Bowser's SMB1 sprite since that's transparency. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:50, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

Again, the dominant perspective of the opposition is not "no, this is a bad idea. No one is allowed to set up assets to make them aligned as they appear in the Diddy Kong Pilot table." Personally, I think the Diddy Kong Pilot example you provided is aesthetically pleasing when the sprites are all aligned, and folks should have the freedom to do that. It is for similar reasons that I integrated organized 100x100px sizing for all images in the mainline game tables and try to ensure columns are the same width across all tables in an article. Rather, the oppositional perspective is, "no, we do not want to police this or make this a type of rule. People should have the freedom to experiment with what types of dimensions they want for the assets used in their tables, and we do not agree that cropping to visual content is inherently destructive of an asset." - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:11, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

I feel doing this is an absolute good, and if someone has the freedom to crop, I have the freedom to restore. Two-way street and all that. Also, LGM's argument from what I can tell is exactly that (which coupled by the general belligerent/caustic directing of profanity towards it) fueled most of this. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

I respect that you view a policy revision like the one advocated for in this proposal is an "absolute good," but I do not think you have made a compelling persuasive argument as to why, or at least not one to me. And I understand your concerns over a "two way streak," but we do have courtesy policies on this wiki. Many of them seem relevant, but the one I would like to highlight is that users should not participate in other users' editing projects without asking them first. Galleries are more of a shared neutral space, but if one wants to crop to content or retain space around ones that are integrated into tables in a spatially-dependent way, it would be courteous for one to reach out to the uploader of those assets first or at least touch base with them. The Mario Power Tennis ones, for example, have only been integrated in one table at the time of this comment and cropping them does not seem to have impacted the layout or scaling in any perceivable way to me. There was no demonstrable harm.

I do not think LGM is advocating that arranging tables like the one in the Diddy Kong Pilot example should not be allowed, or at least that is not my reading of her comments. I believe her perspective is not dissimilar from mine. I would personally appreciate it if you reviewed what I wrote in my vote above. I think it would be clarifying.

I could be wrong, but I believe the curtness comes from statements you had included in the previous proposal that, from her experience as someone who also rips assets and someone who participates on this wiki very regularly, she knew were objectively false, but you were presenting them as hard facts and even invoking them to talk down to another user. This is understandably not appreciated conduct, and it is not uncommon from you. She can speak more to that if she wants to. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:13, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

The statements I made then were accurate too, our perspectives are just completely incompatible. And considering in the cases of those Mii costume images, here, the original uploader (who is supporting this proposal) explicitly wants to keep them they way they were uploaded in, which is what I reverted them to, and LGM is reverting them from. The specific thing she has said that I take issue with is her claim that the space is absolutely worthless and should be removed from everywhere it feasibly can be, which naturally I perceive to be extremely misguided. As for the Mario Power Tennis table, it only looks as good as it does thanks to my own ingenuity of hiding a cell divider bar to make two cells look like one cell - that table is the one that has given me trouble in that regard. Presumably if they are changed to a tabular form, those icons will remain useful if we start covering rivals for it like we do for the 64 game, but by then it'd be easier if they did share parameters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

Maintaining space needs to be done for a good reason, and having it simply because it was ripped that way is not a good reason. It is okay to find an example where extra space is needed but that table provided is a heavily flawed example due to being an inappropriate use of a table and the suggestion below that does fix the issue to begin with (and probably there is a code for horizontal alignment too). As for Mario Power Tennis table, if you're referring to this one[1] that's another fundamentally flawed table which was one of the many other tables that prompted criticism by multiple users and would not be my example to try to illustrate a proposal. The one example I think may work is File:MK8 Mario Icon.png due to its use in multiple pages and being in an array with similar scaled images, which were all put in a 128x128 box. Not sure if cropping to content is going to lead to unexpected results but for the record, I don't see the point of cropping to content for these Mario Kart 8 things either, since they're already reasonably occupying the space (unlike those Mario Kart Double Dash map icons which were heavily padded); it's a case of don't fix what isn't broken. The proposal doesn't really advocate any of this. It's, what I can glean, a way to maintain aspect ratio while cropping tightly as possible without losing information, but dressed up in bad examples and imprecise wording (like the proposal does not even define what a "game-related 'icon-type' image" is, so). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:56, November 2, 2024 (EDT)

I was more referring to how the N64 Mario Tennis had a separate "partners/rivals" table before I incorporated that information into the main character table, and it used the face icons. I was saying if MPT did something similar, which it probably should if there is indeed a hard-coded system like that in the game. I don't really think I need to define the icon thing; but if you insist, I mean "icon" as in "a small image representing a subject," with "game related" simply meaning as a per-game basis (ie, MK64 icons have no bearing on MKDD icons). (Also, off-topic, but how else would the Diddy Kong Pilot example be handled if not as a table? There's other information below it that's been cropped out.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:52, November 2, 2024 (EDT)

The Diddy Kong example, too, can be easily fixed with aforementioned styling, in this case by using vertical-align: bottom. That is to say however that those sprites are of a size where it makes sense for all of them to just retain their original size, I would not crop those either. There are cases like the Mii suits from the other day where it does make sense to crop them. Lakituthequick 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not all of them have flat bottoms in other games, of course, while that also doesn't fix the left-right issue. But yes, I digress. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals

One thing I never understood about rule 2 is why unregistered users are not allowed to comment under proposals. The rule states: "Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals." While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all, talk page proposals are a different story. Why should IPs be prevented from commenting under talk page proposals? Most IPs are readers of this wiki and they should be allowed to express their opinion on wiki matters too. I've seen several examples of IPs making good points on talk pages, I imagine most of them are regular visitors who are more interested in reading rather than editing, and allowing them to leave a comment under a TPP would only be beneficial.

If this proposal passes, unregistered and not-autoconfirmed users would be permitted to comment under talk page proposals. They still wouldn't be allowed to vote or create proposals, only comment.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (unregistered users proposal)

1. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) Wait, this was a rule?
3. Pseudo (talk) This rule doesn't really seem like it accomplishes anything.
4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Why wasn't this already applicable?
6. EvieMaybe (talk) it makes sense if it's just for comments
7. Drago (talk) The rule was only changed because of this page's semi-protection and not, as far as I can tell, because of any misuse of comment sections by unregistered users. Per all.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) This is a reasonable change.
9. Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.
10. Ray Trace (talk) Anons use the wiki too and should be able to voice their concerns in the comments section, there's no reason to bar them the ability to comment.
11. Mario (talk) We'll see if the Bunch of Numbers behave.

Oppose (unregistered users proposal)

1. SeanWheeler (talk) Unregistered users just have numbers for their names, so that looks awkward with the way the votes are counted. It's easy to use your IP to sockpuppet, so I wouldn't want anyone doing that for the votes. And even for just the comments, I wouldn't want anyone to sockpuppet in an argument for manipulation tactics. Nor do I want to see poor grammer or vandalism. Anyone who wants to participate in voting discussions should sign up. This page was semiprotected for a reason. SeanWheeler (talk) 00:19, November 1, 2024 (EDT)

Comments (unregistered users proposal)

"While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all"
If the protection history displayed above this page's edit box is any indication, it was the other way around. There was already a rule against anonymous voting on this page by the time it was semi-protected. In that case, it might be useful to look into the reasons this rule was made in the first place and, if there's any disagreement, extend this proposal to this page too. As to where these reasons are stated, I don't know. My assumption is that the rule exists because anons are more prone to shit up the place than registered and autoconfirmed users. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:15, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

I couldn't find a reason why IPs were disallowed to comment. My only assumption is that when this page was protected the rule was modified to mention that IPs couldn't comment, but talk page proposals weren't considered. I'll look into it more and potentially add a third option to allow IPs to comment here as well. Axii (talk) 16:20, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler - This isn't about voting, it's about commenting. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:04, November 1, 2024 (EDT)

For real, do you even read before voting on proposals? It's a small paragraph that makes it very clear that it's only about commenting under talk page proposals, not even on this page. Axii (talk) 01:07, November 1, 2024 (EDT)

Decide whether to cover the E3 2014 Robot Chicken-produced sketches

For E3 2014, Nintendo's press conference was a video presentation similar to today's Nintendo Directs, featuring clips of stop-motion sketches by the producers of Robot Chicken. I feel that these qualify to receive coverage on this wiki, since their appearance in a video published by Nintendo means that they are officially authorized, and they prominently feature Mario franchise characters. However, I have never seen the sketches discussed in any wiki article, nor are they listed on MarioWiki:Coverage, so I thought it would be appropriate to confirm their validity for coverage with a proposal.

The following articles would be affected by this proposal if it passes (since the E3 2014 video is not a game, film, etc., coverage is best suited to an "Other appearances" section):

• History of Mario
• History of Bowser
• History of Princess Peach
• History of Wario
• Reggie Fils-Aimé
• Fire Flower
• Bullet Bill
• List of implied entertainment (In the last sketch, Mario mentions the fictional game Mario Ballet).

Regardless of which option ends up winning, a note should be added to MarioWiki:Coverage to explain how these sketches are classified. Also, I'm clarifying that this proposal does not involve any sketches from Robot Chicken itself, since those are clearly parodies that have no approval from Nintendo.

Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk)
Deadline: November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) This feels logical enough that I'm not sure it needs a proposal or even an explicit note on the coverage policy, but per proposal just in case.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
4. Tails777 (talk) Some of them were Mario related so I don't see any reason not to mention them. Per proposal.
5. Ray Trace (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

SeanWheeler (talk) Robot Chicken is an adult parody show. To cover Robot Chicken in Mario's history is like taking the Family Guy cutaway gags as canon. The Robot Chicken sketches including the E3 specials are covered in List of references in animated television.

Comments

Uh, SeanWheeler? You may want to see MarioWiki:Canonicity. There is no canon in Super Mario. And being an "adult" show shouldn't prevent text from being referenced in normal articles given the wiki does not censor anything. (The last point on MarioWiki:Courtesy, and the set of arguing over Bob Hoskins's page quote.) I guess one could discount the sketches on account of them as parodies, but given the "no canon" bit that seems hard to justify. Salmancer (talk) 21:01, November 3, 2024 (EST)

Require citations for release dates

Recently, a proposal decided that not sourcing a foreign name puts the article into a meta category of "unsourced foreign names". But I'd say a similar idea should be implemented to release dates for things such as games, movies, episodes, etc. (basically anything that has a release date). Because, for example, there's been many times where I've seen an exact release date pinpointed and I think "where did they get that date from?", and after a bit of research, I can't find any reliable source with said exact release date. Release dates being sorted like this would be nice.

Proposer: Starluxe (talk)
Deadline: November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Starluxe (talk) Per my proposal
2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) I agree.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, how is this not already policy??? Per proposal.
5. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I personally find that a lot of release dates for games on the internet come from hearsay, and copying what other sites say without actually double checking that info, so this would be great for guaranteeing accuracy.
6. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

What source you think is acceptable for release dates? I personally use GameFAQs. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:05, November 2, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Either remove non-English names from cartoon dubs that weren't overseen by Nintendo or affiliated companies, or allow English names from closed captions

"What does one have to do with the other?" You'll see!

Back in 2021, there was a proposal to allow closed captions used on Mario cartoons uploaded or streamed officially online to be used as sources on the wiki. It encountered massive opposition, with one comment left by a user in a previous discussion acting as the cornerstone of the opposition's rationale. The link intended to lead to that comment, seen under that proposal, doesn't do its job any more, so I'm copy-pasting it here for your convenience.

“re closed caption: The relation between WildBrain and video streaming platforms like Netflix is the same one Nintendo has with retaillers like Gamespot: meaning the owner of the property sells the product to the retailler/streaming website, and they may supply other material (like artwork, press releases, etc) to help the client market the product. However, that doesn't mean everything the client does with the product is now official; for instance, Gamespot has in the past created fake placeholder boxarts for Mario games using edited official artwork. Gamestop may be an authorized (or "official") retailler of Mario products but it doesn't make those placeholder boxarts by association as they were made entirely by Gamespot without inputs from the creators of the source material.

“In that respect, closed captions fall in the same category as placeholder retailler-made boxarts. Closed captions are made by people with no relation to the source material or access to behind-the-scenes material like script, and who are just writing down what they hear by ear. They are not an acceptable source for spellings.”

~ Glowsquid (talk), 2021

This is valid. In all this talking about what is official and what is not, I suppose it feels right to draw a concrete line somewhere. Someone who acquires the rights to use Nintendo's or one of their partners' IP to use it for a given purpose is technically an authorized party, but they're no authority themselves over the content within. Makes sense.

...Meaning the multilanguage names invoked in the proposal's title stick out all the more like a sore thumb. A good chunk of them, at least. Why would the wiki treat a studio or company that dubs and distributes syndicated Mario cartoons to a given demographic as particularly authoritative over the content? Ultimately, it's the same situation as the one described in the quote, the apparent clincher being that it's in a different language, and I apologize, but I don't see how it is consistent to prohibit third-party English subtitles but allow foreign dubs by people that are just as far-removed from the parent company. I propose a compromise.

Of course, not all foreign dubs would be off limits as sources should the second option of this proposal win. If one can provide sufficient proof that a given dub was supervised by one or more employees representing a company with authority over the original product, i.e. that the company left their mark on the endeavor, sourcing it is absolutely fine. As it stands, though, I can already point to the Romanian dubs of the Mario DIC cartoons as ineligible for sourcing given my failing to find any evidence DIC Entertainment ever put its signature on them. (This is coming from someone who contributed a significant amount of names from these dubs. Sometimes you gotta kill your darlings.)

"So if option 1 wins, 'Ahehehaue' is considered official again?"

No. That doesn't come from a closed caption, and I consider WildBrain's issue of circular sourcing to be a whole other can of worms best left out of this week's topic.

(added 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)) "Does the proposal extend to the live-action segments of the Super Show?"

Yes, they're within the same package.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Allow the sourcing of English closed captions from officially uploaded and streamed Mario animated works

1. Hewer (talk) Perhaps I just have a more liberal understanding of "official" (as an Ahehehauhe defender), but after proposals like this, this, and this, I feel like all these should be close enough to official to be worth documenting. And aren't games like Hotel Mario a bit of a similar case, where the "official" involvement didn't go much further than licensing them?
2. Ahemtoday (talk) I think the difference between closed captions and placeholder retailer box art is that the closed captions are a(n optional) part of the media as it can be officially experienced. As such, I think it counts as "official" regardless of who did it.
3. SeanWheeler (talk) Well, we would need some kind of source for names of characters that never appeared in English localizations.
4. Pseudo (talk) These names would be familiar to some viewers of the material, if nothing else, and it seems a bit odd to consider them completely unofficial even if they weren't overseen by the original creators.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) a license is a license
6. UltraMario (talk) Per all. I still believe that these should still count as official enough, as they are the providers of the content and it's like a license of a license.

Remove names that originate from non-English dubs of Mario animated works that were not overseen by Nintendo or an affiliated company

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. I found the argument persuasive.

Comments (closed captions vs. foreign dubs proposal)

Waltuh... I'm not voting right now, Waltuh... -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:01, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne By "not overseen by Nintendo/DiC", do you mean they gave the go-ahead but didn't have any direct involvement in production, or the dubs were produced by a third party with no permission whatsoever? I'd consider being more charitable for the former, but if it's completely unauthorized then that's basically equivalent to a bootleg or fan translation and probably shouldn't be covered. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:07, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

First one. The proposal only touches on the scenario where a company that airs a dubbed Mario cartoon has a license to do so from the work's owner. Anything outside of such a licensing agreement is completely unofficial, like you pointed out. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT), edited 17:44, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

Added stipulation that the proposal extends to live-action Super Show segments. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

What is "Ahehehauhe?" SeanWheeler (talk) 23:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)

It's a clip of a Super Show episode uploaded to YouTube by WildBrain, the current owners of most of DIC Entertainment's library (including their Mario shows). On the wiki, "Ahehehauhe" used to redirect to that episode's article because it was deemed an "official" alternate title given WildBrain's ownership status over the material, which many found outrageous since it barely passes as a "title" and is simply a transcription of the characters cackling in that clip. We don't even know if a human consciously named the clip that; it could've been a bot. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 06:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)

Now, "Ahehehauhe" isn't linked to the WildBrain-related circular sourcing issues I mentioned in the proposal (they used names from the wiki in promotional texts, which Ahaha isn't one of). However, if the same policy used for the English Super Mario Encyclopedia is to be applied to WildBrain on the same grounds, then the only case where a name they used for a given subject should be employed by the wiki is (a) if the name didn't come from the wiki in the first place, and (b) there are no other known names for that subject. Even if we're to consider Ahahahue a unique and proper way to call an episode of a TV show, its use would still be untenable under the second point. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 06:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)