MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, March 30th, 04:17 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  3. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  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 acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  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 "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  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.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  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 passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
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)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)
Merge Beanbean Coin to Coin, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 22, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Properly define Brown Yoshi, PopitTart (ended March 27, 2025)
Create page for Floating Voices and split Tomorrow Hill, Blinker (ended March 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Discourage the use of directives from a third-person perspective

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 31, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

This proposal aims to discourage the use of making the articles read like a strategy guide from a third-person perspective. It's a big pet peeve of mine, and I cannot begin to list how many times I've seen phrases like "the player must" or "the character has to" when the gameplay experience is relative to the player, especially in open world and role-playing games. Even if the gameplay is linear and straightforward, there are still different ways of wording something.

  • "Mario must stomp a Goomba to defeat it." can be written as "Mario can stomp a Goomba to defeat it."
  • "The solo player must knock their rivals off the stage." can be written as "The solo player can knock their rivals off the stage to win."

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: April 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support, including level, minigame/microgame, and game articles

Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Support, excluding level, minigame/microgame, and game articles

Oppose

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer and Salmancer in the comments. "Can" implies a level of optionality that isn't suitable for, say, Mario Party minigames, which have one win condition and no alternatives.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Hewer, Salmancer, and Ahemtoday.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per my comments. I get where this proposal is coming from, but I don't think replacing "must" with "can" solves any problems.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per all. This is perfectly reasonable language to use on a video game wiki.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per others; "can" only makes sense in situations where there are multiple options, and a blanket change like this naturally ignores the cases where there's really only one option. This is something that's far better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not all at once.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. I don't see much of a problem with the current writing - we're detailing a video game series, it's going to read a little like a strategy guide from time to time - but even if it were a problem, this isn't the solution. Wording like "The solo player can knock their rivals off the stage to win." makes it more unclear by implying there's other ways to win the minigame.
  7. Mario (talk) Pedantic
  8. Power Flotzo (talk) Change for the sake of change. Per all.
  9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  10. Ray Trace (talk) No.
  11. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  12. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  13. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

I would say "Mario must stomp a Goomba to defeat it" is objectively true, as in, Mario stomping on a Goomba is a requirement for defeating it, without necessarily implying that defeating it is something he must do in general. The second example could similarly work if you just add "to win" on the end ("The solo player must knock their rivals off the stage to win"). I don't like "The solo player can knock their rivals off the stage to win" as much because the usage of "can" implies that there are other ways in which the player could win. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:42, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

To me, it reads too much like a strategy guide and not a formal encyclopedic resource. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:43, March 24, 2025 (EDT)
I disagree. We already avoid strategy guide-like writing by not referring to the reader. I don't see how adding a bit more ambiguity when describing what the player is meant to do helps. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:50, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

This is a wiki about video games, of which the majority of them of which have goals, win states, fail states, and very linear ways to reach win states. I don't think moving away from "must" or "is required to" is going to make explanations any clearer, especially for situations where there is only one possible action (the average microgame, and a decent number of minigames), situations where order is critically important (puzzle games, like levels of Mario vs Donkey Kong), and situations regarding game structure (defeat the boss to unlock the next world). I would only support this proposal if it has no effect on game articles, minigame articles, and level articles. Salmancer (talk) 09:46, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

@Salmancer Okay, I've added the option earlier. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:52, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

The only benefit I can see to this is when there are alternatives available (ie, Goombas can also be defeated with other attacks... not to mention all the nonsense on Tick-Tock Clock's pages I had to remove about some missions "needing" the clock to be on to complete them, or that chunked Luma in one of the Battlerock Galaxy's level's "needing" to be hit twice, because there's a decent amount of that kind of writing covering up pure skill issues). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

Standardize "Game appearances" and/or "Appearances" as the section title over "History"

This is another proposal I've meant to create for a while now, when I saw @CyonOfGaia accidentally add it to the sandbox page while drafting Mario vs. Donkey Kong level pages.

Currently, the "History" section is mandated. The problem I have with the title is that "History" suggests a chronological order, but that is only enforced within the series' sub-sections. Not to mention there is almost no continuity in the Super Mario franchise. Besides continuity, "History" also evokes the thought of years, and I almost never see those mentioned in articles. Also, history could ambiguously mean real life as well, which it typically does.

"Appearances" is a more clear title because it narrows down the definition to only what the subject is as it appears in the games. "Game appearances" can be used to clarify subjects that appear only in video games and no other media, but the section heading should be changed to "Appearances" if it appears in other forms of media, too. I'll make two options in the proposal if some think "Appearances" is sufficient enough.

Edit: This will affect "History of" pages like History of Mario to become Appearances of Mario, but in case that's the only part of the proposal one disagrees with, I've added Option 3, which is the same as Option 2, but will keep the "History of" title intact for all articles under Category:Histories and its subcategories.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: April 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Support, as "Game appearances" or "Appearances"

Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Support, with only "Appearances"

  1. Hewer (talk) Honestly, I don't mind this idea. "Appearances" communicates what the section is about a bit more clearly than "History". (Though option 1 doesn't make sense to me, it would just create a completely needless inconsistency.)

Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.

Option 3: Support, but keep "History of" prefix

Super Mario RPG (talk) Third choice.

Oppose

  1. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per MarioWiki:Manual of Style § History: "Appearances in the History section are organized according to the international release date of defined franchise (as opposed to general franchises), series, and independent titles, regardless of the "media" form the appearance takes." To my understanding, this means history sections are sorted by the release date of the respective games/other media contained within the section, so the "History" section is in fact chronological. Besides that, an "Appearances" section, especially as an article title such as "Appearances of Mario", implies that the section/article is just a list of the media in which the subject appears, when these sections actually contain a detailed description of each past appearance, which is the dictionary definition of "history".
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) needless change for change's sake
  3. Ray Trace (talk) No.
  4. Technetium (talk) It's fine as is.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  6. Power Flotzo (talk) Like Evie said, this doesn't accomplish anything.
  7. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

So would pages like History of Mario would be moved to "Appearances of Mario"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:13, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

I'll make an option for that. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:52, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

@ThePowerPlayer: History sections aren't really chronological because they're sorted by series. For example, on History of Mario, Super Mario Odyssey comes before Mario Kart 64. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:36, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

Fair enough. They do still chronicle all of the past appearances of a subject, though, which is what "history" means. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 22:47, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

Use the cross-generation data for the video game console generation label

It's been three months, seven weeks, and three days since the last proposal was vetoed by the staff. Just as Bro3256 said, the video game console generations are categorized as follows within the scope of Nintendo's video game systems:

First generation
Color TV-Game
Second generation
Game & Watch
Third generation
Family Computer / Nintendo Entertainment System
Fourth generation
Super Famicom / Super Nintendo Entertainment System; Game Boy
Fifth generation
Virtual Boy; Nintendo 64; Game Boy Color
Sixth generation
Game Boy Advance; Nintendo GameCube
Seventh generation
Nintendo DS; Wii
Eighth generation
Nintendo 3DS; Wii U; Nintendo Switch
Ninth generation
Nintendo Switch; Nintendo Switch 2

This proposal adds the Nintendo Switch 2 to the scope of the video game consoles by generation.

The real solution is that we will be able to add the generation2 parameter to the {{system infobox}} template.

This is what the generation parameter reads as follows: 

{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}
}}

Once this proposal passes, then this is what the generation parameter will read as follows: 

{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{#if:{{{generation2}}}|Cross-generation ({{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}}}} – {{wp|{{{generation2}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation2}}}}})|{{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}}}
}}

If we use the generation2 parameter to the Nintendo Switch page, we'll need to use this: 

|generation=eighth
|generation=ninth

This will read as follows:

Cross-generation (eighth – ninth)

Now all of that will be the solution if the generation2 parameter was added to the {{system infobox}} template. It's so easy to understand which generations a video game system are part of. When it comes to the Switch being a cross-generation video game console, we all know that the work needed will add an extra generation.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: April 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: We're crossing over!

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: We should cross it out...

Cross-comments

To clarify, the original proposal was vetoed by staff because the original proposer requested it to be (it was too late for them to cancel it themselves). As such, I'm not sure if Bro3256 still agrees with these arguments. Technetium (talk) 12:30, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

Actually, aside from the subject, Bro3256's proposal is entirely irrelevant to what GuntherBaybee is proposing, if I'm reading this correctly:
  • Bro3256 proposed to entirely remove video game console generations and redefine it by home console and handheld console (and, for reasons I still don't understand to this day, not count the Virtual Boy at all).
  • GuntherBayBee instead proposes to add a generation2 parameter to {{System infobox}}, to account for the fact that the Nintendo Switch is a cross-generational system. It's not about removing or redefining the console generations at all: it's just about the console generations.
ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

Are you sure the Switch 2 is a cross-generation system, instead of just a gen 10 console? Remember that the Switch 1 has been on the market for over 8 years now, which is far longer than a regular console has lasted before a successor has been released. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

I'm sure that the Switch 2 will be a cross-generation system if Sony and Microsoft officially announce the tenth-generation successors to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S respectively. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 13:45, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
No, I mean, the Switch 2 probably is not a gen 9 console. Obviously it will be competing with the successors of the PS5 and Xbox Series X, but I doubt it will compete with the PS5 and Xbox Series X themselves. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 13:53, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

New features

Allow pages for the Captain N episodes where Donkey Kong is a central character

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on April 1, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Captain N: The Game Master is an odious travesty of a cartoon that has a page on here because Donkey Kong is a recurring character. It's classified as a "Guest Appearance" by Mariowiki:Coverage and that's really the best spot for it: Donkey Kong only appears in a few episodes (7 out of 34), is not central to the premise of the show and beside him being there, the cartoon doesn't pull much from Mario or related properties.

Most of Donkey's appearance in the show are padding or sight gags, but three episodes stand out for having him be central to their plot:

  • Simon the Ape-Man: Simon Belmont gets a big bonk on the head, believes himself to be DK Jr, and tries to rejoin his "father" while the other protagonists try to stop him:
  • Queen of the Apes: An experiment by Dr. Wily causes Donkey Kong, Mother Brain, and Game Boy to exchange their brains.
  • The Lost City of Kongoland: The protagonists explore Donkey Kong's dimension and help him get rid of plant monsters.

I believe the wiki would be served by allowing pages for these three episodes for the following episodes:

  • These are Extremely Important bits of Donkey Kong lore that warrant a complete summary instead of having incomplete fragments spread out over the involved character's pages.
  • It will make it easier for other editors to summarize content for the Definitely-About-To-Exist-Any-Days-Nows pages of Crossover with Castlevania, Crossover with Mega Man, Crossover with Metroid and Crossover with Kid Icarus pages without having to suffer the psychic damage of watching Captain N themselves
  • The wiki would only find itself blessed and see its quality greatly increases by having more content describing the actions of Captain N Simon Belmont, who is AWESOME.

Mariowiki:Coverage notes "Please note that a proposal should be made before a game is classified as a "guest appearance", as this is a somewhat tricky distinction and there could easily be disagreement in the community about the extent to which coverage should be granted to any given non-Super Mario game." so that's what I am doing. Nevertheless I am certain I made a perfect case and everyone will agree with me.

Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: April 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (allow pages for these three Captain N episodes)

  1. Glowsquid (talk) - I don't know who this "Glowsquid" is but I do wish to subscribe to his newspaper.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense, and it's roughly equivalent to what exists of our Saturday Supercade coverage, but for a series that's far more documented. Per proposal.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal. Monkey noises.
  4. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Considering the poor coverage of these episodes on Fandom's Captain N Wiki, each only featuring a short summary of the episode, as well as the general lack of maintenance on the site, I strongly support this proposal.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly I kinda like the Lost City episode. It helps it's the first time DK has a tie and treehouse.
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Insert DK64 clip of Donkey Kong saying "OKAY!" here.
  8. Rykitu (talk) Captain N deserves better coverage on a platform like Mirahaze than on *shudders* Fandom. Even if we aren't giving it full coverage here.
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  10. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense. can DK's role in the other four episodes where he's not a main character be summarized in the Captain N article itself, too?
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. Plus the Captain N Wiki on Fandom is very poorly maintained and lacks information.
  12. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Status Quo (no pages)

Comments

If this proposal passes, will we add an infobox for the Captain N: The Game Master episodes? Maw-Ray Master (talk) 20:45, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

why wouldn't we. --Glowsquid (talk) 22:31, March 25, 2025 (EDT)

Create an article for Character Icons

Since emblems have an article, I think character icons should have an article too. I was thinking it could be a gallery. There are just so many character icons for just one character (just see how many Mario’s had)! It could anlso have the same structure as Gallery:Emblem. And it wouldn’t be the first gallery to not have an article talking about the subject. Take “Gallery:Orange Yoshi” as an example.
EDIT: To answer EvieMaybe, this is a character icon... Bowser Jr. player icon sprite in Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury
...and we would benefit from this article the same way we benefit from the emblems article: organized "images" (I have O.C.D., so that's why I want it organized.)

Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: April 9, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

Oppose

  1. Shadow2 (talk) I don't even think we need the Emblem page, to be honest. That page already has very vague interpretations about what is and is not an emblem, and I think that vagueness would get even worse with a Character Icons page.

Comments

please elaborate more on your proposal. what exactly do you mean by "character icons"? can you give examples? what benefit would this article have? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 17:14, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

I'll try to answer that. Weegie baby (talk) 11:14, March 28, 2025 (EDT)
i still don't really see the benefit of it. maybe you should draft an article — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 12:12, March 28, 2025 (EDT)

I could see utility in a gallery for them (I've uploaded a lot myself, after all), but I'm not so sure about an actual article page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:39, March 28, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.

Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)

If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if Builder Mario had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if Mole Yoshi had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the Super Pickax had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)

But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:

I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared to base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.

Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would Mega Yoshi be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Even though one needs to know how to Tail Swipe to beat all Mega Yoshi areas? Would Penguin Mario be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? Which is main unique thing about it, given Ice Balls are from Ice Mario and good swimming is from Frog Mario? If we gave the field form of Luiginary Ball a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer? Again, something necessary to complete the ball's tutorial area?

As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a {{main}} article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how Dash handles the Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) (Relevant Edit) and the Spin Dash (Relevant Edit). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.

This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on Spin Jump, Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on Swim, Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on Roll, and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely Fireball, Ice Ball, Hammer, and Bubble. Builder Boxes are Crates, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with Superball Mario years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. Yoshi's Swallow, Egg Throw, et al, Baby DK's DK Dash Attack, Diddy Kong's Diddy Attack and Barrel Jet, and Rambi's Supercharge and Charge are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. SMB2 Mario is bizarre, but charge jump is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, and the article doesn’t have a Super Mario Maker 2 section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.

Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut Fly, an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of {{main}} templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a userpage, based on the existing List of power-ups. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article. As the various contexts of Fly are not the same kind of action to begin with, the article will become List of methods of flight. This broadens the scope to fit all of the components. (Note how "flight" is not a proper noun).

Tail whip was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. Tails are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to Cape, which used to compile the yellow capes of Cape Mario and Superstar Mario into a listicle before this proposal reduced it to only the Smash Bros. attack.)

Oh yeah and I guess Strike of Intuition is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to Detective Peach. Given everything else, it gets merged too.

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert Fly into a list with the name List of methods of flight

  1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is

Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list with the name List of methods of flight

Oppose: Status quo

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate Mariowiki:Once and only once EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find. Furthermore, we do not merge character-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-Mario characters in the Super Smash Bros. series) - for instance, look at Scuttle and Flutter Jump - so why should we do so with forms?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per others; this would probably make more sense if we had more move coverage as a whole, but as for right now, this feels a bit extraneous.
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)

I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. Salmancer (talk) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Question; would this merge Fireball Punch, and would this failing result in re-instating Dangan Mario? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. Salmancer (talk) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been retired. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Thanks, wish I'd known that before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the Luigi Cap. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..

After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies.

- Penguin Mario

The system works! It's repeated for White Raccoon Mario in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for Power Squirrel Mario to Flying Squirrel Mario, with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". Salmancer (talk) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? Salmancer (talk) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until Super Mario 3D Land, despite it being usable by that form in Super Mario Bros. 3? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine.

In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves, making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing X Button or Y Button) and glide (now done by holding A Button or B Button, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.
Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"
In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

On the leading "Princess" for Peach/Daisy/Rosalina, and/or lackthereof

Brace yourselves--this is gonna be a long one.

In July of last year, jan Misali created a proposal to remove the leading "Princess" from the article name for "Princess Daisy". This failed 15-18, as people were interested in a proposal to move Peach alongside this. In November of last year, jan Misali created a follow-up proposal do exactly this, which failed again; among other concerns regarding redirects, most of the support was split between moving both Peach and Daisy to their Princess-less counterparts, and just moving Daisy, leaving the opposition in the lead. Guess third time's the charm.

The question is simple; do we remove "Princess" from the names of the Princess Peach and Princess Daisy articles? Time and time again, we've removed or truncated full names or particles to more common names. However, for whatever reason, the "Princess" particles for Peach and Daisy stick, despite Nintendo being very hit-or-miss about how required these are, especially for Daisy, whose "Princess, despite never doing anything royal outside of her debut" status has been acknowledged, officially, multiple times.

To recap the cases in favor of these renames for people that didn't read those first two proposals, the case for Daisy in particular is very strong, so we'll start with her. Simply put, Nintendo so rarely calls her by the name of "Princess Daisy" that it's starting to become a surprise when they do call her that in things like HotWheels character cars. To re-iterate a point made in jan Misali's original proposal, the count of times where Daisy is overtly referred to as "Princess Daisy" outside of manuals or other such paratexts can be counted on two hands, and even then, only barely; once in Super Mario Bros. Print World (which also erroneously calls Peach "Daisy" at one point), the two baseball games and Fortune Street interchange "Daisy" and "Princess Daisy" in dialogue but all UI uses just "Daisy", Super Mario Run being in a similar boat but with in-game descriptions for Remix 10 instead of dialogue, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, where Palutena calls her that. In every other case, including her own debut game, she is generally called "Daisy".

For Daisy, there is also the strange asterisk that is her film equivalent, but given the context of the plot of the film itself--that Daisy is unaware of her own royal status for the bulk of the film, and is simply referred to as just "Daisy" for most of it, we personally think it's fair to move her to "Daisy (film character) and add a Full Name parameter to clarify her "Princess Daisy" title she has towards the end. That being said, even her own official trading card just calls her Daisy, and apparently the "Princess Daisy" title only gets dropped on the back of "Sad Goodbyes", which we lack an image for.

The case for Princess Peach is less strong, partially thanks to the release of Princess Peach: Showtime!, a game in 2024 that makes rather overt use of "Princess Peach"; however, it is worth noting that Nintendo still does play rather fast-and-loose with the "Princess" particle for her as well. Most spinoffs will truncate the "Princess" off of her name, as far back as Mario Kart 64 and even after the release of Showtime, later that same year, Super Mario Party Jamboree also truncated the "Princess" off of Peach's name. While we acknowledge it's odd to laser in on exactly one game, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe just calls her "Peach", and that is one of the best-selling games in the entire Mario franchise.

We've seen various arguments against these, and aside from "personal preference for preferring particles", which we obviously can't argue with (at least, not without looking silly), we can't say we understand the majority of them:

  • Concerns were risen about removing royalty particles from other article names, such as Princess Shokora or Princess Shroob or King Bob-omb or Prince Mush (never mind that in his case, it's a stage name and not royalty). In those cases, the characters have never been referred to without their particles that we could find unless there was already an older name in the first place, such as "Big Bob-omb" for "King Bob-omb" (it's possible there's remote dialogue or an obscure Manga appearance we don't have on-record, but we're doubtful). These would retain their particles, as per our Naming policies determining that the most common English name is what is used, and in these cases, the particle is included almost 100% of the time. In contrast, Nintendo has been fairly interchangeable with Peach and Daisy's "princess" particles, and in Daisy's case, her particle has only become increasingly rarer as time goes on. If instances were located where the aforementioned characters lacked their particles short of the Big/King Bob-omb example, that would be something worth acknowledging, but in their cases, the particles being excluded is overwhelmingly the exception, not the norm.
  • Concerns have been risen about the Peach and Daisy article titles potentially referring to generic subjects; however, as of writing this proposal, both "Peach" and "Daisy" directly lead to their corresponding princesses anyways by means of redirects. Other subjects are instead given a "For <x>, see <y>" in the Princess' articles introductions. These redirects are already present as-is, and these changes wouldn't change how a search lands.
  • For internet traffic, given Peach and Daisy already lead to these articles, we still fail to see how this would impact much, unless we intentionally chose to not leave a redirect after a move; it should go without saying that, if we were to make a move of this magnitude, we would absolutely be leaving a redirect.
  • On a meta level, for the "would prefer one, but not the other" angle that was part of the reason the second proposal failed, we have since introduced a poll format to more adequately determine more nuanced situations like this, without risking support being split between two groups and being out-numbered overall.
  • While this was not mentioned in the original proposals to our awareness, we do acknowledge that some people may be concerned about the costs of labor of changing a bunch of links; however, not only could this trivially be an automated rename, something our proprietor already does fairly regularly with template names, even if this were somehow unworkable, we already have ample tools to manually perform such a change built into MediaWiki itself. We are well-aware of what this wiki's userbase can do when it comes to making these mass-changes, and we think we have a very capable userbase when it comes to deploying a change like this, either automatically or by hand.

There are also two characters we think are worth acknowledging, one brought up by jan Misali when we shared this proposal's draft with them, and one we noticed ourselves. For jan Misali's part, there's Bowser, or rather, King Bowser... Or rather, how in-frequently Bowser is known as "King Bowser". It's to the point where mentions of "King Koopa" as he appears in the DiC cartoons severely outnumber the amount of times Bowser is actually called "King Bowser" outright. This is exceedingly non-contentious, and while a King Bowser redirect has existed since 2006, we can't tell when the last time "King Bowser" was overtly used in dialogue. All we can really say is, having played Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser recently, it's not in that, with Bowser usually just being referred to as, well, Bowser, with the occasional uses of "Lord" or other offbeat honorifics instead of "King".

However, to us, the real smoking gun for why a move like this would not only make sense, but be perfectly fine for the wiki, has been sitting right underneath our noses the entire time. Rosalina, or should we say Princess Rosalina? Rosalina has been called a Princess from sources dating as far back as 2010 and as recently as 2023. She's commonly colloquially known as a Princess by fans. Heck, Princess Rosalina is, as of writing this proposal, a valid redirect to her article, and her infobox states her full name is "Princess Rosalina". However, her article has sat at the title of "Rosalina" since its inception back in 2007, with the Princess redirect only being made in 2014. Rosalina is a Featured Article, so her page naturally receives a lot of traffic and scrutiny, but nobody seems to have questioned if it would be worth moving her article to "Princess Rosalina" to match the other two princesses; and while one could argue that Rosalina is "not much of a princess", that naturally begets the response that neither is Daisy, who keeps the particle anyways. There's not really any reason we can think of why Daisy should keep her particle if Rosalina hasn't ever held one and it's seemingly never been questioned, and from there, we could understand removing the particle from Peach's name for parity's sake. (Even still, if you really wanted to, we've provided an option to, in addition for what to do to the "Princess" particles in Peach & Daisy's names, if we should add one to Rosalina's name, or keep it absent. We don't really intend to include something like this for "King Bowser" as, while "Princess Rosalina" at least has a plurality number of cases we could find of that name being used, we could literally only find one "King Bowser", in Nintendo Comics System.)

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Peach?

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and certainly more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
  4. Rykitu (talk) All 5 Princess Peach games have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
  5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
  6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  7. Pseudo (talk) While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her full proper name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
  9. Sdman213 (talk) per all.
  10. Tails777 (talk) I still stand by Daisy being referred to as her shortened name, but I feel this can be a case where consistency doesn't really need to be a necessity: Princess Peach is still a very commonly used name for Peach herself and while just referring to her as Peach is as common, the full name is still used much more often when compared to Daisy and especially compared to Rosalina.
  11. SmokedChili (talk) Per all. As I’ve said before, keeping these extended names is fine because they work like identifiers and offer clarification pre-emptively and at the first sight. I’ve also pointed out that the current guidelines don’t say anything about extending names based on official material and suggested making them usable (in limited fashion) and prioritized over wiki-made identifiers. And if people seeking a specific Mario subject over a generic one is such a big deal, then add to the guidelines making use of Display Title extension. Like letting ”Peach” redirect to ”Princess Peach” while ”Peach (fruit)” would have the extension to cut (lol) the page title into ”Peach”.
  12. GeneralDonitsky (talk) Per all.
  13. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
  14. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  15. Okapii (talk) Per all.
  16. EvieMaybe (talk) welp, y'all won me over
  17. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  18. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name, we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Abolish the monarchy.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  5. Blinker (talk) Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".
  6. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like Fox, Sonic, etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
  7. Pizza Master (talk) per all
  8. PopitTart (talk) I was initially hesitant because of the existence of Princess Peach Showtime, but I was quickly swayed by looking at the game's online store page, which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
  9. Arend (talk) Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" without an uppercase P.
  10. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  11. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all
  12. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Mushroom Head (talk) The people who type “Princess Peach” into the search bar are nerds.
Super Mario RPG (talk) "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
EvieMaybe (talk) per all

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Daisy?

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in Super Mario Land, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101
  3. Pseudo (talk) Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
  4. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  6. SmokedChili (talk) Per all, what I said above about Peach.
  7. Okapii (talk) Per Nintendo101, and also selfishly because the inconsistency would bug me.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in Mario Party 9, Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as Super Mario Land itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-Land is practically a defining trait of hers.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per last times.
  4. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all three past proposals.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  8. Blinker (talk) Per all
  9. Tails777 (talk) Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
  10. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
  11. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  12. Pizza Master (talk) per all.
  13. PopitTart (talk) Hi, She's Daisy!
  14. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.
    Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of Larry as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, with visibility nigh intact. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.
  15. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  16. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Super Mario RPG (talk) Since I'm supportive of "Princess" being removed from Peach's article title, the same would apply to Daisy, who has made fewer appearances, including with the "Princess" title.

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Rosalina?

No "Princess" particle for Rosalina 0-21
Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess
No Princess (status quo)
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. We hope we've made it apparent that we think adding the particle to Rosalina's article is very silly indeed, especially decades after the fact, when Rosalina has obtained a featured article without the particle, and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy.
  2. Hewer (talk) She's barely ever called that.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Queen it up.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Unlike the other two, there is no substantial media that refers to Rosalina as "Princess Rosalina." It is presented only in larger descriptive material on Rosalina, and even then, only occassionally.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) If anything, cases where Princess Rosalina is used are the clear outlier.
  6. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - She's clearly a queen, just sometimes lumped as one of "the princesses" for convenience. (note: the first part of this comment is meant to be taken as a joke)
  7. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. It's unclear if Rosalina is even really a princess in the first place.
  8. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  9. Ahemtoday (talk) Princess of what, by the way? Princess of space? Can you be the princess of space?
  10. EvieMaybe (talk) princess of acoustic rock, obviously.
  11. Blinker (talk) Per all
  12. Tails777 (talk) Per all.
  13. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  14. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. Her backstory implies she was one, and she carries the appearance of one, but it is certainly not one of her defining characteristics.
  15. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  16. Pseudo (talk) She's straight-up never referred to this way except in supplementary material like websites, not even the Super Mario Galaxy manual calls her Princess Rosalina. This is pretty clear cut to me.
  17. Pizza Master (talk) In Chapter 7 of Rosalina's Story, there is a castle in the background that is implied to be Rosalina's house. Quote Rosalina, "I want to go back to my house by the hill!" The only visible "house" by the hill is the castle. So it's likely that she was born to royalty on her home planet. That said, Daisy has no princess particle, so Rosalina shouldn't either just going off precedence.
  18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Unlike Princess Peach or Princess Daisy, Rosalina is almost never referred to as a Princess.
  19. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  20. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all
  21. SmokedChili (talk) Per all except the queen headcanon.

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think I ever recall it being used.

Comments (Princess Particle Party!)

Should be of note that Palutena's Guidance is not the only part in Ultimate in which Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" (obviously this also applies to Peach). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 14:23, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in Smash Bros. games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the Super Smash Bros. games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer I was referring to the Super Smash Bros. series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made Mario Kart Tour, a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In Melee, for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the selection screen. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's more reason for us to move it? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally Peach-hime, Daimaō Koopa and Dedede-daiō, respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, one interview where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying Star Fox's Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

How is Rosalina a queen, exactly? I don't think that's ever been stated anywhere, and Peach is still Princess even though she explicitly rules the Mushroom Kingdom, so Rosalina ruling something wouldn't make her Queen necessarily. Speaking of, even if she's not technically ruling anything now, she's still a princess by birth (backstory and Baby Rosalina's design), and I don't think titles become null and void like that / "oh it's been (blank) years I guess I'm not a princess anymore". Technetium (talk) 16:03, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

I recall some interview that said she was designed to be "queenly" or some such thing either for Galaxy or Smash Bros. Granted, that could also have been a mistranslation and I could be misremembering entirely. The comment I made in my vote was primarily tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be a serious reflection of what I think. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:39, March 23, 2025 (EDT)

@Pseudo: In what way is Princess Daisy "the main name that she is known by"? It certainly isn't officially, and in my experience it isn't even the more used name by fans either. And since Nintendo101 didn't really answer this question: why does a name being the "full name" mean it should automatically take priority? It didn't with Conker the Squirrel, Admiral Bobbery, Sonic the Hedgehog, Professor Elvin Gadd, Rambi the Rhino, Colored Pencils, The Missile Maestro, Baby Donkey Kong, Wendy O. Koopa, Sir Grodus, Glad Red Paratroopa, TEC-XX, and indeed, Princess Rosalina. So why is Princess Daisy different? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:57, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. Super Princess Peach enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are technically conjectural.--PopitTart (talk) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), this ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of Blue Shell if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

For reference, here's how Play Nintendo (a division of Nintendo's American website) handles the names of Peach and Daisy.

  • On the "Friends" page, the former is "Princess Peach", while the latter is "Daisy".
  • A puzzle activity featuring both characters renders the former as "Princess Peach", while the latter as "Daisy".
  • Similarly, coloring activities that feature the former ([1], [2], [3]) render her name as "Princess Peach". Compare Daisy's own coloring activity, where she is rendered as simply "Daisy".
  • In this quiz, at question 2 you'll notice the "Daisy" answer; question 4 invokes "Princess Peach".
  • A poll uses the shortforms of both ("Peach" and "Daisy").

Now, for a change of pace:

  • Daisy is displayed as "Princess Daisy" on her own profile, which doubles as the hub of Daisy-related stuff on that site.
  • Another pop quiz uses "Princess Peach" and... "Princess Daisy".
  • This poll, likewise.

Note that the pages linked above are not tied to any particular product, but rather the Mario series in general. Most were nevertheless published during the Switch generation, and I strived to highlight as much cross-reference material as I could find from both Daisy's profile on the site, and the search results for "daisy" (which aren't all that different for "princess daisy"). It appears that activities which promote specific games overwhelmingly invoke characters using the same name they use in those games. In other words, "Peach" for Peach, and "Daisy" for Daisy, as expected. Some examples: [4][5][6][7][8]. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:17, March 20, 2025 (EDT), edited 17:00, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock "[...] and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy."
I don't think that's true. Daisy has been called the princess of Sarasaland as late as Super Mario Bros. Wonder. Rosalina, on the other hand, I cannot recall her ever being referred to as a princess of anything. Or royalty at all, for that matter. People presumed she was "Princess Rosalina" or "Princess Rosetta" in the early years before Mario Galaxy released purely because she has that "Princess Peach"-esque look, but canonically, she's been referred to as the protector of the cosmos, the keeper of the Comet Observatory, and the mother of the Lumas; none of which are titles of royalty. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:40, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

I agree, but the proposal is specifically about whether the characters' articles should be called "Princess Peach/Daisy/Rosalina", not whether they are canonically princesses. Let's stay on-topic. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:53, March 20, 2025 (EDT)


I shared this in private, but I was encouraged to relay this here. I principally feel a dogmatic adherence to consistency for the sake of consistency or policy for the sake of policy can lead to bad decisions. The actions proposed should stand on their own merits, and I feel like this proposal has not really made that case, or at least not to me. Regardless of how folks personally feel, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy are still regularly used in official capacities. In the headers of booklets, encyclopedias, and on the backs of merchandise. Even within in-game dialogue, especially for Peach. They are part of the general parlance and lexicon of people who play these games and are familiar with these characters. However, some folks in opposition seem to be acting like these names are inherently invalid or as archaic as the name "Princess Toadstool" or "King Koopa." If they aren't legitimately retired by the publisher and are interchangeable with "Peach" and "Daisy" in a way "Professor Elvin Gadd" or even "Princess Rosalina" never were for their characters, then why is it detrimental that they're the default names of their respective articles? What is the substantive harm? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:52, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

That first bit about consistency also works as an argument for why Peach and Daisy don't necessarily need to be "consistent" with each other regarding whether they use the long names. Anyway, I believe that "Daisy" being the preferred official name over "Princess Daisy" is incredibly clear, and the fact that a name is sometimes used in certain cherry-picked instances doesn't override the most common and prominent usages. Everything you say about the current names being used in official sources and being familiar to fans applies just as well if not better to the names this proposal seeks to change to. You're right that the current names are used more than something like "Professor Elvin Gadd", but it's not like that has to be the cutoff point (and as I said earlier, you could certainly make an argument that Princess Daisy has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do, which you even supported shortening). Keeping it the way it is does not cause "substantive harm", exactly, but I don't remember anyone ever arguing that it does - the benefit of the move is to be more accurate to the overwhelming majority of official sources. And I do not understand your characterisation of this as "policy for the sake of policy", it's for the sake of accuracy to the source material, which the wiki is always striving for.
Here's a hypothetical to consider: if it happened that the wiki's article on Daisy had always used the name "Daisy" (and assuming everything else about the situation was unchanged), do you think you'd be pushing for a move to "Princess Daisy"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
Potentially, yes. I would. Because I think Princess Daisy is more inherently clarifying as the article title and it is exercised in modern contexts that I think are more directly parallel to how one would title articles in referential material like ours. I think there are sometimes different goals and incentives for character selection screens and the like. For example, at the end of Super Mario Bros. 2 Peach is simply called "Princess," but if this site only covered SMB2, I would argue our article name for her should be "Princess Toadstool" despite it not being the name in-game.
My view in the previous proposal on this, as well as the one concerning the Koopalings, has evolved over time. I think "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" are better, more intuitive, and more clarifying article titles (especially for the former, though I do admittedly still prefer the parallel between Peach and Daisy. That's a bit less important though). In my experience, most people who engage with Nintendo games and Mario do not know these characters simply as "Peach" and "Daisy." So when you have these more clarifying names exercised in the modern era - in instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc. - alongside the more familial "Peach" and "Daisy," what benefit does changing those names bring us? Because if anything it could create instances of navigating the site to find articles on these characters more difficult for some visitors by making their roles more opaque, at least peripherally. So I don't see any gain from this tradeoff, or an improvement of accuracy. I see it as trading a slightly more clarifying, valid, and exercised name for one that is equally valid but less clarifying. The only real benefit is that it can make piping links easier in the body texts of articles for editors, but I am personally more than willing to sacrifice editorial convenience to clarify things for readers when the option is there. I help maintain this site for them primarily, and it is for similar reasons why I did not simply title this article "The Legend of Zelda." - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:35, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
Admittedly, this response is based on personal life experience, but we've had basically the opposite happen to us; sure, people generally get it when you say "Princess Peach", but tend to raise eyebrows at "Princess Daisy" over just calling her Daisy. Calling Rosalina by "Princess Rosalina" is then promptly seen as an extreme over-correction if it's explained to them. Having quick-fire asked both friends and family about this, "Daisy" came up every time over "Princess Daisy", sans one instance of someone mistaking her for Rosalina and one giving an obvious joke answer, and in the former case, even then they omitted "Princess". Admittedly, there is probably a very large bias among family members at play as we have a dog expressly named Daisy, and our sample size here is incredibly small as this was very spur of the moment, late at night.
Even still, the total lack of any "Princess" particles at all here definitely reflects a very different lived experience, so while we definitely can't speak for everyone--it would be extremely silly of us to try to assert that your peers don't include "Princess" just because ours don't, that's absurd!--we can definitely vouch that, in our corner of the world, the "Princess" particle tends to be omitted. Make of this what one may, we just thought we'd share our own experiences here. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 00:28, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
"Princess Daisy" is the name used much less by fans in my experience too. If there actually are fans who primarily use "Princess Daisy" (ignoring for a moment the fact that I don't think that matters), I do think it's at least plausible that the wiki's usage of the name is part of the reason. Also, why is "clarification" such a big deal anyway? People who know about the Mario franchise would expect an article called "Daisy" to be about the major recurring character called that, I don't see any real potential for confusion. We shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy to appeal to some hypothetical minority who wouldn't understand what the page was about if we removed the word "Princess" from the title (and who for some reason can't just glance at the start of the article for two seconds to immediately find out). Also, this list you keep giving of "instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc." - what exactly is this referring to? In your vote you listed Super Mario Land (so old that Peach was still Toadstool), the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (seriously?), and "licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy" (which have never taken priority over the video games in any case I'm aware of, and which often use the shortened name anyway). I'm not a big fan of ignoring the naming policy's guidance to cherry-pick sources that use the name we'd rather have. The usage of shortened "Daisy" is not limited to character select screens as you keep implying - for instance, see the links I provided in an earlier comment, which show that most official websites use the names "Princess Peach" and "Daisy". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:11, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
I do not agree that "Daisy" is a more accurate article title than "Princess Daisy." I think they are equally as valid, same with "Princess Peach" and "Peach," but again, I admittedly feel more strongly for her than Daisy. As others have mentioned, she even had a game published last year that referred to her as "Princess Peach" in the title. It would be disingenuous to say "Daisy" is not used more often than "Princess Daisy," but the latter is used, whether it is in contexts you personally think should be considered valid or not. This was part of what I was saying with people treating these names as outdated and erroneous as "Princess Toadstool." These names are exercised in the modern era. So I do not think we are sacrificing accuracy by retaining the names we have. But we are sacrificing clarification, which is something I care about in maintaining reference material aimed for the public to read. This isn't a site just to be edited. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:55, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
I still don't understand what clarification issues you think would be caused by moving to the subject's more common name. I don't know why "Daisy" would be any less clear as an article title than "Rosalina" or "Pauline" or any character name, but if there was anyone who didn't know what it meant, their confusion would be instantly quelled if they just looked at the article for a second or two. I can't imagine any context in which the supposed loss of clarity would be a problem. I'm still neutral regarding whether to move Peach since I think the argument against it is more reasonable than it is with Daisy, but I'll point out that it being used in a title isn't necessarily a deciding factor - Mario the character isn't titled "Super Mario" (which is used in the titles of some games that lack the form). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:31, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
For what it's worth, Nintendo101's messages here more or less match my opinion on this subject entirely. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 09:14, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4809803"