View source for MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69

{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Template|current=yes}}

===Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|0-0-9-0|5 is the mininum number of glitches}}
I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' has a separate article for its 3 glitches ([[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]]), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong#Glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'']], [[Super Mario Strikers#Glitches|''Super Mario Strikers'']], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)#Glitches|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], and, most glaringly, [[Wario Land 3#Glitches|''Wario Land 3'']] have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.

More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:
*4 of them have glitches merged into the main article: [[Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2#Glitches|''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'']], [[Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'']], [[Donkey Kong Land#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Land'']], [[Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle#Glitches|''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle'']]
*2 of them have separate "List of glitches" articles: [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!'']], [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches|''Super Mario Advance'']]

I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.

;Option 1: The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch), and ''Wario Land 3'' to match that of ''Wario Land 4''.
;Option 2: The minimum number of glitches should be 4. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]] would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'', ''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'', ''Donkey Kong Land'', and ''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle''.
;Option 3: The minimum number of glitches should be 5. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches]], and [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches]] would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.
;Do nothing: There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.

I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Option 1====

====Option 2====

====Option 3====
#{{User|Technetium}} I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea!

====Do nothing====

====Comments====
From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why [[List of Fortune Street quotes]] is split into [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (A–J)|Dragon Quest characters (A-J]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (K–Z)|K-Z)]] and [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (A–M)|Super Mario characters (A-M]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (N–Z)|N-Z)]] and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --[[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

===Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation===
{{Proposal outcome|canceled}} {{color|gray|Put into effect in an alternate solution by proprietor}}<br>
So I realized an issue with Proposal Rule 9 <small>while I was whinily bitching about a proposal I didn't like passing like the selfish little megalomaniac I am (long story there... at least a good realization came out of it)</small> and that is that, by the current setup, the "difference of three votes" only applies for two-option proposal. If a proposal has more than that many options, it is solely decided by being over 50%... regardless of how many options actually have votes ''in'' them. This has the potential for abuse: someone could add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement. As such, I propose that the rule be amended so that unless there are three options with at least one vote that isn't the proposer's own, it be treated the same as a two-option proposal.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Arend}} Doc's points in the comments have enlightened me more to understand the necessity of this amendment. Also it makes multi-option proposals where there's really only two options being voted for more consistent with our regular two-option proposals.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per Doc it's silly that a proposal like https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Coin_bag#Split_the_Mario_Party_Coin_Bag_from_the_Super_Princess_Peach_Coin_Bag can pass because of options that have almost no support.
#{{User|Mario}} Given the confusion time and time again this rule has inflicted on the wiki historically,[https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Metal_Mario#Has_the_proposal_been_settled.3F][https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Coin_bag#TPP] due to going against basic intuition (and relying too much on head spinning percentages) I rather just kill this particular clause of that rule with fire and simply have multioption proposals follow a similar rule to two-option proposals: one option with majority of votes over a 3 vote margin passes, which this proposal is going. If not, extend it. A 6-5-1-0 is NOT a consensus; neither is 9-8. Both of these should've been extended.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Changing my vote because if Super Mario Wiki doesn't allow for an [[wikipedia:Ex post facto law|ex post facto law]] to extend already closed proposals, then there's really nothing to worry about. Doc's right, it's not fair to get arrested for a law change without warning, and the idea of this proposal being used to cheat the previous proposal goes against what this proposal is about. And besides it's better to have more consistent rules on voting.

====Oppose====
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} This has never been an issue for all these years we've had proposals, otherwise the amendment would've been proposed and/or added long ago. There's also the margin-of-three-votes rule for proposals with ten or more votes. Also, keep in mind the user proposing this was vehemently opposed to a proposal that I made that passed with a 9-1-1-8 vote and is trying any means possible to undo it, including the drafting of another proposal in late September that is sneaking in a provision to [https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Doc_von_Schmeltwick/Projects#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series undo the one that passed yesterday], which is another way of saying "we want Pokemon content back on the wiki despite the Poke Ball lists being removed for the reason of lacking any further connection to ''Super Mario'' than any other franchises in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series.
<s>#{{User|SeanWheeler}} If you want to reverse a recent proposal, you have to wait a month to do so.</s>

====Reverse the rule order, change none of the text====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - This is an exaggerated example of what I'm trying to prevent, don't take it seriously.

====Comments====
I'm kinda half-on-half on this. On the one hand, amendments like these to prevent exploiting loopholes like those is always fine, but on the other hand, I wonder if it's even necessary? Proposers can only change and edit their proposals in the first three days since launch (or first six days if it's a TPP). This is just under halfway through the proposal length, which gives other users ample time to consider voting for a new third option if it's being added at the latest time possible. Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins. So while I'm not opposed to this amendment, I think I'm more favoring it for the sake of consistency, rather than to combat exploits, since the 3-6-day limit thing already does that as well.<br>The rules section might need a bit of an overhaul regardless: [[Talk:Fire (enemy)#This proposal has been improperly concluded!|There's been talks already]] how Rule 9 sounds a bit confusing due to its wording regarding the required amount of voters, and it's also been stated that the entire section is an unsorted mess with little to no examples for clarity. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:07, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
:It's not about retroactively adding an option. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:25, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
::...did you misinterpret my whole message or something?<br>You literally said ''"This has the potential for abuse: someone could '''add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement.'''"'' That is LITERALLY "retroactively adding an option", isn't it? And this proposal is about ''preventing'' such an exploit, right? As in, ''what I literally have been talking about as well?''  {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:12, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
:::You seem to have missed the point. This is about putting in a dummy option in general, not about doing so at a specific time. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:56, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::So you HAVE misinterpreted my message (at least somewhat), because I AM well aware that this is about putting a dummy option in general. The thing is, as I stated before, proposers can only edit their proposals within the first three days since launch, which is to say, ''they cannot add a third option like 5 minutes before the deadline to cheat the system''. After those three days, they're ''locked'' from editing the proposal, and other users have four days to consider voting for that third option (which is more than the 3 days the proposer was allowed to edit their proposal.<br>All this stuff I said about specific time limits is to say that ''we already have a method to combat exploits like this'', making this extra stipulation for combatting the same exploit kind of redundant, as the most this does is treating multi-option proposals where really only two sides are being voted on, the same as a regular two-option proposal (which admittedly is at least consistent).<br>If you're worried about people using these exploits ''within'' the 3-day limit, that's technically ''also'' addressed, as I already stated "Even when an option has been added in bad faith, users can bring notice to it in the comments or report it to admins."<br>If you're still worried that this doesn't solve your problem, then I think it's better to add a rule to not add (bad-faith) dummy options (or editing proposals in bad faith in general) for the sake of exploiting the rules. I'll admit that your proposed changes will help bring consistency across proposals, and also will help with preventing third-option exploits from being passed so easily, but I don't think it'll prevent proposers from ''attempting'' them within those first three days anyway (hoping in the off-chance that someone will vote for that dummy option), so it'd be wise to remind them that editing a proposal in bad faith is against the rules. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:16, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Where are you getting the "after the proposal is created" part from? This is including if it's made with three options, one of which is valid-but-undesirable-to-anyone-involved. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:22, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::::The statement of yours I quoted before: ''"This has the potential for abuse: someone could '''add in an option no one would vote for to try and work around the "difference" requirement.'''"''. I interpreted that as someone ''adding'' it in ''later'', as opposed to it being already there from the beginning. Thank you for clarifying that you meant both of those instead of only the former, though. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:30, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::...yes, "add in" as in a synonym to "include." Sorry for the confusion. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:38, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::It's OK man. Perhaps I was being too pigheaded myself to realize other interpretations.<br>Anyway, with that in mind, I understand the necessity to add this stipulation a bit more now, because the 3-day edit limit obviously cannot prevent what's there from the beginning, and now there's a 3-day limit to convince the proposer to remove the dummy option instead. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:48, August 29, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Super Mario RPG}} - You're ignoring that our rules for proposal passing and failing have changed several times over the past few years thanks to various proposals. This is just something that was overlooked (the fact a sysop thanked me for bringing this up initially helps me think this was a good idea). Also, I'm not trying to "undo" your proposal by a retroactive rule change, that's not how amendments work. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:19, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
:If this proposal passes and gets enforced, wouldn't that proposal be affected? Probably should wait four weeks to do make this proposal. Like how I decided to wait after the proposal to move [[Shadow (character)]] back to {{Fake link|Shadow the Hedgehog}} to fail before I could start the proposal to move the crossover characters back to their proper names. I could have started that proposal yesterday, but I need to find instances of the Mario & Sonic games referring to the Sonic characters by their full names before I could start that proposal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:51, August 29, 2024 (EDT)
::No? You can't (and shouldn't) retroactively enforce a rule that did not exist yet, that's not fair (also that would probably affect a lot of other proposals, and I'm not interested in going down that rabbit trail even if it ''was'' ethical). That's why when prohibition was passed everyone who had drank alcohol before wasn't arrested. It's the same deal here. While I ''want'' to repeal that proposal, I want to do so the fair-and-square way in a month, not through some dirty underhanded trick. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:13, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

I feel like this proposal has actually nothing to do with Rule 9: a margin of votes has nothing to do with majority support. I think we should amend Rule 10 instead to remove the reference to "proposals with only voting options" and extend it to multioption proposals. For example: "Rule 10: If the two most voted options of a proposal gather more than ten votes between them and the vote count difference of those two options is less than three, then the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all." That way, Rule 10 would still work the same as it does now for proposals with only two options, and multioption proposals would need to satisfy both Rule 9 <small>(majority support is needed to ensure that most voters have voted for the winning option)</small> and Rule 10. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 01:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Doc and the issue at hand, but I want to update the rule in a slightly more comprehensive way than suggested. I've done that and this is canceled! --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 04:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)

===Do not use t-posing models as infobox images===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|16-0|Do not use t-posing models as infobox images}}
Self-explainatory aim for this proposal with the title, I'm proposing because I personally don't think t-posing models look good as introductory images. One case in point is on the [[Mega Baby Bowser]] article which used a t-posing model as its infobox image but was changed to a screenshot. [[Angler Poplin]] is an article that currently uses a t-posing model. Should this proposal pass, in-game screenshots will be used instead of t-posing images, or if possible a model which is not in a t-pose.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Nightwicked Bowser.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} T-poses are clearly not how the characters are meant to be portrayed.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us! Per proposal.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This should also include non-t-posed bind models (a-posed models, nonbipedal characters) as well but that's a matter of jargon really.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Considering I went through the effort of posing the characters of my game Speed Prix before I uploaded them to the Speed Prix Wiki, I know T-poses are not good infobox images. And in the context of Mario games that you're not developing yourself, if artwork is not available, just use screenshots. That is much easier to get. The Models Resource is incomplete. And with other media, we have to.
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Yeah, it looks strange and creepy with the t-poses. Per proposal.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per proposal. I especially agree that screenshots would be better.
#{{User|Arend}} Pose accuracy should take priority over asserting dominance.
#{{User|Mario}} Only if T-posing/A-posing/bind posing with a blank expression is part of the character's personality or something. However in the case something that's never used in a game but represented by a 3d model surfaces (Walpeach for instance; let's pretend there's never a sketch for her either), and there's an article and an infobox for it, we probably naturally need to use it but I assume the proposal isn't ridiculously strict in that matter.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all

====Oppose====


====Comments====
There's an issue in that many models in earlier 3D games do not have an easily decipherable rigging or animation system. For instance, on The Models Resource, the Luigi's Mansion model uploads lack proper pose data, so they're just automatically T-posed. I do think non T-posed ones should be ''prioritized'', but prohibiting them fully is not the way to go because that's sometimes the only clear option. '''EDIT:''' Never mind, I didn't see the "infobox" part of the proposal. I mistook this for a blanket ban. My apologies. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:53, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:Screenshots of the subjects in the game are strongly preferred regardless. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:58, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::I agree with Ray Trace. If one did not have an organic looking model, couldn't one just use a screenshot? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:01, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::That's still assuming you either have an emulator available or can find a high enough quality video at the proper dimensions. In several cases, the preview image on The Models Resource is the most available option (such as for the ''Mario Party'' games on N64). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:04, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::::There is no shame in taking a screenshot of a YouTube let's play. Not ideal, but I think it is more serviceable than a t-posed model. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:08, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Well I mean that's still assuming you can find one at all. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:09, August 25, 2024 (EDT)<br>
::::::Editors should take all their screenshots with emulation regardless. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 23:27, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::With how rabid Nintendo can be about ROMs and such, that's sometimes easier said than done. (Plus plenty games have outright never been dumped or officially ported, particularly the more obscure ones; there's a reason there's no maps or screenshots for "''Champions' Course''" in ''[[Golf: Japan Course]]''.) That also assumes one's device has the ability to actually run said emulators or the space for them; even with high-dollar gaming laptops I've had trouble with more advanced game system emulation in that regard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:49, August 25, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::With the right tools and resources, ROMs aren't difficult to find at all. And, by the way, those are rare cases and have little to do with the proposal which deals with models. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:59, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
===Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|13-1|create sections for unused/pre-release/prototype graphics on gallery pages}}
This has been bouncing around in my head ever since the so-called "gigaleak" happened. This would do exactly as the header says: sprites and models and such that do not appear in gameplay of the finalized game they represent would be moved to a separate gallery, similar to what we do with non-game artwork relative to game artwork. This would allow more easy coverage on them without bloating the "main" gallery with them, particularly in cases where the subject ''does'' appear in the final game with different sprites (or with different colors), and would also help encourage more unused sprites to be uploaded in the first place. The other gallery section would be placed underneath the main one.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{user|DrippingYellow}} Nothing wrong I can see with this. Per proposal, and Doc in the comments.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Seems like a straightforwardly good idea to me.
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick in the comments (and per proposal as well).
#{{User|Arend}} Per all
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per comments.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all, and per the discussion in the comments.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.
#{{User|Windy}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all

====Oppose====
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - Opposing because this was done with the gigaleak in mind. The gigaleak consists of unlawfully stolen assets, and one could propose to remove those instead, out of courtesy towards Nintendo.

====Comments====
@SMRPG They haven't gone after TCRF so far despite them documenting everything from it. I get there's some "fruit of the poisoned tree" moral concern, but as it is, our role is to document known facts. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)
:In addition, the current wording of the proposal implies a section for ''all'' unused/prototype/pre-release content, not just those that came from the gigaleak (e.g. various prototype/prerelease things from ''Mario Kart DS'' came from the kiosk demo, which was distributed to toy stores and game stores by Nintendo themselves). If SMRPG was concerned that hypothetically, those assets would have to be removed as well for Nintendo's concern (in a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" kind of way), then ''not'' separating them at all might actually be ''worse'', because hypothetically speaking, Nintendo might request to remove ''the entire gallery'' purely because assets from the gigaleak were being included; this of course helps no one. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:52, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
::Indeed, I think it would be a good idea even without the gigaleak occurring, though the fact that the hyper-litigious Nintendo hasn't gone after anyone as far as I can tell (most notably TCRF, who documents that sort of thing as the entire purpose of their existence) for reposting them, it doesn't seem to bother them. And while it makes sense for The Spriters Resource to have a blanket ban on what was uncovered there (they're based on assets that actually do appear and are only barely able to keep the site up monetarily), it makes little sense for us to resort solely to using descriptions and offsite links. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:14, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Being a TCRF user myself, I agree with  Doc von Schmeltwick. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 16:10, August 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Right indeed. I personally think the whole fearmongering aspect of SMRPG's oppose vote is generally... well, not quite in ''bad'' faith, but at the very least somewhat misleading or misunderstanding of the situation. As you said, Nintendo hasn't been witchhunting sites like TCRF for detailing things from the gigaleak even four years after the fact, so we should be safe (and again, these sections would include prototypes that weren't part of the gigaleak, too). Though I simply don't think that oppose vote makes a lot of sense even if Nintendo ''did'' send their ninjas to anyone detailing the gigaleak, so we might as well make separate sections for any unused/prototype content regardless. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:54, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

===Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|7-11|Do not shorten}}
The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:

*[[Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
*[[Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
*[[Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
*[[Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]

The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the ''[[Mario is Missing!]]'' disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "''Mario is Missing!'', the '''NES''' game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("''Mario is Missing!'' ('''Nintendo Entertainment System''')").

That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:

*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (NES)}}
*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (SNES)}}
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (NES)}}
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (SNES)}}

Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "[[Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)]]", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "{{fake link|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)}}" for consistency?

'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to September 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support (SNES)====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third ''Donkey Kong Country'' games.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario shroom}} too long, agree.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Let's simplify the names.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per proposal and the earlier ''Donkey Kong Country'' proposal that Super Mario RPG mentioned, as well as Technetium and Jdtendo in the comments.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all. It is way too tedious a title, especially when the acronym alternative is just as iconic as the original title.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.</strike>

====Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see much of a problem with [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens|long names]], and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for 3DS)" got moved to "[[Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)|Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for Nintendo 3DS)]]".
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of ''every'' game--not just one random edutainment game.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.

====Comments (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)====
now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the [[LodgeNet]] article: "for the [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]], [[Nintendo 64]], and [[Nintendo GameCube]]"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Hewer}} Okay, [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens]]' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::...Not to burst your bubble, but [[Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens#Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)|we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name ''last month'']]. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually ''never actually used like that in the episode''. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
:Same. Not to mention that the first two (out of three!) paragraphs on [[Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)|both]] [[Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for PC)|articles]] are 100% identical outside of the console mentioned (which is really weird and almost BJAODN-worthy regarding the whole "this is a world exclusive to [SYSTEM]" part when the name and icon are identical. Both articles even state that the worlds take place in "an area of pipes and a background of puzzle pieces" (which seems to just be copied blindly from the SNES one and unedited, given that the image for the PC version suggests it takes place in a park with a baseball diamond; but that discrepancy aside, I don't think it's worth splitting when both articles are quite short, and no other world in Mario's Early Years is split based on console version). {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:13, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
::I did some more research on the two Building Worlds:
::#So first of all, the two articles even incorrectly described their icons. Both articles state that they're represented by a pair of building blocks. However, that's actually the icon for both versions of [[Last Letter World]]. SNES Building World is represented by a jigsaw puzzle with a crayon and the word "red", while PC Building World is represented by a baseball bat and the word "Hit".
::#Second, the SNES version of Building World is actually still present in the PC version of the game, complete with the jigsaw puzzle icon and the exact same kind of gameplay; however, it's now named '''Blending World''', and as far as I can tell, ''that name is nowhere mentioned on the wiki pages''.
::So I suppose it's correct to have these articles split, but they might need to be renamed (if we choose to prioritize the PC version at least), and they ''certainly'' need to be rewritten. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:38, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

===Remove non-Mario music from Super Smash Bros. sound test pages===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|16-8|Remove non-Mario music}}
I'm proposing to remove music tracks not related to the ''Mario'' series and its sub-series from these pages:
*''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl sound test]]''
*''[[Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U sound test]]''
*''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate sound test by series (A–M)]]''
*''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate sound test by series (N–Z)]]''
This is mainly because the tracks aren't related to ''Mario'' and they take up the most space in the pages...to the point where they're really bloated. If this passes, both ''Ultimate'' sound pages listed can be deleted and have their content merged into ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate sound test]]'' if space allows.

'''Edit''': To clarify, tracks with ''Mario'' elements like the Famicom Medley (which has the Dr. Mario theme in it) won't be affected by the removals.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Mushzoom}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Recently there have been proposals to get rid of non-''Mario'' content in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. The articles for [[Taunt]] and [[List of Snake's codec conversations]] only have the ''Mario'' related ones for them. This one aims to accomplish a similar goal, so I support.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Sparks.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} With crossovers as big as Smash, it would be good to clean up the stuff not related to Mario. For years, our coverage policy about crossovers had us cover as much Smash as Smash Wiki. Now, we've got proposals reducing Smash coverage to focus on this wiki's franchise just like how the other wikis would handle Smash. Bulbapedia focuses on the Pokémon in Smash. Funny enough, before Smash Wiki came to NIWA, Bulbapedia linked to Super Mario Wiki for the other Smash characters. It's good to not be a rival to Smash Wiki, and reducing the sound tests to just the Mario songs is another step forward. Now to reduce the list of [[Spirit (Super Smash Bros. Ultimate)|Spirits]].
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. While we personally probably wouldn't have touched this until later (we have a very "just say when" approach to our Smash proposals, if you haven't noticed... ;P), we figure it's best to clear this up now if it's fine with everyone else. Anyone looking for a full list of songs is probably checking SSBWiki by this point, and so we should probably narrow it down to only songs relevant to Mario (as well as Donkey Kong/Yoshi/Wario/Mario Kart/other such stuff, of course) by now.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Ah, yes, "One-Winged Angel" and "Awake", my favorite musical pieces from the Mario series. Per proposal and Sparks.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} These tables are nearly direct copies of the "Music" list articles on SmashWiki. Just use the <nowiki>{{NIWA}} template</nowiki> in the References section of each article to provide easy access to the complete song list for each game.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. <small>Maybe we should start considering Smash Bros. as a "guest appearance" series?</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposer. As always, I support trimming Smash coverage.
#{{User|Mario}} Information isn't really relevant to the goals of MarioWiki. I do think Smash Bros. is still a thorough crossover series and Mario plays a significant role in coverage, so not really Mario's guest appearance, but coverage on MarioWiki should be conditional. We need to remain focused.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} we don't need to eat smashwiki's lunch.
#{{User|Yook Bab-imba}} Anything that reduces the amount of Smash content gets a yes from me, there's a proper wiki for that.
#{{User|YoYo}} per all
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.

====Oppose====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] - I don't really see this being an issue - especially since some of the non-''Mario'' music we otherwise do have representation of, like Mute City and Big Blue in MK8. (Also I would appreciate not having my upcoming omnibus proposal pushed back because people won't stop making other Smash proposals piece-by-piece when it's already been stated by a patroller that it'd be better to do things all at once - and that these "piecemeal" ones ''shouldn't'' be done.)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Doc, plus this would create an inconsistency: the stage list pages list the music tracks for each stage, except for Ultimate because in that game every stage's music is just all the music from that stage's franchise. The Ultimate sound test page we have now doubles as the listing for stage music for Ultimate's stages, so removing it creates a hole in our coverage where Ultimate is the only game in the series that we don't provide that information for. Coverage inconsistencies like this keep arising as people keep making one-at-a-time proposals removing individual elements of Smash coverage, so I agree with Doc that at this point, handling all of it in one would be a much better idea.
#{{User|Tails777}} I remain pretty steadfast in my general opposing stance on removing ''Smash'' content. I have come to terms with some merges (fighters, stages etc), but I still remain against the idea of removing this stuff. ''Smash'' is a crossover in the same way that ''Mario & Sonic'' and ''Fortune Street'' are and the size of the crossover does not change my stance on that. I'm not saying cover everything with an article, but I remain on the side of covering this stuff in some capacity regardless. Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Doc. Plus, I'm not really a fan of having pages dedicated to incomplete lists — I feel this way about trophies and spirits, too, if I'm honest. I think a page titled "List of X" should have all Xes on it; though I don't entirely know if that all-or-nothing philosophy holds up in practical circumstances.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per Doc. I'm not a huge fan of Smash full coverage on MarioWiki personally, but it was moreso because in the past, fully non-Mario elements received articles, like say, Mementos, Sephiroth, and the Killer Eye. It makes sense to keep the info of these pages somewhere on the wiki, in stuff like list pages, while making it obvious the wiki does not focus on that content. I don't like the recent proposals asking to delete everything Smash-related that isn't Mario, when they're clearly on either lists pages, or merged into the game page themselves, both cases making it obvious the wiki does not focus on that series.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.

====Comments====
Just to be sure, music like Wrecking Crew Medley, Famicom Medley (which has the Dr. Mario theme as part of it), Title Theme - 3D Hot Rally, and maybe more won't be affected right. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 17:42, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah this proposals needs exceptions for like the Famicom Medley (I think there are two of these now) that has Mario elements to it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:44, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
:Yes, they won't be affected. [[User:Mushzoom|Mushzoom]] ([[User talk:Mushzoom|talk]]) 17:46, August 30, 2024 (EDT)
::That creates the obvious issue of making it look like those are the ''only'' songs available for the stages they are listed under, when in fact they mix with other "generic" Nintendo songs. To say nothing on how some Mario stages have "miscellaneous" themes available in-game - one example that comes to mind is the Tetris theme available in the Luigi's Mansion stage. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:59, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::I guess we could put some kind of disclaimer on the music list pages to explain that (along the lines of "there are multiple songs in this category, here's only the Mario-related ones"). Also, I don't think this proposal affects the stage pages/lists (as I talked about in my vote), so the individual stage articles for Mario stages will be able to keep their music lists at least. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:20, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
::::I suppose, but it's still nice to have them all in one place (I'll admit, I'm nowhere near as invested in this one as I was with the Pokemon one. If the pages included actual music files, I probably would be, due to my general fear of files being deleted). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:00, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::It's not like those stage list pages like [[List of stages debuting in Super Smash Bros.]] are particularly great to begin with. {{User:Mario/sig}} 14:46, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Smash list articles in general are just plain bad. They're slightly trimmed down dumps of text from merged articles, and it's very clear that nobody wants to work on them, and for a good reason. Smash isn't Mario, even before merge these pages just sat there collecting dust, and I still don't understand why Smash is being treated like a sacred cow by some editors. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 15:13, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} - Well I mean, technically, no one's gonna persuade me that [[Skowl]]'s battle theme ''isn't'' just One-Winged Angel :P [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:00, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
:It's David Wise's homage, "Winged Angel". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:07, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} has started a discussion [[Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#Idea for compromise between viewpoints on coverage|right here]] somewhat related to this proposal and other ones that had passed concerning ''Super Smash Bros.'' coverage on the wiki. I encourage other folks to check it out. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:09, August 31, 2024 (EDT)
:I saw it. It's more or less the same as what we have now, but with the list pages merged into the game pages, as well as non-''Super Mario'' elements being added. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 18:12, August 31, 2024 (EDT)

===Characters with multiple galleries should have them divided by decade, not medium===
{{proposal check|9|5|13}}
{{Proposal outcome|passed|5-9-1|divide galleries by decade, but keep one for miscellaneous pieces}}

'''This proposal concerns the galleries for [[Gallery:Mario|Mario]], [[Gallery:Luigi|Luigi]], [[Gallery:Princess Peach|Peach]], [[Gallery:Toad|Toad]], [[Gallery:Bowser|Bowser]], [[Gallery:Princess Daisy|Daisy]], [[Gallery:Yoshi|Yoshi]], [[Gallery:Wario|Wario]], [[Gallery:Waluigi|Waluigi]], and [[Gallery:Donkey Kong|Donkey Kong]].''' In years past, all of these characters originally had single gallery pages for all of the visual material we had, like most subjects with galleries. Overtime, as editors uploaded more material and new games were published, this became unsustainable for them. Their galleries became too big, had difficulty to load for some users, and - for me at least - became difficult to navigate visually. The decision to divide their galleries into smaller ones was wise and substantive. However, the decision to divide them up by the type of media (i.e. artwork, scans, sprites and models, screenshots, etc.) was not. It simply mitigated the problem, and only for the short-term.

Games have continued to come out, editors continue to upload visual treasures, and unless something truly catastrophic happens at Nintendo or the global video game industry, they will continue to produce video games, movies, merchandise, etc. for decades to come. We will inevitably find ourselves with the same problem we had before: galleries too large to navigate efficiently, and even to edit. I personally feel we are already at that point with some of these galleries, especially for Mario.

I would like us to change how we divide these gallery pages for a more permeant solution, where we divide them by decade, not the media. Using our main man as an example, [[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)]], [[Gallery:Mario artwork (miscellaneous)]], [[Gallery:Mario scans]], [[Gallery:Mario sprites and models]], and [[Gallery:Mario screenshots]] will be replaced by Gallery:Mario (1981-1989), Gallery:Mario (1990-1999), Gallery:Mario (2000-2009), Gallery:Mario (2010-2019), and Gallery:Mario (2020-present). Each gallery with be subdivided the same we we typically subdivide galleries (artwork, sprites and models, screenshots, with variance in between as needed for things like scans), but it will only be media released during those respective time periods. At the end of a decade, the Gallery:Mario (2020-present) would be renamed Gallery:Mario (2020-2029), and a new one would be established titled Gallery:Mario (2030-present). For characters that debuted at the very end of a decade, like Daisy, a special amendment would be made where the first gallery would be "Gallery:Princess Daisy (1989-1999)", but all subsequent ones would be the same.

'''[[User:Nintendo101/garden|Here is an illustrative example of what one of these galleries would look like, more or less]].'''

The reasons why I think this would work are as follows:

#This is sustainable, whereas the current setup is not. Sans time travel, Nintendo will not be publishing any more games during past decades, so there likely would not be any instances where we would need to consider further trimming or splitting galleries for these characters.
#This will make the galleries for these characters smaller, ensuring they are more digestible for readers to browse and easier for editors to curate. I really do think some of these galleries have become quite the beasts, and the seer sizes of them make them a little less enjoyable to skim. And ultimately, I would really like visitors to enjoy what we do here and appreciate the visual material in the galleries. Editing some of these galleries as is strains my laptop, and I suspect I am not the only one.
#We already organize the material within galleries by release date, so it would be easy enough to divide be decade.
#I strongly suspect the user who wants to see screenshots of, say, Bowser in the first ''Super Mario Bros.'' is the same type of user who would want to see artwork and sprites of him from that game, so it makes more sense for them to be accessible in the same gallery.
#It will be easier for editors to incorporate the new material they come across. Rather than worry they are putting a piece of artwork for a character in the wrong place, they can simply work on the latest gallery for the character.

"But Nintendo101," I hear you type. "This is all fine and dandy, but why would we use the Gregorian calendar instead of console generations or even the consoles themselves?" You ask such good questions. I really respect that about that you. Not all of the material in these galleries come from video games, and it is inherently more intuitive for viewers not very versed in gaming culture to use the same dates they use in their everyday lives. There are also some disagreements on which consoles belong to which generations. So while there are certainly other ways this material can be subdivided, the Gregorian calendar is the simplest.

I offer three options:
#'''Support: Reorganize the affected galleries by decades, not medium, including material currently listed under "miscellaneous."''' Even miscellaneous pieces were released at some point, and often reflect the style of the games released around the same time, so it would make sense to cluster them together.
#'''Support: Reorganize the affected galleries by decades, but keep the ones for miscellaneous artwork separate.''' For those who feel like general promotional material makes sense in a gallery of its own. Using the earlier example, there would still be a Gallery:Mario (miscellaneous) alongside those decade articles.
#'''Oppose: Keep galleries separated by medium, not decade.''' This would also be the "do nothing" option.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 8th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support: Reorganize these galleries by decade, including material currently listed under "miscellaneous"====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} It would be nice to have every image applying to certain games, be it artwork, sprites, screenshots, and so forth, on the same page.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} This would have the added benefit of reducing the main gallery page for each character to be solely a disambiguation, instead of confusingly containing links to sub-galleries while also housing miscellaneous images on the same page.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} after talking with N101 on discord, i understood the proposal better. i'm still not sure what we'll do for artwork we don't know the date of, but this is a good idea.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.

====Support: Reorganize these galleries by decade, but keep the ones for miscellaneous artwork separate====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Secondary option, per Mario's comments.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} I do think it makes more sense to keep miscellaneous artwork separate.
#{{User|Mario}} If this works out, I'll consider the first option too. Anyway, this isn't sustainable in the future. We're going to need to split Mario's gallery even more whenever we like it or not. Split by decade is going to future proof it but if the resulting pages are too small then we can consider merges in the future.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} I only vote this over Option 1 because it's difficult to name a source in the captions for misc. artwork when the uploaders may not include one.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Second choice.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.

====Oppose: Keep these galleries organized by medium====
<s>#{{User|Paper Plumm}} I think this is just a better way of organising it. Having it split by its current category provides a more cohesive showcase.</s>
#{{User|PnnyCrygr}} Per all. Sorting them by decade just makes the sprites, models, promo art, and scans harder to find in a jumbled clutter of knick-knacks. Sorting by medium is more convenient and uses less space. And as Evie said, sorting by medium helps to specifically look up an image of one medium among those of same medium.
<s>#{{User|EvieMaybe}} as both a pixel and traditional artist, being able to specifically look up all of mario's sprites or all of mario's artwork for reference material is massively helpful. i'm willing to change my vote if an option that doesn't impact this is proposed, but for now i'm opposing</s>

====Comments====
Some art in Mario's gallery, we don't know a definite year they're from. [[:File:Marioart8.png]], for instance, is uploaded on 2013 but this may originate earlier due the rendering style being reminiscent of the later 2000s. In case we get promo art of Mario between, say, 2009 and 2010 where we can't 100% verify the date ([[:File:Marioart2.png|for instance]], this is uploaded in 2010, but again this may be years earlier), is there a way we can determine where they'll be placed? {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:26, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
:I think the first support option would necessitate some detective work, but if one is wary that we do not have the adequate tools or insight necessary to confidently track that information down, I think the second support option would be adequate, where a miscellaneous gallery would still be maintained for neutral promotional material of unclear release date. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:30, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
::That's also an issue that I've been meaning to bring up: "miscellaneous art" sections are ordered with no rhyme or reason whatsoever and never have any dates on anything. Both of those need to be fixed; the origins and times should all be found whenever possible. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:27, September 1, 2024 (EDT)
:::I do actually try to organize misc art whenever I come across that page and decide to do this. In Mario's case, at one point, I did put all the solo art in one spot, first, and then clumped by age of art. Then the group art is next, and I tried ordering it on like how much Mario is there or how clean the art is. Of course, the page has been drastically changed since, but you may have seen remnants of how I organized it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:38, September 1, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Paper Plumm}} these galleries were split into pieces in the first place because they were too large to load efficiently or even edit. The current set-up only ensures we will have to do this again because Nintendo will not stop publishing games and assets. What would you suggest we do to ensure this does not happen? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:33, September 2, 2024 (EDT)

Hypothetically speaking, what if we split the galleries by decade AND medium? (e.g. {{fake link|Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1981-1989)}} or {{fake link|Gallery:Bowser sprites (1991-1999)}}? {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:00, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
:{{@|Arend}} I personally would not be interested in a character having so many small galleries dedicated to themselves that could otherwise be consolidated into a focused few. Additionally, your suggestion would not address {{@|EvieMaybe}}'s desire to have all assets on one page - something that I maintain is unsustainable and would have to be split anyways due to the sheer volume of material. From my perspective, we have already reached that point. The current galleries for Mario and Luigi are straight-up unusable, or at least they are on my end and I suspect I am not the alone in that. My laptop struggles loading these galleries (therefore, the point of splitting them in the first place is no longer working) and this is particularly exasperated when I try to correct a mistake and triply so if I want to preview a revision. When these galleries ''do'' load, I have difficulty finding what I want. I have been puzzled by some of the opposition and lack of support for this proposal. No sustainable alternatives have been introduced that would address the points I outlined above, and I principally do not think it is wise for us to maintain systemic policies that are unsustainable. While this proposal may not satiate everything people want in galleries, I encourage the opposition to consider that {{wp|perfect is the enemy of the good}}. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
::i'm okay with having to load two pages, personally. the issue isn't having everything you want in exactly one gallery, is not having all the stuff you DON'T want mixed in with it[[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 18:26, September 4, 2024 (EDT)

I think it would be better to distinguish by console generation. (e.g. {{fake link|Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1981-1998)}} (Until to [[SNES]]/[[Game Boy]] (GB/SGB only); 17 years), {{fake link|Gallery:Mario artwork (media, 1996-2012)}} ([[Nintendo 64]] to [[Nintendo DS]]/[[Wii]]; 16 years) and {{fake link|Mario (media, 2011-present)}} ([[Nintendo 3DS]] to present; 13 years). [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 10:23, September 8, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Nintendo101}} Fair point. - [[User:Paper Plumm]]

===Prioritize ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch) names for all recurring ''Paper Mario'' items that appear in that game===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|Prioritize ''Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch) item names}}
As opposed to their more "recent" names from ''Super Paper Mario''. For all intents and purposes, I believe ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake should be treated as the more "recent" game as while it is simply a remake of an older game, ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake also just came out this year on Nintendo's most recently released system to date, while ''Super Paper Mario'' released over 17 years ago and is currently only officially playable on now-discontinued systems.

To reiterate from a more practical standpoint, prioritizing the most recent original game with those items that came out 17 years ago as opposed to the very recent remake only causes unneeded confusion among users who are more likely to be looking them up in relation to the latter. I can attest to this myself: during my own playthrough of ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake, I consulted this wiki's pages for items multiple times and was confused as to why we were still using the now not-so-recent ''Super Paper Mario'' names for them as opposed to the ones I was seeing in-game in this very recent remake.

Moreover, there are some names for items in ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake that have been altered from both their appearances in original game and ''Super Paper Mario'' when applicable: namely all uses of "Shroom" have been changed to "Mushroom", and we ''do'' reflect those changes now in our article titles and leads, treating ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake as the most recent game in those instances. Now, I can understand the likely argument for using both those and the ''Super Paper Mario'' names where applicable: most of the item names in ''The Thousand-Year Door''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s remake apart from the "Shroom" stuff are unchanged from their appearances in the less recent original game, but we can reflect names unique to the more recent remake, I suppose. But that still seems somewhat arbitrary and needlessly inconsistent to me, especially in cases where the names used in the original ''The Thousand-Year Door'', ''Super Paper Mario'' and the former game's remake all differ (see [[Mushroom Fry]] and [[Mushroom Roast]]).

'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} We did this for Super Mario RPG, right? This change should be unprecedented. Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Sure, thought we were already doing this.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RHG1951}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Most recent game, so that makes sense.

====Oppose====

====Comments====

===Delete the page "List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses"===
{{Proposal outcome|canceled}}
Before I get started, this is not what I would consider a "piecemeal" proposal, since it concerns bosses, which do not hold the same level of prominence to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series like items, characters, and stages. I'd argue that music is more integral to ''Super Smash Bros.'' (or games in general, for that matter), because they can be heard throughout a game, and a proposal of trimming those to ''Super Mario'' passed recently by a margin of exactly twice the number of votes.

Part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the fact that most of the bosses are not from the ''Super Mario'' franchise, except for [[Giant Donkey Kong]], [[Giga Bowser]], [[Metal Mario]], and [[Petey Piranha]], none of whom will be affected by the scope of this proposal.

If this proposal passes, the [[List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses]] page '''will be deleted''', and the existing redirects will point either to the game pages if the boss makes only one ''Smash Bros.'' appearance (for example, {{iw|smashwiki|Tabuu}} to {{fake link|Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Bosses}}) or become disambiguation pages if the boss has two or more appearances in the series (e.g. {{iw|smashwiki|Master Hand}}, who appears in every ''Super Smash Bros.'' game). The list page is collecting dust on the wiki, it's hardly accessible to readers, and I believe this is more feasible option if we want to highlight their relation to ''Super Mario''.

The game pages already mention the bosses. In ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', for example, the bosses are already summarized in their [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Bosses|own section]], and same goes for [[Super_Smash_Bros._Ultimate#Bosses|Ultimate]]''. If there's any interaction with ''Super Mario'' content, that can be highlighted in the respective games' Bosses section. The in-depth content's already on SmashWiki, so duplicating the content of the non-''Super Mario'' material contradicts our [[MarioWiki:Once and only once]] policy when taking the wider network of [https://www.niwanetwork.org/ NIWA] into account (a point originally raised by {{@|ThePowerPlayer}} on a different proposal).

Lastly, I notice both Dracula and Ganon have sections for their appearances in ''Captain N'', something that is obviously not part of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. Therefore, this adds to another reason why it would be better to delete the list page, since the page title implies having content involving only the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. The respective boss's Captain N sections can be integrated with the ''[[Captain N: The Game Master]]'' page. Ganon's ''Nintendo Land'' section can be deleted entirely, having no relation to ''Super Mario''. Ganon has a [[The Legend of Zelda (television series)|Zelda TV series]] section, which at least has previews in ''SMB Super Show!'' going for it. Basically, for the reasons mentioned in this paragraph, both Ganon's and Dracula's redirects will also become disambiguation pages in addition to the recurring ''Super Smash Bros.'' bosses with two or more appearances (ex. Master Hand).

'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per above.

====Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - No. Just no. "Once and only once" has ''nothing to do'' with what other wikis do. And when describing a crossover where any element can interact, including the ''Mario''-based ones (unlike, say, Nintendo Land or Supercade, where everything was very segregated), it is our prerogative to describe what ''crosses over'', not outright ignore things. Also, unlike the Pokemon thing, there are ''Mario'' based bosses with Metal Mario, Giant DK, Giga Bowser, and Petey Piranha (as you brought up), so the arguments from that proposal don't really apply - it's fine to have them all in one place. [https://www.mariowiki.com/User:Doc_von_Schmeltwick/Projects#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series I'll again link my proposal idea for people to read;] if that proposal passes and gets enacted, I will be happy to revisit this subject (and might even support it), but I think that should be done ''first''. Also, this should be a Talk Page Proposal, not a normal Proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} I feel this poses no real issue in keeping, especially the bosses present in the Subspace Emissary, an adventure that A. is an crossover adventure that contains ''Mario series'' characters interacting with these bosses and B. contains a ''Mario series'' boss to begin with. I'll reiterate, I don't mind a lot of these list articles for ''Smash'' content and I feel that's far better than just outright removing this stuff. A list of bosses is fine, as it's covering what appears in modes that ''Mario series'' characters participate in without going out of the way to create individual articles on. And to put my two cents into this whole "We have other wikis for this content" (as I probably already have), you could make the same arguments towards [[Mario & Sonic (series)|Sonic]], [[Fortune Street|Dragon Quest]] and [[Mario Hoops 3-on-3|Final Fantasy]] as we do towards ''Smash''; wikis exist for those too, yet we still give coverage to characters there. ''Smash'' is as much of a crossover as any of those franchises. Bigger, sure, but it's still a crossover.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While we're probably the biggest opponents of the various Smash pages, our problem isn't the fact they ''exist''. The list articles themselves are fine enough, and the list of bosses is no exception; given the mere existence of Giga Bowser, the idea of deleting it is a big no-no. We would personally defer to how we handle the various [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.|List of fighters]] articles; non-Mario bosses get their overviews in the article, while splitting the more Mario-relevant bosses or just covering them in their corresponding articles if they already gave one. Outright wiping all the bosses is tremendous overkill.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all. Even as a supporter of truncating Smash info, this is pretty harsh.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.

====Comments====

===Decide how to handle conjectural sections about ''Super Mario Galaxy'' planets/areas===
{{Proposal check|5|1|5}}
{{Proposal outcome|passed|1-0-5-0|<nowiki>Use {{conjecture}} and {{dev data}} on appropriate sections</nowiki>}}
Yesterday, I've been trying to tag sections about unofficially named areas in ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]'' with <code>{{tem|conjecture|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> and sections about areas whose names come from development data such as internal filenames in those games with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>, until someone undid my edits regarding the article [[Gateway Galaxy]], so I had to undo my edits regarding the articles [[Good Egg Galaxy]] and [[Honeyhive Galaxy]]. Now to me, it makes no sense for the beginning text for the Layout and Planets/Areas sections to read as follows:

<pre>
'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.
</pre>

<blockquote>
'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.
</blockquote>

As such, I offer the following options:

;Option 1: Add the <code>allnames</code> to the <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template and tag layout and planets/areas sections with <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> AND sections about areas whose names come from development data with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 2: Add the <code>allnames</code> to the <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template and tag ONLY the layout and planets/areas sections with <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 3: ONLY tag sections regarding the unofficially named planet(s)/area with <code>{{tem|conjecture|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> and sections about areas whose names come from development data with <code>{{tem|dev data|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code>.
;Option 4: Do NOTHING.

Take a look at the following samples for the first three options:

{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 1
|hide=Hide sample for Option 1
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}

{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 2
|hide=Hide sample for Option 2
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
{{conjecture|allnames=yes|section=yes}}
=====Starting Planet=====
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}

{{hide
|show=Show sample for Option 3
|hide=Hide sample for Option 3
|content=
<pre>
====Layout====
=====Starting Planet=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Gatewayplanet.png|200px|thumb|left|The Starting Planet]]
This is the first planet that Mario explores in the game. It is where Mario first wakes up after being blasted off [[Peach's Castle]] by [[Kamek]] in the opening cutscene. Here, he meets two yellow [[Luma]]s as well as an apricot Luma who transform into [[Star Bunny|Star Bunnies]] and asks him to play hide and seek with them. When they are all found, a large light beam goes down from the sky, and the gateway appears, and it is where Mario meets [[Rosalina]] for the first time. The planet itself has three holes in its surface (two of which connect to each other directly through the center of the planet), many small patches of flowers, two connecting [[Warp Pipe]]s, several [[rubbery bulb]]s, two small pools of water, two small cottages, a ring of vertically-positioned rock columns, and a castle-like monument on the top. The planet is also surrounded by a light blue atmosphere. Later in the game, Mario must use the power of the [[Red Star]] to collect 100 Purple Coins on this planet, enabling him to use the Red Star onboard the [[Comet Observatory]] as well. Rosalina mentions that this planet is dear to her and she looks forward to visiting it with the Lumas every one hundred years.
{{multiple image
|align=right
|direction=horizontal
|width=200
|image1=SMG Gateway Garden.png
|caption1=The Starting Planet's garden area
|image2=SMG Gateway Castle.png
|caption2=The castle structure on the Starting Planet
}}
[[Deep Dark Galaxy#Gateway Galaxy Planet|A planet]] found in the [[Deep Dark Galaxy]] resembles the Starting Planet of the Gateway Galaxy. It can be seen from the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Wooden Planet|Wooden Planet]], as well as the [[Deep Dark Galaxy#Starting Planet|Starting Planet]]. The planet is accessible via a [[cannon]] on the latter, and is much smaller than the original one. There are three [[Goomba]]s here, and a yellow screw that can be unscrewed by [[Spin|spinning]] it, which will cause the planet to quickly shrink and disappear, at the same time revealing a large ring of [[coin]]s.

After the credits have rolled, when the player has collected 120 [[Power Star]]s and defeated [[Bowser]] for a second time, the ending sequence that plays occurs here. In the sequence, Rosalina thanks the player and says that she will watch over them from beyond the stars. She then walks into the door of the small blue-roofed cottage on the planet and comes out of the door of the Gate, thereby revealing that the two are connected. It is also revealed that the Comet Observatory is most likely hidden somewhere on the planet (although it cannot be seen when the player actively explores it), as it emerges from behind the planet after Rosalina transforms it into a comet once again and pilots it away.

=====[[Black hole|Black Hole]] Planet=====
{{dev data|section=yes}}
[[File:Black Hole Planet.png|200px|thumb|left|[[Mario]] collecting [[Star Chip]]s on the {{conjectural|Black Hole Planet|planet}}.]]
The Black Hole Planet<ref>Name confirmed by files found on noclip. [https://noclip.website/#smg/HeavensDoorGalaxy].</ref> is a planet made of nothing more than dirt, grass and stone. There is a [[black hole]] at its center, and it is also under constant bombardment by a [[meteor]] shower. There are five yellow [[Star Chip]]s on this planet that Mario must collect in order to proceed, as well as a rock with a [[1-Up Mushroom]] on top of it.
{{br}}

=====Metal Planets=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:SMG Grand Goomba.png|thumb|left|200px|Mario on the planet]]
[[File:Metal Planets.png|200px|thumb|The two {{conjectural|Metal Planets|planet}} in the Gateway Galaxy.]]
These are two metal planets which look very similar to one another. Both planets are brown in color, and have what appears to be metallic green power cables embedded in their surfaces which snake around the planets. In addition, both planets have [[Shock Wave Generator]]s that, when spun, will send vibrations across them, stunning all enemies within range. There are many [[Goomba]]s on both of these planets, as well as several [[Crystal (Super Mario Galaxy)|crystal]]s. Also, on the second of the two is a [[Big Goomba|Grand Goomba]], the only one in the entire game. The Flipswitch Area is located inside the second Metal Planet, and is accessed via a [[Warp Pipe]].
{{br}}

=====Flipswitch Area=====
{{conjecture|section=yes}}
[[File:Flipswitch Area.png|200px|thumb|left|The {{conjectural|Flipswitch Area|area}}, located inside the second of the two Metal Planets.]]
[[File:SMG Gateway Metal Planet Interior.png|200px|thumb|The draining device]]
When the player enters the Warp Pipe on the bottom of the second Metal Planet, he will be taken to an inverted, spherical metal chamber with many [[Goomba]]s and [[Flipswitch Panel]]s inside. The goal is to shut down the machine and save the first of seven [[Grand Star]]s in the game by activating every Flipswitch Panel found on the inside of the planet to change all of them from yellow to blue, while simultaneously avoiding the many Goombas and electric platforms. There are several coins floating in the air as well.
{{br}}
</pre>
}}

Likewise, the source of the {{tem|conjecture}} template reads as follows:

<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
The title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|<nowiki>;</nowiki> an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>

However, once this proposal passes with either Option 1 or Option 2, the source will read as follows:

<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|The titles of all sections within|The title of}} this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|are|is}} '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}{{#if:{{{derived|}}}|, but the current name has been '''derived''' from some available official information|<nowiki>;</nowiki> {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|official names for specific sections' subjects have|an official name for the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}'s subject has}} not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}. {{#if:{{{allnames|}}}|If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title|If an official name is found, then the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|}}}|changed|moved}} to its appropriate title}}.
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with {{#if:{{{derived|}}}|derived|conjectural}} {{#if:{{{section|}}}{{{allnames|}}}|sections|titles}}]]}}</includeonly>
</pre>

As such, putting <code>{{tem|conjecture|allnames<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes|section<nowiki>=</nowiki>yes}}</code> will result in this:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#fff7f7;border:1px solid #b77">
The titles of all sections within this section are '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]''''', unless otherwise noted; official names for specific sections' subjects have not been found, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors. If an official name is found for one of its sections, then it should be changed to its appropriate title.
</div>

That way, we'll be able to remove "<code><nowiki>'''NOTE''': Unless otherwise noted, all names are unofficial.</nowiki></code>" from the Planets/Areas section on every ''Super Mario Galaxy'' galaxy page in favor of the <code>{{tem|dev data}}</code> and/or <code>{{tem|conjecture}}</code> template(s).

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Option 1====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My primary choice.

====Option 2====

====Option 3====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My secondary choice.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I don't see any particular reason we would need an entire feature of these templates just for Galaxy's planet lists. The fact of the matter is: these planets are using conjectural or dev data–derived names. That's what the templates are for. I find the argument that they're only for situations editors will be able to fix wildly unconvincing considering I'd wager '''over two-thirds''' of [[:Category:Articles with conjectural titles]] are things we're never going to see again. The [["Deep Cuts" Toad]] is never gonna show up again. We're never gonna get official names for [[Patty's mother and father]]. You look under a random letter, it's probably something we're never going to see the name of. The template is just blatantly not used for that.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Ahemtoday. The {{[[:Template:conjecture|conjecture]]}} template must be used when we don't have an official name, without needing to assume that an official name exists but is not known to the public. By the way, how can we know whether such a concealed name exists or not? And how can we be sure that an official public name will never given in the future? Who's to say there will never be an official source that gives names to SMG planets?
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Ahemtoday and Jtendo.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.

====Option 4====

====Comments====
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I think the difference here and the other conjectural articles is that the planetary bodies in galaxies do not just "lack" publicly accessible names - they are straight up not supposed to have names. The Shogakukan guidebook for ''Mario Galaxy'' does not give planets name. The game does not give planets name. The instruction booklet does not give planets name. The only "source" that applies discrete names for planets are from the developers and we have no reason to think these were intended to be the planets. The These galaxy articles are generally a bit outdated, and I think the mistake in the first place was suggesting that ''some'' of the planets have real names "except where otherwise noted." They largely do not. I think it would would healthier to recognize that they are just different sections of a greater whole, much like areas in courses for the earlier 3D games, and apply titles accordingly. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:44, September 3, 2024 (EDT)
:Hm. I still think them not being supposed to have names is true of much of that category — the ones on particular Toads in modern (well, maybe I have to specify Sticker Star through Origami King these days) Paper Mario come to mind. You raise a point about the article structure not matching the reality of the situation, but as long as the articles are going to have separate subheaders for each planet — and I'm not certain it would be sensible to do otherwise — I think we need to treat their appellations the standard way. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:35, September 3, 2024 (EDT)

===Revise the "four weeks until counter-proposal can be made" rule===
{{Proposal outcome|canceled}}
The "four weeks" threshold causes more harm than good, especially when proposals that intend to make wide-reaching changes are stymied by smaller proposals that only deal with a single section on a single page, which can then happen for a similar section on another page, and so on and so forth. With the month-long threshold especially, this can stretch into actually forever. As such, I propose two solutions:

#. '''Lower the threshold of time to two weeks.''' - Why is it four weeks, anyway? Why that arbitrary amount of time? That's twice as long as it takes a talk page proposal to run its course anyway. There's no benefit to this. I get that the purpose is to avoid a back-and-forth, but it seems unlikely community consensus will have changed within that amount of time unless something new has been brought up or found, in which case sooner is ''better'' - see what happened on [[Ankoopa]]'s talk page for a good example there, when evidence for a third option was only found very late into a proposal and as such, a month had to pass with outright incorrect information being knowingly included on it before it could be reversed. (and for an older example, that time [[Talk:Lava Bubble (blue)|the blue Lava Bubbles]] were called "Ice Podoboos" because several people confused them with [[Li'l Brr]]s).
#. '''Make the rule specific to proposals whose ''sole/majority purpose'' (or at least, the sole/majority purpose of one of the options in case of multi-option proposals, and by "majority" I mean "at least 1/4 of what it will do involves the previous proposal") is to overturn another one, and instead have the large-scale omnibus proposals have to wait 1 week instead of 4 to contradict a previous proposal if the previous proposal is only a small part of it (required to be ''intrinsically related'' to the rest, not some unrelated amendment) and not a major focus of it.''' - This is again an issue that occurs in omnibus proposals on related subjects if multiple proposals are created over a period of time. It pads out the time before it can be allowed unnecessarily, ''especially'' when combined with the previously mentioned issue - it can prevent the proposal from being made indefinitely, which is obviously unfair; waiting patiently for a month only to get "Your Princess is in Another Castle"d by another one being made before they are allowed to make their own is very disheartening, after all, and infinite loops and vicious cycles are never any good if they can't be broken out of. Now it ''will'' still be disallowed to contradict any point of ''currently running'' proposals, but downtime is fair game. And of course, all those minor proposals won't need to happen in the first place if the omnibus one is made.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support - Both====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per

====Support - Just #1====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per

====Support - Just #2====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per

====Oppose====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't see any practical argument behind this proposal besides you disagreeing with a proposal that passed and wanting non-''Super Mario'' coverage on a ''Super Mario'' wiki. 28 days is plenty of time. Your opening statement makes it clear that this proposal is centered around you wanting to instantly overturn a proposal you strongly disagree with. Also, this proposal ends a day before Sept 25, twenty-eight days after Aug 28, the proposal you want to overturn. Also, what if someone used this rule against a proposal that you strongly supported. Would you support it in all cases, then?
#{{User|Technetium}} From looking through the comments, this seems specific to a conflict between two editors, and the proposal has no real basis beyond this one scenario. I don't think making proposals is the way interpersonal conflicts should be resolved.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We feel like a 28-day delay has a dual purpose of both preventing select repeat topics from clogging the proposals, but also allowing proposals that pass to properly sit in place, so that the changes in place have a proper chance to function. Make it too short, and you both run the risk of repeated proposals about the same subjects running over and over again, and to make it so that even if proposals do pass, they are a bit too easy to undo--and if proposals are ''too'' easy to put into place or revert, then they just kind of stop mattering, and the Wiki would just kind of melt into a constant state of flux as the editing standards would keep being changed. It has the very real chance to devolve into edit warring with extra bureaucracy involved, and we feel pretty confident that nobody would want that.
#{{User|Arend}} I have a feeling that this proposal was not ''entirely'' made in good faith... by which I mean that the proposal seems to be made with the proposer's annoyance of them being unable to post their proposal in mind, rather than it actually being beneficial to the wiki itself. Ignoring that feeling, however, I feel that the four-week buffer is there to let the proposed changes get properly "baked" into the wiki's design, i.e. let users and visitors get used to these changes; I feel like the idea is that if the wait time to overturn it were any shorter, that would not be enough time for people to get used to the changes in the first place. When it comes to the second proposed option (aside from it being a bit confusedly-worded), that sounds like the proposer wanted to open a loophole opportunity. I can imagine that there will be several proposals made to overturn a previous proposal only a mere day after it was settled, only for these proposals to be allowed because the overturning part is only a ''minor'' part of these proposals whilst the ''primary'' point of the proposals is, like, something bogus that doesn't really benefit the wiki in a major way – kind of like adding bogus, non-beneficiary multiple options in a proposal just to avoid insufficient consensus due to multi-option proposals working differently, something the same proposer complained about in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Adjust proposal rule 9 to prevent exploitation|a prior proposal]].
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per the first four oppose voters.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all, still not convinced after the edits made to the proposal.

====Comments====
{{@|Super Mario RPG}} - Yes. Yes I would. Because this restriction is arbitrary and annoying no matter what one's opinion on any other proposals is. And note how you are attempting to push my ability to make my proposal by another ''month'' with the separate obstacle and cameo proposals you just made. "Making a proposal to fix a flaw in the rules one is a victim to" isn't about some sort of personal vendetta, it's about fixing a flaw in the rules. And again, if you actually read the proposal made here, it's not about instant overturns, it's about dealing with incidental pieces - and please note the part about "community consensus probably will not have changed unless something major comes up" that I mentioned. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:43, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:There could be endless arguing within short time frames if this rule is changed. This isn't about a "flaw in the rules" so much as you trying to change the system to suit your liking, at least in this circumstance, since it would benefit you directly. But then if there's 50/50 division on proposals on the wiki, this could go badly very quickly. I don't see a single other person filled with nearly this much zeal to keep ''SSB'' content. Yes, there is support, but this is going overboard. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:50, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::No it won't. Again, the specifics still keep that from happening. A month is annoyingly long either way, and from what I can tell you are making some amount of effort (consciously or subconsciously) to attempt to put off my ability to make a proposal indefinitely, considering after three weeks of not much happening, you implemented your proposal, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros.&diff=prev&oldid=4368007 I told you my proposal would be next week] and then not 20 minutes later [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Super_Smash_Bros.&diff=4368013&oldid=4368011 you created two piecemeal 2-week talk page proposals right under that statement] that would ensure mine would be put off for double the original amount of time, which is an unfair result of the current policy - [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YankTheDogsChain hell there's a TVTropes page for it]. A month is too long, end of story. (Also, I have never seen anyone with as much zeal for removing ''Smash'' things as you, so that goes both ways.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:56, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd call myself logical (''Super Mario'' is ''Super Mario'', ''Zelda'' is ''Zelda'', ''Kirby'' is ''Kirby''), but that may sound condescending. I was more focused on the first sentence of you saying that you vehemently opposed the proposal due to an inconsistency, and that was why I created two proposals to try and resolve it, since a number did support the Pokemon proposal. This proposal will disrupt the democratic process of two "piecemeal" proposals that are already ongoing, so then somehow if they pass, Pokemon will be reinstated but the other removed? It makes no sense. The wiki's not about any single person and what they want. I had failed proposals before. I've moved on. I don't keep hammering on those failed proposals, including those that failed unanimously. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:03, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::Considering you knew what I was planning, you seem to have deliberately timed it so I can't make my proposal without "disrupting the democratic process" on yours, which wouldn't have been an issue if the wait weren't so long. In doing so, you have (deliberately or otherwise) indirectly taunted me and my helplessness from these rules, which I find to be rather rude. Either way, you keep making this be about ''your'' proposal rather than the obvious flaw in the rules here. Which only makes it seem further like you are deliberately taking advantage of said flaw at my expense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:13, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I don't appreciate the assumptions being made about me. You quoted "disrupting the democratic process," admitting there's some footing in that argument to a degree. I didn't taunt you, nor do I appreciate you attempting to play the victim in this circumstance. The two clashing ideals cancel each other out: you made this centered mostly around your strong passion to overturn a proposal you're trying everything to do to overturn, and my argument against this is because it concerns a proposal that I made and that less counterproductivity and edit warring could result if someone tries to overturn proposals within such a short timeframe. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I quoted that because that's what you ''said'', the quotes were the equivalent to putting air quotes around something sarcastically. While yes, your proposals ''catalyzed'' this, I have more important matters at stake here than what it is you do. Also, "two weeks" is not a "short timeframe," "four weeks" is just an "overly long timeframe." (Honestly, this rule has ''always'' annoyed me even when it doesn't affect me, but what better time to do something about it than when it does?) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::But did this rule always bother you this much? Why didn't you make this proposal earlier then? What's the perceivable benefit to waiting two fewer weeks? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:28, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::If I made proposals the ''moment'' an idea came to me, I'd have made a billion by now. I make whatever affects me most at the time, and usually do so en masse for whatever I can remember (I don't like having to look up the ending date over and over again, so that's why I usually make a bunch of unrelated proposals at once). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:32, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

If the proposal passes, what would the new minimal time required before overturning be? [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 16:17, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I thought I put that in the proposal, guess I forgot. 2 weeks, like a TPP. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Technetium}} - It's not an interpersonal conflict, it's a rule flaw. Super Mario RPG's just trying to make it one. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:23, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:Except the opening sentence in your proposal reads to others that this stems from an interpersonal conflict. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:25, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::It reads that I have had to deal with the negative part of this rule and that spurred me into finally doing something about it. I didn't bring you up, I said that people kept making proposals. I honestly can't say if you're the only one who was doing so or not (again, I have more important things to keep track of), but when I typed that I didn't think you were. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:27, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd personally want more evidence of this being a widespread issue to consider a proposal like this. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:29, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
::::[[Talk:Ankoopa|Here]] [[Talk:Lava Bubble (blue)|you go]]. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:47, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Arend}} - What? I deliberately worded that to ''avoid'' loopholes being able to be made (the whole "3/4 margin" thing). Deliberately forcing omnibus proposals that have been announced well in advance is not a good-faith thing to do, but either way, I deliberately noted that community consensus would be unlikely to change. The [[Ankoopa]] thing was another thing I had in mind. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Super Mario RPG}} - I checked, and I was right, it wasn't only you I was referring to; Mushzoom made that proposal on the music, and while that ended up not affecting my own planned proposal since that wasn't covered in it, it was still an interim ''Smash'' proposal I was remembering having happened. When I said "people," I indeed meant "people." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:37, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

I actually support the intent behind this proposal, but there are a few issues I have with these implementations:
* Option 1 does not prevent indefinite blocking of a proposal. Since the proposal lockout time is shorter not ''just'' for the omnibus proposal, it would still be possible to delay it indefinitely by alternating between at least two proposals concerned with elements that are also part of the larger-scale proposal.
* Technically speaking, Option 2 doesn't prevent that either. ''Three'' smaller proposals would be necessary to lock down the big one, but a deliberate effort to prevent a proposal from being made is still possible.
* In another sense, and also maybe most pertinently since the other two would require deliberate malicious action — I'm wary of the 1/4 relevancy distinction because I don't think it's possible to objectively measure that. Is it measured in articles affected? In bullet-point goals for the proposal? I feel like we need to keep that sort of fuzziness out of the proposal rules.
Again, I do think this is an issue worth solving — I don't see "this is currently happening to you now so therefore the proposal is dubious" as a convincing argument — but I'm just not sure about these implementations of it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:18, September 17, 2024 (EDT)

===Rename the remaining baseball teams to their current titles===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|11-0|Use ''Mario Super Sluggers'' team names}}
One thing is certain: ''Mario Super Sluggers'' was first released in Japan almost three years after ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' was first released in said country. In this case, I humbly suggest that there's a possibility to move the remaining baseball team pages with their ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' name to their current name from ''Mario Super Sluggers''. So far, the current names already in use are the [[Peach Monarchs]] and [[Bowser Monsters]].

The following of the remaining pages will be affected by the move:
*[[Mario Sunshines]] → {{fake link|Mario Fireballs}}
*[[Yoshi Islanders]] → {{fake link|Yoshi Eggs (team)}}
*[[Wario Greats]] → {{fake link|Wario Muscles}}
*[[DK Kongs]] → {{fake link|DK Wilds}}

Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to move the remaining baseball teams with their ''Mario Superstar Baseball'' names to their current ''Mario Super Sluggers'' titles.

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Kept forgetting to do this during my ongoing sports project.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} The most recent names should be prioritized.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Definitely.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per (baseb)all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Don't see why not.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. Sounds like a good idea.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Windy}} Per all.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all. <s>I wish we had more than just one team in ''Sluggers''</s>
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Consistency. Per all.

====Oppose====

====Comments====

===Add {{iw|mw|Extension:WikiLove|WikiLove}} extension (includes templates)===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|Add the WikiLove extension}}
Inspired by my recently passed Thanks proposal and engagement with editors over time, I think a precedent has been set to add more [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|WikiLove]] features on to the wiki so that (willing) members may enjoy engaging with one another and feel motivated when others compliment their work, or just personal appreciations.

The main thing this proposal is focused on is the {{iw|mw|Extension:WikiLove|MediaWiki extension}}, which is called WikiLove. On the rationale of the {{iw|mw|WikiLove}} page, it says that lesser experienced users may feel discouraged when looked down upon by more experienced editors as they try to figure out how to do wikis, and this could help motivate not only newer editors, but also more experienced editors.

It says one can make custom WikiLove messages. Being a wiki on ''Super Mario'', I think this wiki could aim to do WikiLove messages themed around the ''Super Mario'' franchise. The community can decide on WikiLove messages if this proposal passes (e.g., one message could say like "You're a super star like Mario"), as well as personalized ones toward editors. But if others do not want involvement, the courtesy policy can be updated to reflect this.

I wish there were more images to show, but here's a [[mw:File:WikiLove-screenshot-2014.png|representative image]] to show how WikiLove would look. Would it be worth giving this a try?

'''Edit:''' For clarity, if this proposal passes, this also means WikiLove templates will be created, like how Wikipedia has them. It can be what the community decides, and categorical examples could include {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Happy New Year|seasonal}}, {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Doggy|animals}}, {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Glass of milk|drinks}}, or {{iw|wikipedia|Template:Friend|expressing friendships}}, and obviously ''Super Mario''.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} This would be a great form of positive feedback to counter the struggles faced by new and existing editors alike, since learning how to use a wiki is more difficult than you might expect. Ultimately, this should increase the feeling of community around the wiki to keep editing from feeling like a chore.
# {{User|Derekblue1}} I know people are happy with what I do ever since I update the Discord server on my progress on ''Mario is Missing!''. The WikiLove extension will make people feel more connected. I see this as a boost of encouragement just like the Thanks extension.
#{{User|Technetium}} Seems really fun, especially if we go full on Mario theming with it!
#{{User|Sparks}} Hooray for more positivity!
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} <s>give me my glass o' milk now</s> This seems like it would be a nice addition to the wiki. Per all!
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} I know I had a rough time when I first joined some of the websites I'm currently on today, so I'm all for this! I just love having the option to thank people and encourage them! Per all!
#{{User|BMfan08}} Sure! I'm all for kittens (I could even make do with [[Kitten|Mario kittens]]). Per all!
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.

====Oppose====

====Comments====
{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} I realized WikiLove templates could fit into the scope of this proposal, so it's been updated, if your "Support" will count towards voting for those as well. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:24, September 13, 2024 (EDT)

I really like this, but does Porplemontage know about this proposal? I know he approved and implemented the "Thanks" extension, but I just wanna be sure! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 22:37, September 13, 2024 (EDT)
:{{@|Sparks}} The proposal is easily viewable on this page. And the proposal basically concerns a WikiLove system in general (since I updated it to also mention templates), so something like {{fake link|MarioWiki:WikiLove}} page can be set up with the corresponding templates. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 08:17, September 14, 2024 (EDT)
::Alrighty! Good to know. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 08:52, September 14, 2024 (EDT)

===Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes===
{{proposal check|6|2|7}}
{{Proposal outcome|passed|6-0-2-0|Only add in the current voice actor}}
Currently, in infoboxes, the "latest portrayal" section of it is inconsistent across characters. When ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' came out, for example, it listed both [[Kevin Afghani]] (Mario's current voice actor) and [[Charles Martinet]] (who voices Mario in ''The Thousand-Year Door'' from original archival voicing) as Mario's latest portrayals, yet [[Jen Taylor]] (whose voice clips were also reused) wasn't added to Peach's latest portrayal. Therefore, to make these infoboxes consistent for characters with multiple voice actors, I am proposing several options:
*Option 1: Only add in the current voice actor for the character (reissues with archival voices from retired voice actors will not be added).
*Option 2: Only add in the voice actor for the character in the most recent game (reissues with archival voices will overtake the "current" voice actor if the latest one did not record voice lines for the character, the current voice actor will be re-added to the infobox following the release of a game with voices from the current voice actor).
*Option 3: Add both the current voice actor and the voice actor for the latest release (this puts two voice actors in the "latest portrayal" section if the character is voiced via archival footage from a retired voice actor, but the current voice actor also gets to remain. When a new game comes out with new voice lines from the current voice actor, the voice actor from the previous release will be removed).
*Option 4: Do nothing (infoboxes with both actors will not change, and same with infoboxes with the current actor even if a game featuring archival voicing from a retired voice actor is the latest one).

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

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

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

====Only add in the the voice actor for the "latest" game====
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Tertiary choice. If "Latest portrayal" really means the person who voiced the character in the latest game, regardless of said actor's as-of-game-release status, then maybe archival voices can count because it is the voice of the character in the "latest" game. I do not recommend this option as this will cause a lot of infobox editing and switching voice actors when reissues (particularly ports and remasters) do inevitably come out, and if a compilation game (like ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'') comes out, multiple voice actors who voice the same character in a single compilation (like [[Princess Peach]], who had [[Leslie Swan|three]] [[Jen Taylor|voice]] [[Samantha Kelly|actresses]] in a single compilation) will stack up in the infoboxes. And when a new game comes out, all of that is thrown out the window, reverting to their current voice actor. [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"|This is why some were against enforcing the absolute "latest" portrayals in a previous proposal]]. The only reason why I am for this is consistency.</s>
====Add both current and latest voice actor====
#{{User|Tails777}} Leaning to a secondary vote; it's best to keep it up to date when it comes to VAs, but it isn't uncommon for various games to recycle voice clips (TTYD once again being a good example). I feel it is best to at least acknowledge if voice clips get recycled in this respect, though I also feel this should be limited to one at a time, in case there are examples where someone had more than even two voice actors.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
<s>#{{User|Altendo}} Secondary choice. It feels nice to respect both the voice actor who is currently voicing the character and the person whose voices, even in archival, are the sole ones used in the latest game. However, my point about voice actor switching, while not as big as an issue because archival voice actors will only be added rather than replace the current one, still kind of stands because reissues will add the archival voice actor for one game, only to remove it when a new game comes out. Additionally, if compilations ''only'' contain voices from retired voice actors, this will stack it up even more (although for ''3D All-Stars'', it still wouldn't change much due to Peach's ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' voice actress still being her current one). Still, this does make the infoboxes consistent.</s>
====Do nothing====

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

===Change how "infinitely respawning" enemies are counted in level enemy tables===
{{proposal outcome|failed|2-12|Do not change}}
Currently, the wiki lists enemy counts for each level in tables located in that level's article. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when infinitely respawning ones (like piped ones) are included. As seen [[World 6-B (New Super Mario Bros.)|here]], this is awkwardly written as
*"[number] (not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]),"
and why shouldn't it include them? That method of writing is ungainly, misleading, and bloats the table's width unnecessarily. Therefore, I propose the alternate writing of
*"[number] + (∞ x [number]),"
with the "x [number]" and parentheses being removed if there is only one case. So in the linked example, it would be "6 + ∞," which says the same thing without contradicting itself with a lengthy diatribe.
<br>(Also I had to restrain myself from using * rather than x because that's how I'm used to writing multiplication in equations. Thanks, higher-level math classes defaulting to "X" as a variable! But the asterisk could be used too, anyway.)

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Altendo}} - This doesn't sound like a bad idea, although I do think there should be an asterisk like "*" instead which leads to a note saying "not including the infinite [enemy] spawning from [number] [method]", as enemies can spawn in different ways, and showing how they spawn could still be useful. If we just show "∞ x [number]", it wouldn't show how Goombas are spawned in (the linked page doesn't specify how they are spawned in otherwise). But I do like the idea of shortening the "count" section of tables.
<s>#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Altendo. This formatting is much better, but I also think some note of where the infinite enemy spawner(s) originate from should be preserved.</s><br>
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per all.</s>

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

====Comments====
{{@|Hewer}} - "succinct" would generally imply "short, sweet, and to-the-point," of which the current method is the exact opposite. I'm fine with including an asterisk-note next to the infinity, but the current one is much too bloated, outright admits to stating false information, and since the tables are center-aligned with that horizontal-bloat, it makes it look incredibly awkward. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, September 17, 2024 (EDT)
:I guess we just have totally opposing opinions on this one, because I don't personally find ten words of explanation to be "much too bloated", would rather "state false information" (not really what's happening because it's immediately clarified and the only way not to state any "false" info would be to just put "∞" which helps no one) than obscure the meaning of what we're trying to say, and I don't at all think the somewhat wider tables look "incredibly awkward". This is a case where I feel giving more explanation than "6 + ∞" is necessary for the sake of conveying clear information, so I'd rather prioritise that over having a thin table (which I still don't really see why that's so desirable). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:19, September 18, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, I think that a dedicated template should be made; something like <code><nowiki>{{infinite respawn|5|3}}</nowiki></code> that would produce "{{hover|5 + (∞ × 3)|5 (not including the 3 infinite spawning points)}}". Or at the very least, use an actual "×" symbol rather than "x". {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:08, September 19, 2024 (EDT)
:I dislike the idea of hiding details in easily missable hover text and don't really see the benefit of using it. It just makes it more convoluted. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:12, September 20, 2024 (EDT)

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

I'd personally prefer if this was notated with ω instead of ∞, something like "{{hover|3ω+5|3 infinite spawn points and 5 others}}", but that would probably be too confusing to anyone not already familiar with transfinite ordinal notation. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:01, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:This should be written "ω⋅3+5" because 3⋅ω = ω; {{wp|Ordinal arithmetic#Multiplication|multiplication on transfinite ordinal numbers}} is not commutative. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:40, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

Maybe just have a table for finite enemies and a table for infinite enemies? There's horizontal space for both. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 11:33, September 21, 2024 (EDT)
:That just needlessly splits information, which I again don't see the benefit of (and I still don't really see how there's a problem here that needs fixing anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 21:26, September 21, 2024 (EDT)

=== Add film and television ratings to [[Template:Ratings]] ===
{{proposal outcome|passed|16-0|Add film and television ratings}}
Regarding ratings on the games we cover on this wiki, it's usually done very well and even shows off obscure rating companies hardly anyone talks about. It's educational and shows how the world rates a Super Mario game. However, when it comes to television shows and movies, they do not get the same treatment. Television shows ''don't even have ratings in their infobox.'' And while the movies do, they not only list ''just'' the MPAA, which for people who live in the United Kingdom or other countries, is '''not''' representative of the majority of the world, it's ''just'' the text, "PG". Sure, most people know it means "Parental Guidance," but imagine if we included more ratings. It's not super easy to find ratings for films and television shows in general, other than IMDB and there are no sources for proof of these ratings. When it comes to the Canadian Home Video Rating System, I can hardly find what rating was applied to that particular movie/TV show and I remember not being lucky for searching any other ratings for other movies (personal experience, but I remember searching on one of these websites and the site was rather buggy or didn't have the film/show in question).

The better solution is to '''add film and television ratings to the [[Template:Ratings|rating template]] so we can provide a wide variety of ratings for movies and television shows.''' In this case, users from around the world can view how movies are rated in almost every country. As for what ratings we add, it's a bit tricky. Because there is a lot, I would need some help here. Regardless, I got some EFIGS ratings in question. If you have more ratings, please let me know and I'll add it to the proposal These are split up into film and television.

<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Film </div>
*[[Wikipedia:Motion Picture Association film rating system|Motion Picture Association film rating system (MPAA)]]
*[[Wikipedia:British Board of Film Classification|British Board of Film Classification (BBFC)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft|Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle der Filmwirtschaft (FSK)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Canadian Home Video Rating System|Canadian Home Video Rating System]] (It can also apply to DVDs of TV shows as well.)

<div id=fh4 class=mw-headline> Television </div>
*[[Wikipedia:TV Parental Guidelines|TV Parental Guidelines]]

My list so far is not comprehensive, but my idea is to add these ratings (and potentially others) to the template and make the infoboxes look much prettier and more visually educational. I have nothing else to say, so that's about it.

'''Proposer''': {{User|TheUndescribableGhost}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Rated PR for per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Never noticed ratings were missing from TV and movie coverage until now. It feels obvious ratings should be included like they are with games. Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This is something I never noticed, but I completely agree. I'm happy that there are observant people in this world! Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all (fun fact: the Dutch rating system for movies and television, Kijkwijzer, is being utilized by {{wp|Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media|NICAM}}, which happens to ''also'' rate games in Europe using PEGI. In fact, PEGI's ratings appear to be based on those of Kijkwijzer)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Per all, especially since movies like ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' have classification ratings.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all! (This comment is not yet rated.)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i cannot fathom a reason someone would oppose this
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} How did we miss this? Per proposal.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Per all

====Oppose====

====Comments====
Wait, couldn't this just be a talk page proposal on the template itself? It would affect many pages, yes, but this is specifically about editing a template… I'm honestly not so sure. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 15:52, September 24, 2024 (EDT)

===Figure out how to handle <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki> templates when discussing ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic courses===
{{proposal outcome|passed|6-0|Use templates for all classic course links}}
This wiki has two templates used to format classic courses in the ''Mario Kart'' series: <nowiki>{{classic}} and {{classic-link}}</nowiki>. These templates convert text like "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" into a format that closer resembles the one seen in games, with the prefix being written as such, a prefix, and not part of the courses name. So "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar" becomes "{{classic|3DS|Shy Guy Bazaar}}". However, there's an exception this wiki seems to have regarding this template: classic courses in ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]''.

This is because the game does not structure the title of courses in such a way: instead it writes the prefix as large as the rest of the name, so it's written as "3DS Shy Guy Bazaar". However, I feel this creates a lot of inconsistency and confusion here on this wiki. For example, the page for a course like [[3DS Rock Rock Mountain]], a course featured as a classic in and out of ''Tour'' structures fellow course names both ways, with and without the template, simply because of the game the classic course appears in. To make things more confusing, when a ''Tour'' section on a course's page discusses classic courses outside of ''Tour'', it uses the template, as seen in a few course pages. Additionally, page titles for courses that are only classics in ''Tour'' still use a smaller font for the page name, such as [[GBA Lakeside Park]]. Finally, some courses in ''Tour'' don't even adhere to this rule that has been enforced before, such as [[Wii Maple Treeway]].

(I cannot find the edit log, however I was informed by a moderator here that it is a rule that is enforced a while back)

So this proposal is asking for one thing: an enforcement to be decided on.

The options are simple:
*Use the templates for all references to classic courses.
*Not use the template when referring to classic courses in ''Tour''.

RMX courses will not be affected by this since the "RMX" is established to be part of the course's name.

'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Use the templates for all classic course links====
#{{User|YoYo}} per my proposal, I think that the template formats them in a way that distinguishes the prefix from course name, and I think consistency is important here.
#{{User|Tails777}} I really don't think we need to be ''that'' accurate with the way things are written. Just because ''Tour''  doesn't have the system prefixes in a slightly smaller font, doesn't mean we have to follow in suit. Heck, when I removed some images from infoboxes and put them in respective sections, I kept using the <nowiki>{{classic}}</nowiki> templates regardless of which game section they were in. Why would the size of the font be that big of a deal? I think using the template for all classic courses is just the way to go.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think being accurate to the text size parts of a name are written with is different from being accurate to the name itself — and I find the former kind of unnecessary.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We should be consistent.

====Do not use the templates for ''Mario Kart Tour'' classic course links====

====Comments====

=== Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits ===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-7-13|Do not split}}
In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:
*'''Sky Blooper''' - [[Blooper]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels''
*'''Upside-down Buzzy Beetle''' - [[Buzzy Beetle]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Upside-down Spiny''' - [[Spiny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Scattering Blooper''' - [[Blooper Nanny]] variant from ''Super Mario Bros. 3''
*'''Upside-down Piranha''' - [[Piranha Plant]] variant from ''Super Mario Land''

I make this mainly because [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb2/?lang=en the] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/smb3/?lang=en Mario] [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/character/mario/archives/land/?lang=en Portal] splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the ''Smash Bros.'' Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as ''[[Cheep Cheep|Tobipuku]]'' from ''New Super Mario Bros.'') will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: '''this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies.''' Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game. I see this as similar to [[Fire Nipper Plant]], another SMB3 enemy whose fire-breathing characteristics were given to normal [[Nipper Plant]]s in a few later games.

I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|this]] page, along with stuff for the below proposal.

EDIT 9/28: Adding an option for only splitting the two Bloopers.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Scattering Support====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per proposal.

====Bloopers only, no upside-down!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I see no problem with this. Unlike the other proposed splits, normal Bloopers have not inherited the defining airborne traits of Sky Bloopers outside of the ''Super Mario Maker'' games, which breaks a lot of conventions for the sake of fun creative gameplay. I do not think it is the same situation as Upside-down Piranha Plant or Spiny.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Agreed.
#{{User|Hewer}} Blooper proposal
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} If [[Super Blooper (boss)|this Blooper]] can be split, then so can the ones listed here. On the other hand, the upside-down variants are splitting hairs. Do we split [https://youtu.be/G-JHFcn3qWs?t=58 the Goombas from anti-gravity sections] just because they're upside down?
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Second pick, per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.

====Upside-down Oppose====
#{{User|Arend}} ''Maybe'' a case could be made for Scattering Blooper, but Sky Blooper and Upside-down Piranha Plant also behave (nearly) identical to their regular counterparts. Not to mention that nearly all the regular versions of these enemies have retroactively gained attributes of these enemies too (Buzzy Beetles and Spinies can appear commonly walking on ceilings and dropping down in various games, Piranha Plants can pop out upside down from a ceiling pipe in various games, nearly all Bloopers encountered on land float above the ground; none of these are regarded as distinct variants in those later games), so it's a little weird to me if only those specific versions of enemies are regarded as separate entities but regular versions of these enemies adapting these attributes aren't; feels inconsistent and confusing for a reader.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Arend. I feel like it would be an unnecessary split. Nintendo doesn't refer to these enemies separately in any newer games. Sky Blooper may have had a chance, but ''Super Mario Maker'' clearly shows that they are just regular Bloopers. I can see Scattering Blooper being split in the future though.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i can see the case for scattering blooper and MAYBE sky blooper, but i don't think i agree with the philosophy behind the proposal.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} The idea of splitting certain minor behavior differences in enemies, but ''only'' in certain games where they are given a specific adjective relating to the thing they do, honestly just sounds ridiculous. If you're going to split some of them, you might as well split all of them, lest you create a glaring inconsistency in the wiki's coverage of these enemy variants.<br>Also keep in mind that these individual acknowledgements of upside-down enemies aren't consistent even between these similar-era games; Piranha Plants can be found upside-down as early as ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|The Lost Levels]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'', yet would be confusingly absent from your proposed "Upside-down Piranha Plant" article due to not being called "Upside-down Piranha Plants" (and also kind of throws a wrench into your theory that these were originally special variants before being merged into the main enemy). These upside-down enemies are only listed on ''Mario Portal'' when the game's respective manual also mentions them (with apparently a single exception in SMB3's Upside-down Spiny), suggesting less of a confirmation as species and more of an attempt to parallel existing material.<br>The only potential exceptions I see here are the Bloopers, particularly the Sky Blooper with its actually distinct appearance. Though, if the red Koopa Troopa, an enemy that has had consistently has a different appearance and behavior from its green counterpart in all mainline games it has appeared in (the black-and-white SML2 with only the ledge-fearing green Koopa doesn't count due to there being no red Koopa to compare with), [[Talk:Koopa_Troopa#Split_Red_Koopa_Troopa_and_Green_Koopa_Troopa|is too minor a difference to get an article]], then how are these any different?
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Some of these proposed splits are overkill.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Split enemies for one game each? Not unless we split everybody into singular game subpages like [[smashwiki:Mario (SSBB)|Smash Wiki's fighter pages]].
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't think there's a benefit to splitting Bloopers because the ''Super Mario Maker'' games treat them the same anyways. Plus, there's games like ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' where Bloopers come from the water and are fought on land, and there's no specific place to put those.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Not opposed to all of these (I'd probably support splitting Sky Blooper), but while I do generally like following official classification of things, having an article for Buzzy Beetles that were upside down in SMB3 specifically and no other game just feels silly and confusing.</s><br>
<s>#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.</s>

====Sky Comments====
I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
::Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.
::What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with [[Koopa Shell]]s, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for [[Green Shell]]s and [[Red Shell]]s for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main [[Koopa Troopa]] article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)
:::You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
::::(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.
::::For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
:::::And there's the black-and-white ''Super Mario Land 2'', where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like ''Super Mario World'' have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the ''Paper Mario'' and ''Yoshi's Story'' versions of [[Black Shy Guy]]) is the best way to go in that regard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Opposition I see this as a similar case to [[Gloomba]] only covering the blue underground Goombas when they are officially split, or [[Headbonk Goomba]] only covering headbonking Goombas when ''they'' are officially split. Same for the large-sized Chain Chomps and Wigglers sometimes being considered "big" versions and sometimes considered standard. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)
:I see those as a bit different since they have functional or other differences specific to those games, blue Goombas aren't normally stronger than the standard versions. As far as I can tell, the only way Upside-down Buzzy Beetle is more of a variant in SMB3 than it is any other game is in name. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:52, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
::The fact that Portal, which is recent, bothers to split them for those games specifically rather than ignore it in favor of following what later games do makes me think this is still valid. Especially since Upside-Down Piranhas were also differentiated in Viridi's Piranha Plant list in ''Smash Ultimate''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:09, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::Technically, do we know whether Viridi was referring to specifically upside-down Piranha Plants from Super Mario Land, rather than just upside-down ones in general? Not sure if it's different in Japanese, but their placement in the list is notably odd especially if it was meant to be referring to just Mario Land, as they are the last variant listed before the three Petey Piranhas, rather than the roughly release date order the list mostly uses. As for Mario Portal, Nintendo101's point about red and green Koopa Troopas compels me to ignore that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:12, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
::::They're the only ones that are named as such, so yes. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Uhhh, I'd find sources other than Super Mario Land and the Mario Portal before I confidently make claims like that. Personally, I doubt that these games are the only instances in which the Japanese word for "upside-down" immediately precedes the name of an enemy that happens to be upside-down. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Treating it as a label, there are none. Prose, perhaps, but not as a deliberate label. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Again, sources???? The only evidence I could find vaguely supporting you (for the Piranha Plant in ''Lost Levels'' at least) is in a scan of the Japanese Super Mario All-Stars guide, which is after you claim they dropped the concept. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::What Portal is doing is enough, IMO. It shows their "current interpretation" is that they are different enough for a separate listing (without the parentheses, even) specifically in the respective games I listed, but not elsewhere. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:42, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|DrippingYellow}} - Technically, only the Upside-Down Piranha Plants in SML have the point bonus, which is part of how the game defines its enemies. Also, that "paralleling existing material" also doesn't split color, so this doesn't seem inconsistent to me. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:...Are you seriously trying to argue that the ''point value'' of the enemy is the clincher here? As though enemies are supposed to stay exactly the same with no changes between games? Maybe the developers of SML thought you deserved more of a reward for landing a Superball shot on these upside-down enemies, but how does that specifically support them being considered a unique variant of Piranha Plant in only Super Mario Land? And sure, they called the red Koopa Troopas "Koopa Troopa (Red)" or whatever instead of "Red Koopa Troopa", but simply having a unique name is not the end-all be-all of whether something gets an article or not ([[Black Shy Guy (Yoshi's Story)]], the countless articles that we had to give a conjectural name, to name a few).<br>The problem is simply that versions of enemies that are visually idential and behaviorally similar to their normal counterpart usually don't get split, regardless of whether they have a unique name or not. And somehow, what you're proposing is even more bizarre than that; that these specific enemies in these specific games are Upside-down with a capital "U", and should be split, and the others, lowercase "u", with the ''exact same behavior, attributes, and appearance'', should not. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I see this as equivalent to [[Fire Nipper Plant]], which only appeared once in SMB3, and later RPGs gave normal Nipper Plants identical fire breath abilities. And the point value is a notable difference in function. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::Even if these truly are separate listed enemies in only these specific games, this is more like the Grinder/Ukiki situation if anything; two completely different enemies from different series that were eventually merged, and we treat them as the same thing. No "Grinder" article that only covers the monkeys in the ''Yoshi's Island'' games and not ''Wooly World''. This situation is even simpler than that debacle if you ask me, as we know exactly what to look for in terms of defining traits (that is, they are upside-down). See also: the [[Helper Monkey]] article, with all of the uniquely-named-in-Japan variants merged together for the sake of simplicity. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::The monkeys are mainly a snarl because YNI used both (O-saru-san in-game for a level name, Ucky in the guidebook), but in that case the "two separate enemies" weren't in a single game alongside each-other separately, so that situation is still different. There's also a reverse situation related to that, where Big Cheep Cheep lost its funny big mouth and its original design was eventually given to its derivative Cheep Chomp (in the same game that gave Grinder's design to Ukiki). Now, I do ''get'' where you're coming from, but I find this situation clean enough to enact this. Meanwhile, on the [https://triforcewiki.com/ Triforce Wiki], I list both of the "Zora" designs together, while Nintendo back-and-forths on whether they're different, the same, or different-looking clans of the same species (which as of ''Echoes of Wisdom'', is their current depiction) - I find that to be too much confusing mingling to bother attempting to split it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:45, September 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I will say, Nintendo is inconsistent with whether they list colored variants as separate subjects or lumped together, but in the modern era (the mid-2010s onward), they generally do if there are mechanical differences between them. For example, the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' and Mario Portal list red and green Koopa Troopas separately for every game where they both appear (as well as yellow and blue ones in ''Super Mario World''), as well as the [https://ninten-switch.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/supar-mario-bros-wonder-for-nintendo-switch-kanzepki-guidebook-hanbai3.jpg Kadokawa guidebook for ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'']. They do not do this for enemies that appear in multiple colors but have no mechanical differences between them, like [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/3d_world/index.html Biddybuds, Para-Biddybuds, or Lava Bubbles in ''Super Mario 3D World''] (of note, they do recognize blue and red Lava Bubbles separately [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/galaxy2/index.html in ''Super Mario Galaxy 2''], where they do have mechanical and behavioral differences with each other. I should also note that I have seen ''Super Mario 3D Land'' Biddybud figures sold with color denotations in their listed names in Japan, but it makes sense to do that for physical merchandise).
::I do not know the best approach for Super Mario Wiki. My gut feeling is that it would be best to stick to the systematics employed by the source material, and if that material is listing enemies separately by behavior or color or size, then it is not inherently unreasonable for them to get a dedicated article. What constitutes an "enemy" is not innate - it does not necessarily mean they are members of different species or anything like that (as apparent with [[Giant Goomba]]s, which can split into [[Hefty Goomba]]s, then normal [[Goomba]]s, indicating all Goombas have the capacity to mature into Giant Goombas and would be members of the same exact species, but they are not the same enemy). But our source material is inconsistent and fluid, adjusting based on the specific functions of individual games, as is the case with Lava Bubbles in SMG2 and SM3DW. They have flipflopped with whether they recognize different colors as separate enemies or the same ones (such as [https://imgur.com/32lQKbm here, in the bestiary for ''New Super Mario Bros.'' from 2006 that lumps Koopa Troopas together]) but they are also inconsistent in contemporary sources. In the encyclopedia, [[Big Deep Cheep]] is listed as a distinct enemy in the first ''New Super Mario Bros.'' and ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' - it is lumped with the [[Deep Cheep|smaller one]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' even though it has not undergone any behavioral changes, and this is in the same book. [[Dragoneel]]s are lumped as one enemy in the ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' section, even though there are fast, extremely long red Dragoneels and stout, slow-moving blue Dragoneels, which seems as valid a distinction as green and red Koopa Troopas. In the Kadokawa ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' excerpt I linked to above, it recognizes Red Koopa Troopas and Red Koopa Paratroopas as separate enemies from the green ones, but it lists brown and purple [[Trompette]]s as one enemy, as well as yellow and blue [[Konk]]s. This is despite the fact that the difference between the brown and purple Trombettes is that the latter turns around when it reaches the edge of a platform... just like red Koopa Troopas in the same game. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:18, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} - Well those aren't given a different name, especially not in a consistent manner across multiple sources, which was the crux here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:37, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: What? The proposal is about splitting particular enemy variants. It has nothing to do with what you said. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:24, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

{{@|Scrooge200}} - The SMM ones are to stay on the Blooper page, though. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:59, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

=== Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from ''All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.'' ===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|13-1-1|Split all alternate-named reskins}}
''[[All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]]'' has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from ''Super Mario Bros.'', most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:
*OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant ([[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Early merges|split demoed here]] alongside stuff from the above proposal
*The ''Hiranya'' replacing the Star
*The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)

These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell [https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Nippon_Broadcasting_System Katsu Yoshida never named the eye].

'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Sunplaza Support - all subjects====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Consistent with how we handle, say, [[Deku Baba]]s in ''[[Mario Kart 8]]''.
#{{User|Shoey}} I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.
#{{User|Mariuigi Khed}} Per.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i always thought we dont give ANNSMB enough coverage here. per all
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I'm tempted to say this seems like unnecessary splitting of information, but I guess the information would still also be present in the main article, wouldn't it? This seems fine.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense, and perhaps this could finally crack the mystery of who that unknown celebrity is! Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all, especially on [[Deku Baba]] and [[Keese]].
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Those look nothing like the original enemies.

====Sunplaza Support - only enemies====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per

====OkaP Oppose====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'd personally not want to split these enemies since doing so is practically a degree away from re-splitting ''Super Mario World'''s "Fall" graphic swaps (and the ''Advance 2'' exclusives don't have their own names).

====Katsu-eye Comments====

===Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2===
{{proposal outcome|passed|17-2|Remove from Koopaling article titles}}
Since the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles|last proposal]], other proposals have cropped up which sought to trim excess appellatives and nicknames from the titles of various character articles. As a result of these proposals, which saw little to no contention, the following changes were made:
*Professor Elvin Gadd [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|was moved to]] "Professor E. Gadd".
*Baby Donkey Kong [[Talk:Baby DK#Move to Baby DK|was moved to]] "Baby DK".
*Crossover characters with formerly descriptive titles (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog, Fox McCloud) [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change_full_names_of_crossover_characters_to_the_more_often_used_shortened_versions_in_article_titles|were moved to]] the shortened forms of their names (e.g. "Sonic", "Fox").

As well, before the aforementioned proposal:
*Donkey Kong Country's Animal Friends [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Move_animal_names_from_the_Donkey_Kong_Country_series_to_just_their_normal_names|were moved to their shorthand names]].
*Conker the Squirrel [[Talk:Conker#Rename_to_Conker|was moved to]] "Conker".

Vigilant gamers and game lore extraordinaires will know why these changes were made: the short forms of these subjects' names have been much more prominent and recent in their relevant official works, and their display titles across the site did not reflect this predilection. The Koopalings, as well as [[Princess Daisy]], are now the outliers in this specific regard--but while [[Talk:Princess_Daisy#Move_to_"Daisy"|the sentiment against moving Daisy's name to its more common shortened form]] was the inconsistency that would arise with [[Princess Peach]] using her long title, I do not recall the Koopalings, as a group, having some special counterpart that would create a similar perceived inconsistency.

Yeah, [[Larry]] was called "Larry Koopa" in a specific line of dialogue within Smash Ultimate, in a decade-and-a-half old licensed player's guide, and probably some 2010's toy that I'm sure users will name here in the comments, but the fact is, his short name has been promoted front-and-center within all of the games he has appeared from Mario Kart 8 back in 2014 until today, many of which are namedropped in the previous proposal. Same with his 6 siblings.

Besides, [[MarioWiki:Naming]] states plainly:
*"the name of an article should correspond to the '''most commonly used English name''' of the subject"
*"the more commonly used modern name should be used as the title"

and I believe it's only sensible for the wiki to mirror the more recent developments of the franchise in how a subject is introduced to readers.

Affected pages include:
{|
|-
|
*[[Larry Koopa]] (will be moved to "Larry")
*[[Roy Koopa]] ("Roy")
*[[Wendy O. Koopa]] ("Wendy")
*[[Lemmy Koopa]] ("Lemmy")
*[[Morton Koopa Jr.]] ("Morton")
*[[Ludwig von Koopa]] ("Ludwig")
*[[Iggy Koopa]] ("Iggy")
|
*[[List of Larry Koopa profiles and statistics]] (will be moved to "List of Larry profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Roy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Roy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Wendy O. Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Wendy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Lemmy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Lemmy profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Morton Koopa Jr. profiles and statistics]] ("List of Morton profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Ludwig von Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Ludwig profiles and statistics")
*[[List of Iggy Koopa profiles and statistics]] ("List of Iggy profiles and statistics")
|}

Note:
*This proposal targets only page titles. Even if it's a pass, articles can still acknowledge the full forms of these characters where appropriate, such as in Koopaling article openers.
*If this proposal passes, the templates in [[:Category:Koopaling content templates]] become obsolete and are to be abolished.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

====Support====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per proposal, and per the former proposal as well, which I encourage participants to peruse. (Though, this time, with no multi-option shenanigans.)
#{{User|Axii}} Per con Carne (like the last time).
#{{User|Nintendo101}} This may be controversial, but I think this is fine and in-line with our policies. These characters have largely only been referred to by their first names since ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''. This does not mean Ludwig's full name is not "Ludwig von Koopa" or that it does not see occasional use in marketing and in games - it just means the title of the article is just Ludwig. I personally do not think that is as systematically harmful or erroneous as previous proposals seemed to have suggested. Lots of reference material does this. For example, the name of the {{wp|Mark Twain}} article on Wikipedia is not "Samuel L. Clemens" in any language.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Needless to say, there have been a few changes since the last time this was proposed.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. It seems only fair as we clamp down more and more on these elongated page titles.
#{{User|Tails777}} Supported once and I'll do it again. Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all. I never really understood the main argument against this last time ("the full names still exist", as though that means they should automatically take priority over their more common short counterparts).
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all von Koopa.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} while i don't agree with the de-title-ification that's been going on, if we're going to do it we might as well be consistent with it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} The fact that there exists an entire category of templates just to circumvent a standard that violates MarioWiki:Naming is concerning, to say the least.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} per all
#{{User|BMfan08}} Per all.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all, I know I opposed this before but I've changed my mind after several similar proposals since then have passed.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per Koopall

====Oppose====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} No. Okay, no. I'm trying to make a case for undoing the proposal that shortened the Sonic characters' names. I've got a strong case for Fox McCloud in that not only was his last name mentioned in every Smash game, his [[Costume Mario#92|costume]] in [[Super Mario Maker]] is the "Fox McCloud" costume, not the "Fox" costume. And I know that if this proposal passes, Peach and Daisy are next.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per SeanWheeler. I fully support his reasons. Not long ago, I attempted a proposal to change [[Shadow (character)]] to Shadow or Shadow the Hedgehog, and while that proposal failed, it brought to my attention the proposal that SeanWheeler mentioned above. I very strongly disagree with that proposal, and as such, I disagree with this one too. We shouldn't go around shortening characters' names. This is a ''Super Mario'' wiki for goodness sakes-- we should at least put forth the full names of the characters! And it would create more potential for disambiguation pages, and thus more confusion. I know it confuses me. In every other instance, we can call them by their more common shortened names. Just don't move the pages themselves. We're doing away with the characters' identity, if you ask me.

====Comments====
To clarify my position on Daisy, it was not because I thought the proposal was unreasonable. To me, an analogous situation would be drafting a proposal to only change the name of Iggy Koopa's article and none of other Koopalings. Maybe others don't see Peach and Daisy as related to each other as sibling characters like the Koopalings, but that's how I feel at least. I would receive a proposal that included both Peach and Daisy differently. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:31, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:I reworded that point about the Daisy vs. Peach situation to sound less like a potshot. Sorry. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:34, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
::I thought it was funny :) Just wanted to clarify my position. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:37, September 27, 2024 (EDT)
:::I appreciate that you took it in good humor, but I've made a point that I'll try and be more careful with the way I word my statements. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:41, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: If Mario Maker costume names were the decider, [[Mr. Resetti]] would just be "Resetti", and indeed, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy would just be Peach and Daisy. But the main thing the Fox page covers isn't a costume in Mario Maker, it's his more common, prominent, and recent Smash appearances, in which the main name used to refer to him is always just "Fox". (Also, Sonic's Mario Maker costume is just called "Sonic", not "Sonic the Hedgehog".) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:03, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
:It's not just the Mario Maker costumes. He's been referred to as "Fox McCloud" in Melee's trophies and Ultimate's spirits, plus in Snake's Codec and Palutena's Guidance. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 17:22, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
::And he's been referred to as "Fox" in his actual role as a playable character in every single Smash game. As I've repeated countless times in our [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|previous]] [[Talk:Shadow (character)#Rename to "Shadow"|debates]], this isn't an argument of whether the full name exists, it only matters which name is more common. Please stop cherry-picking the times when the full name was used in profiles and such and acting like that automatically outweighs the more common name. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:56, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
:::I feel like these proposals shortening names are meant to take the "common name" part of the naming policy to it's literal conclusion. The article names were fine before they were changed by proposals, and now we're changing very distinctive article names to generic names. That's not good for disambiguation. The shortened names could be used as redirects, but we are discouraged from linking redirects, making me confused why we have redirects at all. I mean, link templates for the Koopalings? In November, I'm going to make a proposal to encourage linking redirects. My proposal to overturn the crossover character naming was only delayed by me not having unlocked the Sonic Character Book at the Secret Shop in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. Yes, I was going to bank on the full names being used somewhere in the games being enough to outweigh the player names. Are Peach and Daisy are going to lose their princess titles for the sake of following the naming conventions? I think the naming rule should be changed. Problem is, I can't figure out how to word it in a way to have the pages moved back to the names I want. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:55, September 30, 2024 (EDT)
::::This proposal is trying to get rid of those Koopaling templates, though. We have redirects for search purposes, not for linking. And why shouldn't the common name policy be taken to its "literal conclusion"? Are you saying you'd rather we enforced it inconsistently? That we should only enforce it when you personally happen to prefer the common name? We shouldn't ignore official sources just so that we can use the names we prefer. Also (another thing I've repeated endlessly), calling these names "generic" is subjective at best and just false at worst. Nothing about "Larry" makes it inherently a more "generic" name than "Mario" or "Pauline", and if Nintendo is content to use the shorter names to identify the characters, we have no reason not to follow suit. "But Peach and Daisy" is also a bad counterargument when several of the users supporting this proposal also supported the Daisy proposal, myself included. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:07, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Redirects just for search purposes are practically useless when there's autofill and search results. Linking to a redirect would have less bytes then pipelinking wouldn't it? And no, I don't like inconsistent rules either. I'm still trying to figure out my proposal to the naming convention. I don't want the most frequently used names which would just reduce everyone to just their first names or nicknames. Wiki page titles should be more formal than that. But during the Shadow proposal, you have pointed out some awful full names, so giving literally everyone their full names would be out too. And I feel nostalgia for the names the wiki had for years, so I wouldn't want Bowser to be moved to King Bowser Koopa. What would be the best naming convention that would have us move most if not all these characters back to their original page titles? I thought maybe "the longest common-used name" as in the full name that was referenced in most of the characters' appearances, which would keep Peach at Princess Peach (because she hasn't used her Toadstool surname in a long time, and she has been referred to as Princess Peach at least once in most of the Mario games, right?) That would definitely move Fox back to Fox McCloud. But with that rule of naming the characters their fullest name used in the most appearances, that would force us to use the full names of one-time characters like [[Squirps]] becoming {{fake link|Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina}}, so that rule wouldn't work out with me either. I don't have that many Mario games, so it would be hard to verify when each name was used in each game. If I go for "best known name," that's probably going to rely too much on bias, so that wouldn't work either. And if I just make a proposal to undo every move in the wiki's history and make it so that every article name is simply the original title, I doubt anyone would be on board if there were more legitimate reasons those pages moved like if some page titles started out misspelled. I've voted to shorten parentheticals, so it would make me a hypocrite to revert all the moves I've supported. This is really hard, especially as we're moving articles on a case-by-case basis when the articles should already be following the naming rules. Instead of the case-by-case basis, we really need to clarify the naming rules and what we mean by the "most common name." If we mean by the given name most frequently said in every game, then maybe the rule should be changed. Tell me, how many games have the Koopalings been referred to as their full names at least once? How many manuals and guides have their full names? They use their first names in playable character data, so how do we count playable character data? I would like to only count the playable character data just once. But how will we count dialogue? If we count every instance in dialogue, would we shorten Diddy Kong to just Diddy? Would Bowser Jr. be called Junior? This is all so complicated. All it shows is that our current naming rules aren't good. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:06, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
::::::In my opinion, I think our approach to article names for characters has been a bit technocratic. I don't think we need a strict, blanketedly applied naming policy is as beneficial as some think, and I really deciding these things on a case by case basis is perfectly fine.
::::::I personally would be in favor of returning the [[Fox]] article to Fox McCloud, purely because the word "fox" alone as plenty of connotations on its own and including the surname is just immediately clarifying that it is the main character from ''Star Fox''. I similarly would feel fine with returning the ''Sonic'' characters to their full names because it is just immediately pretty clarifying what the article's subject is about, as opposed to something else in the ''Mario'' series called a shadow. Some of them had to have clarifications between parentheses attached to the end anyways, which wouldn't have been necessary if we just kept the full names.
::::::Making decisions like that does not have to have ramifications on the names of other character articles. Inconsistency is not inherently bad if it leads to better clarification for readers. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:50, October 1, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Inconsistency is bad. Following your logic, we could end up with characters like "Sonic" and "Espio" keeping short names while others like "Shadow the Hedgehog" and "Big the Cat" get their full names, since only the latter share their names with other subjects. And wasn't inconsistency the main reason you didn't want to shorten "Princess Daisy"? Also, why would "Fox" cause clarification problems when he doesn't share that name with anything else on the wiki? Would we just arbitrarily decide which names do and don't need clarification? The best solution to all these problems is to stick to how official sources most commonly handle the names, i.e. the current naming policy (which I don't think needs changing, just enforcing). Also, @SeanWheeler, redirects are not "practically useless", they help significantly with streamlining the search process and helping people find what they're looking for. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, October 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Well, looks like my naming conventions amendment proposal in November is going to have a bunch of options. And yes, Fox could cause clarification problems because that's his species. Sure, we don't have an article on the Fox species but we have articles on [[Dragon]], [[Elephant]], [[Goat]], and used to have pages on [[Talk:Human#Delete page|Human]] and [[Talk:Giraffe]]. Then again, those Dragon, Elephant and Goat pages are now more about enemies than the species. And [[wikipedia:20th Century Fox|20th Century Fox]] would be a bigger Fox name than Fox McCloud. I wouldn't be surprised if someone searched for the company only to end up on Fox McCloud's page. Sonic is also the name of a [[wikipedia:Sonic Drive-In|restaurant]], and is a [[wiktionary:sonic|word]] related to the concept of sound. It really does help clarify things to use the longer names. To take the common name part of the policy too literally, you'd find most characters having just their first names be the most common name. I'd vote to change the wording from "most common" name to "best known name." Yes, that would rely on bias of the users, but I really can't stand these proposals reducing names. At least if the "best known name" was followed instead of the "commonly used name," the move proposals made afterward wouldn't be so much about rule violations in the naming convention but what the wiki finds to be the more popular name for the characters. And of course, fan nicknames and speculation wouldn't count. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 02:36, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::Your suggestion is to ignore official sources in favour of fan preferences (especially when they're your personal preferences), which goes against everything the naming policy and the wiki in general strive for. Besides, it's not like these characters' shortened names are obscure (all the results when I google "Sonic" are about the hedgehog, and I find it a bit hard to believe that "Miles "Tails" Prower" is a more well-known name than "Tails"). Also, who is looking up 20th Century Fox and Sonic Drive-In on the Super Mario Wiki??? [[Wikipedia:Mario (disambiguation)|Mario]] is two films, two TV series and two songs, is it time to rename his page?  {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:06, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::Well, since we have pages on [[Universal Pictures]] and [[Taco Bell]], maybe someone browsing the companies could be wondering if 20th Century Fox or its subsidiaries had ever made anything Mario related. And if the Sonic Drive-In were to ever make a Nintendo promotion with Mario toys, then we would have given the Sonic Drive-In a page like [[Taco Bell]], [[McDonald's]], [[Burger King]] and [[Wendy's]]. Oh yeah, we've got a [[Wendy's]] just like the [[Wendy O. Koopa|Koopaling]]. As for the case with Mario, those two films, TV series and songs have nothing to do with our Mario. Mario is the face of the wiki, so it would be obvious what Mario people would search for on this wiki. But Fox McCloud was just a character that Mario met in Super Smash Bros. As a Star Fox character, nobody would think to look for him on here without knowing how we handle crossover characters, would they? And for people who remembered the Nintendo and Sega rivalry in the nineties but were unaware of the Olympic series or Smash's use of third-party characters would be very surprised to find Sonic the Hedgehog on here. The crossover characters definitely need to be more distinguished than Mario himself. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 16:05, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::Why do we specifically have to cater to people who know about our relatively out-of-the-way fast food pages, yet also people who don't know about the Mario & Sonic series? You're making up whatever extremely specific hypothetical minorities of users are convenient for your preferred way of doing things. Frankly, it's ridiculous that you're implying someone looking up Fox McCloud or Sonic the Hedgehog on the wiki is less likely than someone looking up 20th Century Fox or Sonic Drive-In. Neither company has ever done any Mario-related thing, regardless of hypotheticals, so there's no reason to cover them on the wiki or to accommodate for people who do search for them. If someone does look up "20th Century Fox" and somehow ends up on the Fox page (despite the "20th Century" bit), then that's not a problem because there is no actual 20th Century Fox coverage to redirect them to, so they're not missing out on anything. And yes, those "Mario" films/TV series/songs do have nothing to do with our Mario (in the same way 20th Century Fox has nothing to do with our Fox), that's precisely the point I was making. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:31, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::It's also worth noting that, even in the one case of this that is ''not'' strictly limited to hypothetical (the [[Wendy's]]/[[Wendy O. Koopa]] pair), both articles have had a distinguish template since [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Wendy%27s&diff=next&oldid=4132540 around June of] [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Wendy_O._Koopa&diff=prev&oldid=4265875 this year]. (Rather ironically given the proposal subject, the initial attempt to add one to the restaurant linked to Wendy O. Koopa's article via a redirect... simply titled "Wendy".) In the worst case scenario, we could probably just add a few distinguish templates or create a disambiguation page; though, we imagine the odds of us having no fewer than ''5'' unique things that can be called "Fox" or "Sonic", let alone 4 if that other proposal passes, are... going to be slim for awhile, at best. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:11, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::{{@|Hewer}} inconsistency is not inherently bad if it promotes clarification of information, which is important to me and part of the reason why I supported retaining "Princess Daisy" over just "Daisy," because the language of most of the games she appears in convey a relationship with Peach who was not incorporated in that proposal. The analogous situation would be proposing to just change Larry Koopa's name and no one else's. I would similarly support changing the names of all ''Sonic'' characters back to their original names because they are more clarifying, but not just one of them.
::::::::It is erroneous to suggest the usage of names like "Big the Cat" or "Fox McCloud" are analogous to fan preference when they are curatorial choices made to clearly convey information to readers, and I maintain that is 100% okay to do. These are not even names invented by fans nor names not used by their IP holders (note [https://ia600202.us.archive.org/28/items/NintendoGameCubeManuals/Sonic%20Heroes%20%28USA%29_text.pdf page 11 here for Big] or [https://www.gamesdatabase.org/media/system/nintendo_gamecube/manual/formated/super_smash_bros.-_melee_-_nintendo.pdf page 39 for Fox]), so they are not invalid by any means. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:43, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::Ignoring the primary names used in official sources for the characters so that we can use names we think are better is prioritising fan preference over official preference. If Nintendo/Sega think "Sonic" alone is enough to identify the character in most contexts, who are we to disagree? It's exactly the same logic as this proposal, just applied to another set of characters. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:31, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::It does not feel like you engaged with the point I was making, or reviewed the pdfs I provided links to where Sega uses "Big the Cat" for ''Sonic Heroes'' and Nintendo uses "Fox McCloud" for ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'', conveying they are just as valid of names as "Big" or "Fox," but that is besides the point. You can call it "fan preference" if that is what makes most conceptual sense to you, but intentionally deviating from the primary name in one's source material for substantive reasons is not at all invalid or against the "spirit" of maintaining encyclopedic material. To the best of my knowledge, that is not attested off of this website. I am privy to many examples of comparable projects in other fields where they do deviate from the the institutionalized/authorized names of certain subjects, including academic and scientific references. I can provide examples if interested and the justifications for subjects vary by source, but the point is that making decisions like that is not inherently wrong. I feel like some proposals or ideas on this site have been shot-down prematurely because of this type of posturing. I don't think that is appropriate. If one wants the Fox article to continue going by "Fox," that's fine, but one should not suggest moving it back to "Fox McCloud" is inherently or objectively wrong regardless of reason. Because it is not. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:01, October 3, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::"Big the Cat" and "Fox McCloud" are indeed official names used sometimes, but they are not "just as valid" as the short names, because the short names are the main ones used in the Mario-related official media they appear in (also Sonic Heroes isn't covered on this wiki). The main point of this wiki's naming policy is to ensure accuracy to official sources. I never intended to suggest that "intentionally deviating from the primary name in one's source material" is wrong in the context of any encyclopedia or in general academic and scientific contexts, which probably differ greatly from the context of this fan wiki. My point is that specifically this wiki generally strives to match official sources as closely as possible, and therefore uses the logic of official sources being the ultimate authority on everything. I don't see a "substantive reason" here not to stick to that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@FanOfRosalina2007: How does "this is a ''Super Mario'' wiki" relate to anything? If anything, shouldn't a ''Super Mario'' wiki use the names most commonly used in the ''Super Mario'' franchise? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:22, October 4, 2024 (EDT)