MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/74

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros.

Do not change 1-5
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. There's already a Game and Watch game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "Donkey Kong" is the name of various other games too! There's the tabletop game, the Game Boy game, the Nelsonic Game Watch game and the slot machine. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for Donkey Kong. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS).

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. PaperSplash (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per all

Comments

Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? PaperSplash (talk) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)

What about Dr. Mario? That game also has a separate release also called Dr. Mario.--PopitTart (talk) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)

The reason why the games Donkey Kong and Dr. Mario should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "Dr. Mario (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. ThePowerPlayer 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)

what about Donkey Kong (1981)? — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)

That would work for Donkey Kong, but the original Mario Bros. and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)

Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes

List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English" 1-7-3-1
So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.

Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.

Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the only difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.

This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?

Proposer: PaperSplash (talk)
Deadline: February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"

1. PaperSplash (talk) My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.

Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"

1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
2. Hewer (talk) I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
3. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I mean, if it’s just the same thing and no changes (assuming it doesn’t include dates for save files), then I guess this one makes the most sense.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's the simplest, it seems reasonable enough, and is applicable across the board; while it isn't exactly in-line with how Nintendo is handling things as of the Switch era, it's reasonable enough and can easily account for pre-Switch cases very well.
5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all. Especially if that means that we will stop using "English (United States)" for games that use a variety of English that is not specifically American and weren't even released in America such as SMBTLL or Mario & Wario.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.

Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"

1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary choice, as this seems to be Nintendo's official methodology as of the Switch; however, this exact rationale doesn't account for situations like, say, Mario Party 8 and its infamous recall in the UK, which predates Nintendo's official distinguishing of NA English and UK English from the Switch era, leaving us at a bit of a loss for how to handle it exactly.
3. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) This option could also work if date formatting is different despite the game itself using the same script for the US and UK/Australia, like Mario & Luigi: Brothership.

Option 4: Do nothing

1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”

Comments

For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)

In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

Realistically even though Canadian English does use British/Commonwealth spelling most of the time, they just get US English spelling in games as Nintendo groups Canada with North America and their English is pretty similar to English in the US, so Nintendo products in Canada are just the same as in the US.

In this case why don’t we also just group American English and Canadian English into one and call it "North American English" even if it’s moreso mainly American English? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)

I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per the documentation for the "languages" template, the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. PaperSplash (talk) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)

I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)

If Nintendo is also still adding English (United Kingdom) for their games despite there being almost no differences from the North American English versions aside from date or other words if needed, why do they keep American spelling? Wouldn’t it make more sense for British English spelling to be used even if it’s one of the only differences between English (United States) and English (United Kingdom)? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)

Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)

Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)

I don't work for Nintendo nor do I know anyone personally who does, so I can't exactly say for sure. But my best guess is that they simply don't feel like they need to anymore. The main problem with Nintendo not having separate US and UK English localizations before was that certain words considered offensive in the UK but not the US would show up in Nintendo of America's localizations that were also going to be largely reused in Europe, as seen with Mario Party 8 and Super Paper Mario. But now such words appear to get caught and edited out during Nintendo of America's initial English localization pass, like "welcher" in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions, "bugger" in Super Mario RPG and "bummer" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Also, it seems that ever since at least Paper Mario: Color Splash or so, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe have been working together more closely on English localizations from the start, as a couple English localization staff at NoE are now often also credited on NoA localizations and vice versa. With any potentially problematic words (regionally or otherwise) now seemingly being addressed much earlier on, there's no longer a really good reason they need to otherwise address differences between American English and British English during the localization process that would justify the extra time, effort and pay. While I'm sure it was appreciated by some, as Hewer mentioned, most people in the UK are used to reading and hearing US English and can understand it just fine (and the same goes vice versa to a lesser extent). It's not like Spanish where many Latin Americans genuinely struggle with understanding Spaniard slang and sometimes vice versa. As for why they still store UK or “EU” English scripts separately from the US ones in internal data despite being them being almost or outright entirely identical now, I think part of that is a remnant of the previous generation where more distinct localizations stored in folders labeled by both region and language was the standard (and it makes it easier for them to port over the more distinct localizations from older games whenever they bother doing so, like Mario Kart 8's for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe). But I think the other reason is to make it easy just in case something actually still needs changing between regions, most commonly the aforementioned date formats. Because that can be legitimately confusing, since they would essentially be backwards otherwise by the other region’s standards. PaperSplash (talk) 19:56, February 14, 2025 (EST)

Add the namespace and anchor parameters to {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}

canceled by proposer
The {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}} templates are missing the namespace and anchor parameters. In this case, I'm just wondering if there's a possibility to add those parameters.

The new parameters for the templates are as follows:

• ns – Used for inserting namespaces.
• a – Used for inserting anchors.

Here are both what the templates will look like and some examples for the ns and a parameters:

{{iw}}

[[:{{{1}}}:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{2|}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}| ({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|#{{{a}}}}}|{{{3|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]

{{iw|strategywiki|Gravity Rush|ns=Category}} This is text added to display the grey spillover

Gravity Rush

{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie|a=Gameplay}}

Banjo-Kazooie

{{wp}}

{{iw|wikipedia|{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{{l}}}:}}{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}| ({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|#{{{a}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}

{{wp|Nintendo 3DS|a=3DS family comparison table}}

Nintendo 3DS

{{wp|WikiProject Video games|ns=Wikipedia}}

WikiProject Video games

{{fandom}}

{{plain link|https://{{urlencode:{{{1|www}}}}}.fandom.com/{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{l}}}}}/}}wiki/{{urlencode:{{{2|Main Page}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}| ({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|#{{{a}}}}}|WIKI}}|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}

{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"}}

Incidental 6

{{fandom|spongebob|Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map}}

Battle for Bikini Bottom

If this proposal passes, then we'll be able to add the ns and a parameters to the {{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}} templates. It's important to tell about the extra parameters can be handy. That way, we won't need to worry about inserting both either the <namespace> or the # on the first parameter and displayed text on the second parameter.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: March 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Add the extra parameters

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Gives us more options for cases where we might need it.

Oppose: Keep as is

1. Nintendo101 (talk) This is not necessary, and potentially further complicates piping and templates where it is not necessary. The current system is intuitive and helpful enough as is.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) It's already possible to do this without making these changes.
3. Arend (talk) Per all + see comments. How is it any more beneficiary for us to type Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!" when Incidental 6#"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!" still works just as fine AND takes less time to type? Similarly, how is Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map any more beneficiary when you can simply copypaste Map:Battle for Bikini Bottom to get the same result?
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Arend
5. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Comments (wiki linking)

IS it really necessary? Typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get you to link File:0001Bulbasaur.png works just fine... rend (talk) (edits) 16:05, February 24, 2025 (EST)

It really IS necessary to me. Typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}} to get us to link 0001Bulbasaur.png works better than either typing out {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get us to link File:0001Bulbasaur.png or {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png|0001Bulbasaur.png}} to get us to link 0001Bulbasaur.png because it will take a short time to type out what works better. GuntherBayBeee 18:50, February 24, 2025 (EST)

In the example you provided, {{iw|bulbapedia|File:0001Bulbasaur.png}} takes fewer characters to type than {{iw|bulbapedia|0001Bulbasaur.png|ns=File}}. How does the latter take a shorter amount of time to type out if it is literally longer? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:14, February 24, 2025 (EST)

...I think I get it. GuntherBayBee basically wants an easy way to provide a link to an interwiki file page without showing the namespace in the link (as in without repeating the file page for the piping), but failed to convey this properly in his proposal. Still unsure if it's truly necessary in the long run though. rend (talk) (edits) 19:36, February 24, 2025 (EST)

Include the show's title in home media releases of various Mario cartoons where it seems to be intended

Rename home media release articles 8-0
Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.

The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World all have home media releases that include various episodes on a single VHS or DVD. Most of these releases are named after an episode included within it, with the show's name/logo appearing before it, however, we seem to omit the show's name for no reason?

I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: The Bird! The Bird!, as evidenced by the cover. However, we've just title the article as The Bird! The Bird! (VHS) which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of Donkey Kong Country have it like this. So why are these different?

Now, of course, if the title of the show is clearly intended to NOT be a part of the title, then we won't include it.

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on February 24th, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!
2. Arend (talk) Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in a prior proposal on doing the inverse.
3. Jdtendo (talk) For consistency.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the proposal Arend mentioned; this seems to be how the official releases are titled, so we should follow suit.
5. Fun With Despair (talk) I see no reason not to do this. It only serves to improve clarity, and the show's title is almost always on the actual cover of the home media anyway.
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal. This just makes sense for consistency.
7. Pizza Master (talk) Per all.
8. Rykitu (talk) Per all

Comments

I'd also like to say that The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video doesn't appear to have its full (or correct) title either, as I explained here. The front of the box states The Biggest Ever Video: The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, and the back of the box calls it The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Super Show Video. rend (talk) (edits) 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)

Merge introduction/ending sections for Mario Party minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section

Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" 0-12-0
Back in 2013, there was a proposal to cut intro/ending descriptions for Mario Party minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.

TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for Mario Party minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.

While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:

• Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: 1 • 2 • 3
• Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: 1 • 2 • 3
• Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": 1 • 2 • 3

One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like Glacial Meltdown.

This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.

On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.

If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.

Proposer: ToxBoxity64 (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"

1. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
2. Mario (talk) These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in Piranha's Pursuit), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and Mario.
4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like Burnstile?
6. Sparks (talk) Per all.
7. Technetium (talk) Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
8. Ahemtoday (talk) These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
9. Hewer (talk) I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per everyone.
11. BMfan08 (talk) But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.
12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Comments

I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of Mario Party 8's brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. Salmancer (talk) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)

It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of Crops 'n' Robbers was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in Avalanche! (Mario Party 4) and Photo Finish from Mario Party 4; Merry Poppings and Head Waiter from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like Picture Perfect (minigame) or Flip the Chimp. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Retool 16-0
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

• The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
• The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
• Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
• Internal name table, if applicable
• The "names in other languages" table

EDIT: If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like bubble or a literal name like Mayor Penguin), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally iron valiant." name explanations.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
13. Sparks (talk) Per all.
14. Mario (talk) Hm.
15. PaperSplash (talk) Per all. I'm personally partial to how Fire Emblem Wiki labels them collectively though. "Etymology and other languages".
16. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)

So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)

I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)

...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)

I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)

What is it you see? - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:45, March 3, 2025 (EST)

It's talking about browser cookies. If I see that sort of message on a site that doesn't have to do with something vital, I go back, because I don't think something like a wiki has any business processing browser cookies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:13, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Will this proposal also affect media (such as the titles for The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episodes), or just the subjects within the media? Apikachu68 (talk) 19:57, March 3, 2025 (EST)

i don't see why it wouldn't! media also has names and etymology, after all. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 09:54, March 4, 2025 (EST)

One more thing: isn't the first point (and sometimes the second) covered by the introductory paragraph most of the time? We don't want to repeat info - huh. We're doing away with once and only once? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

yeah, the idea is to move most of that info to the Names section, that way everything names-related is in the same section. the intro paragraph should probably still list other english names that aren't the current name of the article, if only for the purposes of clarifying they're the same subject. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:56, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at MarioWiki:Citations

Integrate Wikipedia's system 1-2-11-0
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.

If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.

I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. These were my observations:

I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found this (studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd)) for MLA and this (libguides.up.edu) for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.
The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.

In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion. The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at Stretch Shroom and Big Penguin. The template {{cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.

I noticed that some users prefer to instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.

Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system, per Nintendo101 (talk)'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:

• one instance^:18
• another instance^:20

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) ^Yeah this tripped me up when I first started seeing that.

Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
7. Mario (talk) Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
9. PaperSplash (talk) No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.
10. LinkTheLefty (talk) Seems like the more immediate solution here.
11. Killer Moth (talk) Makes the most sense to me. Per all.

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

On Wikipedia, as demonstrated here, they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even other non-numeric parts of a source that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)

Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I made {{ref page}}. --Steve (talk) 13:22, March 6, 2025 (EST)

I somehow didn't notice, thanks! The obvious projected outcome of this proposal is to use that template, but I'll let the proposal run its course since it has only 2 days left. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:31, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Create categories for Venus flytraps, pitcher plants, and/or sundews

vetoed by the administrators
Per discussion among staff. The second and third options are counter to our category policies, rendering the first option needless.
This proposal aims to create the following categories within the Carnivorous plants category: Venus flytraps, Pitcher plants, and Sundews. Rumor has it that Piranha Plants are considered Venus flytraps. Perhaps that is truly a good fit for the Venus flytraps category. Another example is that Sockops are considered pitcher plants, and that is truly a good fit for the Pitcher plants category. Lastly, Venus Guytraps are considered sundews, making them truly a good fit for the Sundews category.

These are the pages that will be put in a new category, replacing the Carnivorous plants category, if its corresponding proposal passes:

Venus flytraps

• Ape-Eating Plant
• Carnivorous Plantlife
• Chomp (Donkey Kong Country series)
• Chompasaurus
• Chompette
• Cractus
• Deku Baba
• Flytrap
• Giant Chomp
• Green Chomp
• Herman (Saturday Supercade)
• Malboro
• Monster Flower
• Piranha Plants
• Plant Chomper
• Shooting Chomp
• Venus Trap Platform

Pitcher plants

• Giant Sockop
• Glohm Gobblick
• Gobblick
• Sockop
• Taily

Sundews

• Munchlesia
• Seed Weed
• Thorn Weed
• Venus Guytrap

It's important to know which species of carnivorous plants that specific character and/or species is. If one proposal passes, we'll be able to create one new category.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)

Create the Venus flytraps category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Piranha Plants and Chomps do not actually look at all like Venus flytraps. They are too cartoony, and even exhibit stronger traits from completely different plants. Piranha Plants in particular have a lot of traits similar to real-world dandelions. I think the carnivorous plant category is sufficient: it feels inaccurate to assert anything else.
2. Fun With Despair (talk) Excessively pointless, and while I disagree with Nintendo101's argument based on the fact that Koopas - including all versions of Bowser and things like Boom Boom - are categorized under "Turtles" still, the fact is that splitting up the carnivorous plants does nothing at all when there's already just not very many of anything outside of the flytrap-esque monsters. I also just don't really endorse OP's argument that it's important to know what plant a carnivorous plant enemy is based on in the category. It's a Mario wiki, not a botany textbook.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) There's just not really enough carnivorous plants (or rather, not enough variety) in our opinion for a split like this to make sense. If we had, say, a dozen venus flytraps-and-adjacent, and a dozen pitcher plants-and-adjacent, this proposal would maybe make some sense, but given one of these categories only meets the 5 article requirement exactly, and another actually fails to meet it... This really only boils down to "do we want a venus flytrap category?", and considering the lack of things to distinguish it between... No, not really, unfortunately.

Create the Pitcher plants category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Too small.
2. Fun With Despair (talk) Per Nintendo101

• Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on the Venus Flytrap category. This only exactly meets the 5 article requirement.

Create the Sundews category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Too small.
2. Fun With Despair (talk) Per Nintendo101
3. Camwoodstock (talk) See our vote on the Venus Flytrap category. This doesn't even meet the 5 article requirement.
4. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Most of them look more like (and are based on) genus Rafflesia than Drosera, anyway.

Comments (Carnivorous plants)

I implore you to read MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope. It states that categories that aren't specific to a game, console, series, etc, should at least have five entries, but should have many more than that so they don't feel too small and otherwise can just be listed on a more centralized article.
This means that your proposed Sundews category is not eligible due to it only having four entries, while your proposed Pitcher plants article is barely eligible due to it having precisely five entries... but it still not being all too justifiable for a split because, again, the policy article I linked states that a category not specific to a game, console, series, etc, should ideally have way more than five entries, and two of the five entries are just a different for or variant of another entry (same goes with the Sundews category, with one entry being a variant of another... I'm not even sure if either entry is actually a sundew, either).
That means that the only proposed category that seems worth a split is the Venus flytraps one with 17 entries (although most of them seem to be variants of Chomp from DKCR, so that might be worth a split too (or instead). Therefor it seems highly discouraging to outright delete the Carnivorous plants category as a whole in favor of splitting it into three categories, when it's much more intuitive to only have the Venus flytraps category being split off from it and keep the Carnivorous plants category for the miscellaneous ones.
In fact, even if we do split every carnivorous plant into specific factions, I do not see why it's more useful to outright delete the category afterwards, as we do still have categories that only consists of subcategories: Category:Elemental creatures, for instance. Not to mention there's various more types of carnivorous plants than only flytraps, pitchers and sundews that could be turned into a Mario enemy someday. So outright deleting the category would be just impractical, and feels a lot like unnecessary change for the sake of change that doesn't help in the long run (...like a good amount of your proposals, it seems). rend (talk) (edits) 11:54, March 9, 2025 (EDT)

Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors

Keep color coding as is 2-10
The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the Mario franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.

As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which Mario branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.

As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:

• infobox background: the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. #FFF5EE for Mario);
• darker cell background: the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. bisque for Mario);
• header: the navigation template's header color (e.g. #CC0000 for miscellaneous Mario, #FF2400 for Super Mario);
• border: #aac, #aca, #acc, #caa, #cac or #cca, depending on the most closely matching color.

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

1. Bro Hammer (talk): Per my proposal
2. Super Mario RPG (talk): Per proposer.

Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101
3. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Hewer (talk) Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
6. Jdtendo (talk) Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
9. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.
10. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments

I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. Shadow2 (talk) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Changing the colors of {{Game infobox}}, {{Series infobox}}, and {{Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the color schemes currently in use for navigation templates. Jdtendo^(T|C) 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Use "wikitable mario" class for tables on pages and sections regarding specific Super Mario franchise games

vetoed by the administrators
Unnecessary, as a solution to this issue already exists.
The last time I added the "mario" class to the "wikitable" tables on specific Super Mario franchise pages and sections, they had been removed. As such, I just had to start over by making a proposal that aims to use the "wikitable mario" class for tables on pages and sections regarding specific games in the franchise. As you can see, red header background just cannot be shown when using the "wikitable" class with dark mode (such as that mode of the Monobook skin) enabled. This always results in the blank header background, and that would be confusing. However, if we were to use the "mario" wikitable class, then that will solve the problem. That way, we will never need to worry about seeing the blank header background when dark mode is enabled. This will not affect pages and sections regarding sports games, games in the Mario Kart series, games in the Mario Party series, RPGs, and crossover games.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Let's-a go!

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: I tell you hwat.

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, this is pretty much entirely redundant compared to clever use of --dark tags. While we're more than aware of the growing pains dark mode has provided, it's nothing unworkable; certainly nothing worth making an entire proposal over something you can already do. ;P

Comments (Get the hint?)

That's not true. Tables can be fully and completely styled for dark mode without using the mario class. For example. The variables are listed on Help:Dark mode --Steve (talk) 12:57, March 10, 2025 (EDT)

Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it

failed to reach consensus 12-13
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled Category:Donkey Kong 64 should be Category:Donkey Kong 64.

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.
10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.
11. Weegie baby (talk) I'm voting for this.
12. Fakename123 (talk) Per Hewer.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
8. Pseudo (talk) Per Nintendo101.
9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
11. wildgoosespeeder (talk) Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon [[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']], unless you mean to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}, which does work on the category page.
12. Fun With Despair (talk) Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
13. Arend (talk) I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced by the system to be displayed in italics when they're redirects (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were all displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.

Comments

@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)

We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using {{Italic title}}, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)

That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)

So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)

The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do not serve a utility purpose, such as the various "users that know a given language" categories.
As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be that hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)

Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]" instead of just "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "[[Category:" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use Template:Italic title in the category pages. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)

@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)

The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.
@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take way more work that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.
@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)

Introducing the crossover article

Implement crossover articles as described 19-13-0
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

1. See the publication of the drafted Zelda article discussed in this proposal, titled "crossovers with The Legend of Zelda." (The draft can be viewed here.)
2. Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to Zelda on the wiki to the published Zelda article (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like Link would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future Mario Tennis or something like that).
3. Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. Zelda info on the list of references in Nintendo video games article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published Zelda one when they reach that section of the list article).
4. Establish a navbox for crossover articles (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
5. Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the Super Mario franchise has crossed-over.
6. Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the MarioWiki:Manual of Style that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
7. Note that this framework exists on the the crossover section of our coverage policy, and provide a link directing readers to it.

The Super Mario franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, Super Mario as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. Duck Hunt, Punch-Out!!, Exictebike, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Splatoon, etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s EarthBound, HAL Laboratory's Kirby, Game Freak's Pokémon, etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.

A lot of coverage of Super Mario references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of dedicated game articles, or in Super Smash Bros. articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and are not wholly about Super Smash Bros. anyways. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the Super Smash Bros. series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that Super Mario has made references and is referenced in many other franchises outside of Smash Bros. contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how Mario has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where Splatoon and Mario have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.

To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, I have been drafting what I would like to call a "crossover article" using The Legend of Zelda franchise as an example (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the universe articles from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the Zelda draft, consist of the following sections:

• Overview : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to Mario. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For Zelda, this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because Mario had a lot of direct influence on Zelda as a series.
• Recurring crossover subjects: for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside Mario-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with Mario highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with Mario.
• History in the Super Mario franchise: a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the Super Mario franchise itself.
• History in the subject series/franchise: a history section for the inverse, where Super Mario is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is Zelda.
• Shared history (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Tetris series, NES Remix series, or other media.

Zelda is uniquely related to Mario and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with Super Mario within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to Super Mario or have elements inspired by it, such as Celeste, Gears of War, or Astro Bot.

I offer three options:

1. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.
2. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the Super Smash Bros. series should be left alone.
3. Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.

I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted Zelda article! It is in my "community garden" sandbox for a reason.)

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

1. Nintendo101 (talk)
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists
14. Mario (talk) Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
15. OmegaRuby (talk) The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
16. Pseudo (talk) I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
17. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
18. Mushzoom (talk) Per proposal.
19. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave Smash Bros. lists alone

1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
2. Sparks (talk) Per Sophie.
3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Soph
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
5. Tails777 (talk) Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
6. Arend (talk) Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
7. Okapii (talk) Per Sophie.
8. Nelsonic (talk) Second opinion.
9. LinkTheLefty (talk) This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering Zelda subjects had Link's Awakening failed!
10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
11. Salmancer (talk) Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
12. Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.
13. Weegie baby (talk) Yes.

Crossover comments

I also happened to start a draft for a Pikmin series article the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... much rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--PopitTart (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne thank you for the kind words! - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)

-- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Question: One of the proposed points is to "Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?
Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through Smash Bros., such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? rend (talk) (edits) 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within Smash Bros. have only crossed-over with Mario within Smash Bros., and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ARMS is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, @Arend? - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in Smash, but it would be strange to do with ARMS considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ARMS regardless, considering how most of the ARMS development team is basically Mario Kart 8 alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with Kingdom Hearts. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.
Anyway @Nintendo101, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. rend (talk) (edits) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for Mario, one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular Smash Bros. info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about Zelda in Smash Bros. and less about Zelda with Mario in Smash Bros., but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of Smash Bros., would be retained.) For example, in my Zelda draft, Ganon is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist: Paint Studio, Yoshi's Woolly World, and the Super Smash Bros. series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant Zelda info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. rend (talk) (edits) 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)

So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the Super Mario franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my Zelda draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the Super Smash Bros. series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how Zelda engages with Mario in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular Smash Bros. info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.
Another thing I just thought of: we already have Pushmo (series) and Just Dance (series) as guest appearances, and this proposal passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe @Kaptain Skurvy, @Nelsonic, and @Mushzoom can provide their two cents. Would you want the Pushmo, Just Dance, and Animal Crossing articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:
Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, Rhythm Heaven, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe Balloon Fight, maybe Clu Clu Land, maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would probably be redundant to split
Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles
Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken
No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts
I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)

Forgot about The Legendary Starfy, that would qualify. There's also I Choose You! from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)

@Nintendo101 I'm fine with that. Mushzoom (talk) 02:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of Super Mario content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the list of references in Nintendo video games or the list of references in third-party video games. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Drill Dozer or Borderlands 2), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Punch-Out!! or Mobile Golf). Nelsonic (talk) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)

This is probably a separate proposal, but should the Link's Awakening article be outright merged with the new crossover one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

Add headings 13-0
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards). It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.

To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one. That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.

The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion. If this proposal passes, the aforementioned page would look like this.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one

1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea
7. LadySophie17 (talk) per all. That has always bothered me.
8. Ahemtoday (talk) Very good to establish consistency.
9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
10. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Finally consistency.
11. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
12. Weegie baby (talk) The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤
13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Consistency is good.

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

keep current policy 7-2-2-3-0
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

#Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)

The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

On a vaguely related note, why do "tie" and "failed to reach consensus" have two separate colours in the proposal archive when the former is essentially a type of the latter? I don't really see the difference between them besides the fact that the wiki used to call them "ties". I also counted no more than four "tied" proposals in the entire archive, the last one having been in 2011, so it seems strange and confusing to still be using a separate colour for it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:38, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

This is something I noticed as well while making the proposal — I kind of considered addressing it, but the proposal was already a bit sprawling, so bundling in a change to that seemed like a poor decision. If someone were to make a separate proposal to axe the "tie" color, I'd back it. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:10, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

Give Taiko no Tatsujin an article

vetoed by the administrators
Substantiated by this proposal on crossover articles that passed. The proposer can initiate their changes.
Taiko no Tatsujin has had numerous crossovers with the Mario franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual Mario characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.

• The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, using imagery from the games.
• The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "Super Mario Bros." Notably, the videos include actual characters and imagery from the game showing up. The former has nearly every enemy from the original Super Mario Bros.
• Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version! has "Fever" from Dr. Mario. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
• Nintendo Switch Version! has "Jump Up, Super Star!" from Super Mario Odyssey.
• The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from Dr. Mario. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and Super Stars appear when notes are hit.
• Blue Version has Cappy has an equippable hat.
• Rhythm Festival has a medley of music from Super Mario Bros., re-used from earlier games.

Mario has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off Donkey Konga and Don-chan being a playable character in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think Taiko is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)

1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
3. Hewer (talk) This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got Just Dance (series) a page. Now we just need to figure out whether Tamagotchi gets one...
4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Comments' Perfect Math Class

@Scrooge200, have you considered waiting until the proposal immediately above is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for Taiko no Tatsujin at all if it were to be pass. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just Zelda. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. Scrooge200 (talk) 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Zelda is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

@Scrooge200 By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on Super Mario. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Allow Overview sections on pages covering non-entities in a single or largely similar games

vetoed by the administrators
Attempt to circumvent staff directives at the completion of the proposer's most recent block.
Following this proposal, this one is about allowing an Overview section on pages covering something that appears in only one game or in a few games where they have minimal differences, like the Mario Party minigames had multiple appearances in different titles but follow largely the same format). This proposal does not include entities such as characters, enemies, species, or bosses.

To provide a case of why I think it's necessary, I'll cite a few pages:

• Wall Ball - The way it's currently presented, with an overly long opening and too many bulleted lists, does not look good.
• Liar Ball - This has only a double-heading Mario Super Sluggers section, giving too much prominence to its appearance in Sluggers but not the first Stadium game.
• Wario Factory Court - It consists of only a single paragraph spanning four lines, so it's hard to tell what's an overview and what's introducing the topic of the page.
• Mario Finale has a similar issue, except the Profiles section is more prominent while the rest of the information is crunched up.
• Crazy Cars has a history section that pushes down the Gameplay section, which is the main part of the microgame.

Based on the examples given, the proposal will affect the following:

• Minigames in general, meaning the games of the Super Mario Stadium series, Super Mario series, Donkey Kong 64, and so forth. If the Mario Party series allows it (and the previous proposal opened a possibility for a precedent), I don't see why other minigames shouldn't either.
• Subjects that appear only in a single game, such as Poundbrella in Super Princess Peach. This does NOT include entities, including characters, enemies, and species.
• Subjects that make only a few appearances where they are largely similar, such as items exclusive to the the Mario Party series (for example, Boo Bell) or the Super Mario Stadium series (for example, Whiskered Eggplant). Again, this does NOT include entities, including characters, enemies, and species.
• Microgames, for a similar reason as minigames. Since this is so large, I'll add a separate option in the proposal.

The reason I'm opting for an Overview section in these cases over History is because they are largely similar, and I generally want to avoid History sub-sections that are just one or two sentences (e.g. I don't like "They are largely the same as before except for [reason].")

If this proposal passes, users will be encouraged (not forced) to not only produce the Overview section but to split topics into more accessible paragraphs if they feel it would help, since that would be what helps the articles become more readable.

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

Support, including microgames

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Editors should have the freedom to be able to organize articles as they see fit on a case-by-case basis, and I don't like that this would box a lot of articles into a very specific mold. (I know it says "encourage", not "force", but does the distinction really matter if someone can come along later and rewrite the page citing this proposal?) The Mario Party minigame pages had a clear reason for an overview section - it's a more accurate title when brief cutscenes are merged with the gameplay - but this proposal seems more like an attempt at consistency for its own sake. Furthermore, I don't think all of the changes cited here are beneficial or necessary. Poundbrella and Wario Factory Court are both very short articles, just a paragraph to explain what the subject is since that's all they really need. Would those pages really be better with a one-liner opening and a few sentences pushed down? What does this proposal solve for Crazy Cars that can't equally be solved by just moving the gameplay section to be more prominent? Liar Ball is cited as an example but has already been rewritten using a more standard article structure, and it looks fine.
2. Mario (talk) Proposal creates needless busywork for the sake of busywork. Don't fix what isn't broken.

Comments

Why does this have to be a proposal? I'm not aware of any rules that contradict it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:21, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

To some degree, there could be. I got reverted here. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:00, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

@Mario The reason why I made this proposal is because I got reverted for conflicts over a couple of edits two days ago. So if I reorganized the Wall Ball article a bit better under Overview than how it currently looks, would that be reverted? Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:21, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

Merge the "did not reach consensus" and "tied" proposal outcomes on the archives

merge 9-0
This came up in the comments at the tail end of my poll proposal archive proposal. A grand total of four proposals have "tied" and are therefore represented by brown. Notably, nobody decided this proposal would be brown even though, by any reasonable definition of "tie", it is one. I take this as a sign that this distinction isn't really... suiting the reality of the proposal page. After all, what makes a tie so different that it needs its own color, when it's just a particular arrangement that a failure of consensus can land on?

By the way, one color has to win out in the merge, and my view is: it will be brown. This is going to sound hugely pedantic, but I don't think white is good for a proposal archive color, at least not one with this meaning. Outside of the new dark mode, it looks like it doesn't have a background. That makes it look like some state inherently separate from the others, or like some kind of blank state with no meaning, or like it's related to what gray means. This isn't any of those; it's a pretty normal fate for a proposal to meet. Brown is more in line with the look of the others, and it looking close to "no quorum" better conveys its similar meaning. (Arguably you could merge in "no quorum", too. I'm not here to make that argument but if I was, we should obviously use orange.) Therefore, I say we're merging them to brown.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) Per.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense
4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; as it stands, both "ties" and "failed to reach consensus" are in this weird spot where it's unclear which of the two you're meant to even use outside of, y'know, if the vote count literally ties, which isn't a particularly helpful distinction as far as the archive is concerned.
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) What is even the difference between these two outcomes anyway?
8. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
9. Power Flotzo (talk) (Insert the "Corporate wants you to find the difference" image here.) Per all.

Mushroom Head (talk) A tie is so mathematically so damn improbable it is absurd it still is separate from no consensus.

Comments

there's something to be said about the fact that the proposals are color-coded in the first place (which is VERY inaccessible to colorblind folks, people using screenreaders, and people who do not remember each color-outcome connection by heart), but that's for another proposal. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:09, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed, having some kind of symbology or just writing out the outcome in the proposal listing alongside the current color schemes would be a big improvement. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 10:12, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

There's a reason we've thus far yet to even think about touching proposal colors for darkmode; among other reasons, like "who has ever used wikitable wario?", we're kinda hoping a more sophisticated thing comes along for the colorblind on the off-chance we can actually incorporate that thing somehow. Symbols in particular sounds very nice. also the idea of having to darkmode white and gray is a Nightmare Scenario so here's hoping this can rectify that one! ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 10:54, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Wasn't a feature recently added where you can scroll over the result and it states what it means? Or does this not work on screenreaders? Technetium (talk) 10:58, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

that feels like more of a bandaid fix. i think a better solution would rework how Template:Proposal archive looks to present the data in a cleaner way. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 12:49, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

maybe we could use some symbols like triangles or squares. MH:) at 08:10, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title

allow 10-0
To be as clear as possible, this proposal will not affect any article titles. It is specifically about article content. With that out of the way...

So this classic proposal passed to ban any citations of the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Then this later proposal passed to allow the book to be cited, but only for subjects with no other official English names. I think this makes sense and doesn't need changing as far as article titles go, but the problem is that it creates an awkward inconsistency where only articles whose titles come from the book are allowed to acknowledge it. For example, Pipe Fist can use the encyclopedia as a citation for the name, but Winged Strollin' Stu can't even mention the existence of the "Soarin' Stu" name.

There are a few reasons why I think it would make sense for wiki articles to be allowed to mention weird names from the encyclopedia:

• It's official information, so it makes sense to document it if we want to be informative and comprehensive. An all-or-nothing system where the names have to be either the title of the article or not mentioned at all feels unintuitive.
• There seem to be some cases where this is already done. For example, the Yellow ledge article mentions Encyclopedia's "Ladyfinger Lift" name, with a citation and everything, despite it not being the title.
• The information is also already covered on the wiki on the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself, which has a nice list detailing all the stuff the book got wrong or took from the wiki. If we're covering it anyway, I don't see why we shouldn't also put this relevant information on the pages about each individual subject.
• The wiki normally is allowed to mention official names even if it thinks they're wrong. For example, the Cleft page makes it clear that the "Moon Cleft" name from Super Paper Mario is a translation mistake, but it still mentions it anyway. And there are other cases similar to Encyclopedia where we do this kind of thing: the Polterpiranha page isn't called "Ghost", yet it still explains that "Ghost" is the name used for them in Smash games. The Nipper Dandelion page even explains the situation of how its name was a fan name before it was an official name.
• Although the aforementioned proposal that allowed the Encyclopedia to be cited was intended to have it as a special case with the absolute lowest priority on the naming policy's list of sources, that has since been overridden by another proposal that introduced website filenames as an even lower-priority naming source, and the naming policy explicitly encourages mentioning those weird alternate names. So if we're allowed to mention names that are less trustworthy than Encyclopedia's, why shouldn't we mention Encyclopedia's names too?

If this proposal passes, articles will be allowed to mention alternate names from the Encyclopedia even if they are not being used as the title. For example, Comet Luma's article could start with something like:

Comet Luma, referred to as Lumacomète in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,^[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or, if we want to make it more clear that we think the name is wrong, maybe even:

Comet Luma, erroneously referred to by its French name Lumacomète in the English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,^[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or maybe we could exclude the name from the intro and mention it later in the article, perhaps in a "Naming" section, similar to what Nipper Dandelion and Yellow ledge are already doing. Perhaps that could even give us more room to explain where the name came from like the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia article does.

Naming

Comet Luma is one of the few characters in Super Mario Galaxy to not have a published official name for English releases of the game, nor in any official paratext for Super Mario Galaxy like the instruction booklet or Prima Games guidebook. In dialogue, Rosalina refers to it as "the Luma who knows about such things [about Prankster Comets]" and Polari does not mention its name in the English localization. The English translation of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia erroneously refers to it by its French name "Lumacomète",^[1] which was used as the title of its article on the Super Mario Wiki fan website from 2012 to 2018 (being briefly changed in 2014 and 2015).

Or we could cut out that last bit mentioning the wiki by name. The point of this proposal is less to decide exactly how we integrate these into articles and more just to clarify that we are allowed to.

Again, to be incredibly clear, this proposal is not about changing any article titles. The current naming policy will not be changed at all by this proposal. This is merely about allowing articles to mention alternate names that aren't being used as the title. If this proposal fails, I suppose Yellow ledge and any other articles mentioning the Encyclopedia names will have them removed (though I'd imagine the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself would still be able to keep its list of errors).

Proposer: Hewer (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (allow English Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)

1. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, referred to as "Per all" in the Super Mario Wiki Encyclopedia, is a common vote reasoning found in proposals.
2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) This sounds very reasonable! I especially like the clarification regarding the names from the encyclopedia not being fully correct.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) this is exactly the kind of stuff i envisioned for the Naming sections! very good idea, per proposal
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Tentative support. I think this can be helpful for readers visiting the site, especially if integrated as LinkTheLefty suggested.
6. Waluigi Time (talk) As long as it's kept to the naming sections, this should be fine. I'm surprised we don't allow it already.
7. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi Time/EvieMaybe--these being in the naming section would be a very obvious inclusion.
9. Pseudo (talk) Seems like an excellent use of the recently revamped Naming sections! These names shouldn’t be neglected entirely.
10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments Encyclopedia

(Is the tier below Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia even presently used for any article title?) The {{encyclopedia}} template was modeled after {{conjecture}} and {{another language}}, and in the latter case, the information is normally relegated to the "Names in other languages" section. I think that the revamped "Naming" section would be a good place to put Encyclopedia names if this passes. There are too many instances, like with several Super Mario Galaxy instances, where the Encyclopedia name is outright confused with something else, and putting those details in the introductory paragraph could cause even more confusion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:10, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, that sounds fair enough. And I don't think any articles currently use titles from website filenames, it was just added to the naming policy as a failsafe in the off chance we ever get a subject not named by any other sources. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:41, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

We might want to temporarily trim that from the naming policy if it's not currently being used, or merge it with rest of the dev data tier (since it'd use that template anyway), since an unused tier is probably a sign that it's starting to get a bit much... But anyway, what about quotes from the book that aren't name-related? For example, the MIPS article uses Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. as a source for him being Peach's pet rabbit. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:52, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

I'd say those sound reasonable to allow as well if this passes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:29, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

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

Status quo 1-0-0-5
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)

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

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

• Shell dash (Shell Mario)
• Dive (Claw dives of Cat Mario)
• Drill Spin (Propeller Mario)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: Status quo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Penguin Mario

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

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

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

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

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

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

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

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.

Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"

In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Discourage the use of directives from a third-person perspective

Do not discourage 0-0-14
This proposal aims to discourage the use of making the articles read like a strategy guide from a third-person perspective. It's a big pet peeve of mine, and I cannot begin to list how many times I've seen phrases like "the player must" or "the character has to" when the gameplay experience is relative to the player, especially in open world and role-playing games. Even if the gameplay is linear and straightforward, there are still different ways of wording something.

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

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk) (blocked)
Deadline: April 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer and Salmancer in the comments. "Can" implies a level of optionality that isn't suitable for, say, Mario Party minigames, which have one win condition and no alternatives.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Hewer, Salmancer, and Ahemtoday.
3. Hewer (talk) Per my comments. I get where this proposal is coming from, but I don't think replacing "must" with "can" solves any problems.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per all. This is perfectly reasonable language to use on a video game wiki.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per others; "can" only makes sense in situations where there are multiple options, and a blanket change like this naturally ignores the cases where there's really only one option. This is something that's far better dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not all at once.
6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. I don't see much of a problem with the current writing - we're detailing a video game series, it's going to read a little like a strategy guide from time to time - but even if it were a problem, this isn't the solution. Wording like "The solo player can knock their rivals off the stage to win." makes it more unclear by implying there's other ways to win the minigame.
7. Mario (talk) Pedantic
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Change for the sake of change. Per all.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
10. Ray Trace (talk) No.
11. Sparks (talk) Per all.
12. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
13. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
14. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

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

To me, it reads too much like a strategy guide and not a formal encyclopedic resource. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:43, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

I disagree. We already avoid strategy guide-like writing by not referring to the reader. I don't see how adding a bit more ambiguity when describing what the player is meant to do helps. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:50, March 24, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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