MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/75

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.

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

Do not standardize 0-1-0-9
This is another proposal I've meant to create for a while now, when I saw @CyonOfGaia accidentally add it to the sandbox page while drafting Mario vs. Donkey Kong level pages.

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

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

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

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

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

Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Support, with only "Appearances"

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

Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.

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

Super Mario RPG (talk) Third choice.

Oppose

1. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per MarioWiki:Manual of Style § History: "Appearances in the History section are organized according to the international release date of defined franchise (as opposed to general franchises), series, and independent titles, regardless of the "media" form the appearance takes." To my understanding, this means history sections are sorted by the release date of the respective games/other media contained within the section, so the "History" section is in fact chronological. Besides that, an "Appearances" section, especially as an article title such as "Appearances of Mario", implies that the section/article is just a list of the media in which the subject appears, when these sections actually contain a detailed description of each past appearance, which is the dictionary definition of "history".
2. EvieMaybe (talk) needless change for change's sake
3. Ray Trace (talk) No.
4. Technetium (talk) It's fine as is.
5. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Like Evie said, this doesn't accomplish anything.
7. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
8. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
9. Mario (talk) Utterly pointless pedantry. Similar problem with the "Discourage the use of directives from a third-person perspective" proposal.

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Allow pages 13-0
Captain N: The Game Master is an odious travesty of a cartoon that has a page on here because Donkey Kong is a recurring character. It's classified as a "Guest Appearance" by Mariowiki:Coverage and that's really the best spot for it: Donkey Kong only appears in a few episodes (7 out of 34), is not central to the premise of the show and beside him being there, the cartoon doesn't pull much from Mario or related properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support (allow pages for these three Captain N episodes)

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

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

Keep name "Princess Peach" 19-10
Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
2. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and certainly more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
4. Rykitu (talk) All 5 Princess Peach games have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
7. Pseudo (talk) While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her full proper name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
9. Sdman213 (talk) per all.
10. Tails777 (talk) I still stand by Daisy being referred to as her shortened name, but I feel this can be a case where consistency doesn't really need to be a necessity: Princess Peach is still a very commonly used name for Peach herself and while just referring to her as Peach is as common, the full name is still used much more often when compared to Daisy and especially compared to Rosalina.
11. SmokedChili (talk) Per all. As I’ve said before, keeping these extended names is fine because they work like identifiers and offer clarification pre-emptively and at the first sight. I’ve also pointed out that the current guidelines don’t say anything about extending names based on official material and suggested making them usable (in limited fashion) and prioritized over wiki-made identifiers. And if people seeking a specific Mario subject over a generic one is such a big deal, then add to the guidelines making use of Display Title extension. Like letting ”Peach” redirect to ”Princess Peach” while ”Peach (fruit)” would have the extension to cut (lol) the page title into ”Peach”.
12. GeneralDonitsky (talk) Per all.
13. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
14. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
15. Okapii (talk) Per all.
16. EvieMaybe (talk) welp, y'all won me over
17. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
18. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
19. DesaMatt (talk) Per all. Keep up the monarchy (the mushroom one at least).

No Princess

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name, we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Abolish the monarchy.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like Fox, Sonic, etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
6. Pizza Master (talk) per all
7. PopitTart (talk) I was initially hesitant because of the existence of Princess Peach Showtime, but I was quickly swayed by looking at the game's online store page, which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
8. Arend (talk) Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" without an uppercase P.
9. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
10. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all

Mushroom Head (talk) The people who type “Princess Peach” into the search bar are nerds.
Super Mario RPG (talk) "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
EvieMaybe (talk) per all
Blinker (talk) Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".

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

Remove "Princess" from Daisy's name 8-18
Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)

1. Nintendo101 (talk) In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in Super Mario Land, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101
3. Pseudo (talk) Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
4. Technetium (talk) Per all.
5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
6. SmokedChili (talk) Per all, what I said above about Peach.
7. Okapii (talk) Per Nintendo101, and also selfishly because the inconsistency would bug me.
8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

No Princess

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in Mario Party 9, Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as Super Mario Land itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-Land is practically a defining trait of hers.
2. Hewer (talk) Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per last times.
4. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all three past proposals.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
8. Blinker (talk) Per all
9. Tails777 (talk) Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
10. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
11. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
12. Pizza Master (talk) per all.
13. PopitTart (talk) Hi, She's Daisy!
14. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.
    Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of Larry as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, with visibility nigh intact. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.
15. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
16. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all
17. DesaMatt (talk) Per all.
18. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

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

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

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

Yes Princess

No Princess (status quo)

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

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

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

Comments (Princess Particle Party!)

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

I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in Smash Bros. games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the Super Smash Bros. games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer I was referring to the Super Smash Bros. series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made Mario Kart Tour, a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In Melee, for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the selection screen. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's more reason for us to move it? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally Peach-hime, Daimaō Koopa and Dedede-daiō, respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, one interview where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying Star Fox's Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. Super Princess Peach enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are technically conjectural.--PopitTart (talk) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), this ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of Blue Shell if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

Now, for a change of pace:

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

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

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

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

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

That first bit about consistency also works as an argument for why Peach and Daisy don't necessarily need to be "consistent" with each other regarding whether they use the long names. Anyway, I believe that "Daisy" being the preferred official name over "Princess Daisy" is incredibly clear, and the fact that a name is sometimes used in certain cherry-picked instances doesn't override the most common and prominent usages. Everything you say about the current names being used in official sources and being familiar to fans applies just as well if not better to the names this proposal seeks to change to. You're right that the current names are used more than something like "Professor Elvin Gadd", but it's not like that has to be the cutoff point (and as I said earlier, you could certainly make an argument that Princess Daisy has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do, which you even supported shortening). Keeping it the way it is does not cause "substantive harm", exactly, but I don't remember anyone ever arguing that it does - the benefit of the move is to be more accurate to the overwhelming majority of official sources. And I do not understand your characterisation of this as "policy for the sake of policy", it's for the sake of accuracy to the source material, which the wiki is always striving for.
Here's a hypothetical to consider: if it happened that the wiki's article on Daisy had always used the name "Daisy" (and assuming everything else about the situation was unchanged), do you think you'd be pushing for a move to "Princess Daisy"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Potentially, yes. I would. Because I think Princess Daisy is more inherently clarifying as the article title and it is exercised in modern contexts that I think are more directly parallel to how one would title articles in referential material like ours. I think there are sometimes different goals and incentives for character selection screens and the like. For example, at the end of Super Mario Bros. 2 Peach is simply called "Princess," but if this site only covered SMB2, I would argue our article name for her should be "Princess Toadstool" despite it not being the name in-game.

My view in the previous proposal on this, as well as the one concerning the Koopalings, has evolved over time. I think "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" are better, more intuitive, and more clarifying article titles (especially for the former, though I do admittedly still prefer the parallel between Peach and Daisy. That's a bit less important though). In my experience, most people who engage with Nintendo games and Mario do not know these characters simply as "Peach" and "Daisy." So when you have these more clarifying names exercised in the modern era - in instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc. - alongside the more familial "Peach" and "Daisy," what benefit does changing those names bring us? Because if anything it could create instances of navigating the site to find articles on these characters more difficult for some visitors by making their roles more opaque, at least peripherally. So I don't see any gain from this tradeoff, or an improvement of accuracy. I see it as trading a slightly more clarifying, valid, and exercised name for one that is equally valid but less clarifying. The only real benefit is that it can make piping links easier in the body texts of articles for editors, but I am personally more than willing to sacrifice editorial convenience to clarify things for readers when the option is there. I help maintain this site for them primarily, and it is for similar reasons why I did not simply title this article "The Legend of Zelda." - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:35, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Admittedly, this response is based on personal life experience, but we've had basically the opposite happen to us; sure, people generally get it when you say "Princess Peach", but tend to raise eyebrows at "Princess Daisy" over just calling her Daisy. Calling Rosalina by "Princess Rosalina" is then promptly seen as an extreme over-correction if it's explained to them. Having quick-fire asked both friends and family about this, "Daisy" came up every time over "Princess Daisy", sans one instance of someone mistaking her for Rosalina and one giving an obvious joke answer, and in the former case, even then they omitted "Princess". Admittedly, there is probably a very large bias among family members at play as we have a dog expressly named Daisy, and our sample size here is incredibly small as this was very spur of the moment, late at night.
Even still, the total lack of any "Princess" particles at all here definitely reflects a very different lived experience, so while we definitely can't speak for everyone--it would be extremely silly of us to try to assert that your peers don't include "Princess" just because ours don't, that's absurd!--we can definitely vouch that, in our corner of the world, the "Princess" particle tends to be omitted. Make of this what one may, we just thought we'd share our own experiences here. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☼ contribs ) 00:28, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

"Princess Daisy" is the name used much less by fans in my experience too. If there actually are fans who primarily use "Princess Daisy" (ignoring for a moment the fact that I don't think that matters), I do think it's at least plausible that the wiki's usage of the name is part of the reason. Also, why is "clarification" such a big deal anyway? People who know about the Mario franchise would expect an article called "Daisy" to be about the major recurring character called that, I don't see any real potential for confusion. We shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy to appeal to some hypothetical minority who wouldn't understand what the page was about if we removed the word "Princess" from the title (and who for some reason can't just glance at the start of the article for two seconds to immediately find out). Also, this list you keep giving of "instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc." - what exactly is this referring to? In your vote you listed Super Mario Land (so old that Peach was still Toadstool), the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (seriously?), and "licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy" (which have never taken priority over the video games in any case I'm aware of, and which often use the shortened name anyway). I'm not a big fan of ignoring the naming policy's guidance to cherry-pick sources that use the name we'd rather have. The usage of shortened "Daisy" is not limited to character select screens as you keep implying - for instance, see the links I provided in an earlier comment, which show that most official websites use the names "Princess Peach" and "Daisy". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:11, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

I do not agree that "Daisy" is a more accurate article title than "Princess Daisy." I think they are equally as valid, same with "Princess Peach" and "Peach," but again, I admittedly feel more strongly for her than Daisy. As others have mentioned, she even had a game published last year that referred to her as "Princess Peach" in the title. It would be disingenuous to say "Daisy" is not used more often than "Princess Daisy," but the latter is used, whether it is in contexts you personally think should be considered valid or not. This was part of what I was saying with people treating these names as outdated and erroneous as "Princess Toadstool." These names are exercised in the modern era. So I do not think we are sacrificing accuracy by retaining the names we have. But we are sacrificing clarification, which is something I care about in maintaining reference material aimed for the public to read. This isn't a site just to be edited. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:55, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

I still don't understand what clarification issues you think would be caused by moving to the subject's more common name. I don't know why "Daisy" would be any less clear as an article title than "Rosalina" or "Pauline" or any character name, but if there was anyone who didn't know what it meant, their confusion would be instantly quelled if they just looked at the article for a second or two. I can't imagine any context in which the supposed loss of clarity would be a problem. I'm still neutral regarding whether to move Peach since I think the argument against it is more reasonable than it is with Daisy, but I'll point out that it being used in a title isn't necessarily a deciding factor - Mario the character isn't titled "Super Mario" (which is used in the titles of some games that lack the form). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:31, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

For what it's worth, Nintendo101's messages here more or less match my opinion on this subject entirely. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 09:14, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Create an article for Character Icons

Do not create 1-5
Since emblems have an article, I think character icons should have an article too. I was thinking it could be a gallery. There are just so many character icons for just one character (just see how many Mario’s had)! It could anlso have the same structure as Gallery:Emblem. And it wouldn’t be the first gallery to not have an article talking about the subject. Take “Gallery:Orange Yoshi” as an example.
EDIT: To answer EvieMaybe, this is a character icon...
...and we would benefit from this article the same way we benefit from the emblems article: organized "images" (I have O.C.D., so that's why I want it organized.)

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

Support

1. Salmancer (talk) I mean, it is a recurring visual conceit, and we want to chart the evolution of Super Mario concepts. A gallery seems fair.

Oppose

1. Shadow2 (talk) I don't even think we need the Emblem page, to be honest. That page already has very vague interpretations about what is and is not an emblem, and I think that vagueness would get even worse with a Character Icons page.
2. Mario (talk) I understand that some users want a place to have all particular style of UI elements in a page, but "emblem" is nebulously defined in this proposal (and the term may be prone to deprecation in the future as Nintendo may adopt another style or alter the style, such as gradients or doing something similar to Super Mario Party Jamboree stickers) and people who want to organize these icons are better off finding the respective game and character galleries and collaging these icons as they please.
3. MCD (talk) I can sort of understand why the emblem page exists (sometimes a bit abstract, often shared between games, can crop up in a number of places during gameplay such as on a kart or a tennis racket, etc) though maybe it does need a bit of a cleanup. On the other hand, character icons are basically self explanatory - I can't think of any games where they're used as flexibly as emblems, so the only real thing a specific page could offer would be a gallery, and that just feels redundant when games and characters already have their own galleries which contain all of their character icons.
4. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.

Comments

please elaborate more on your proposal. what exactly do you mean by "character icons"? can you give examples? what benefit would this article have? — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 17:14, March 26, 2025 (EDT)

I'll try to answer that. Weegie baby (talk) 11:14, March 28, 2025 (EDT)

i still don't really see the benefit of it. maybe you should draft an article — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 12:12, March 28, 2025 (EDT)

By "drafting" you mean make a small article to show what it would be like, right? I've already made it, but I haven't saved it. I'll just leave it in my computer until I have an answer. Weegie baby (talk) 08:16, March 30, 2025 (EDT)

Y'know, I'll just put it here (the "sub-heading 3" parts will be "heading" in the article):

This is a gallery featuring images of character icons.

Super Mario 3D Wrold

• 

  Mario's selected character icon

• 

  Mario's unselected character icon

• 

  Luigi's selected character icon

• 

  Luigi's unselected character icon

• 

  Peach's selected character icon

• 

  Peach's unselected character icon

• 

  Toad's selected character icon

• 

  Toad's unselected character icon

• 

  Rosalina's selected character icon

• 

  Rosalina's unselected character icon

Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

• 

  Captain Toad's character icon

• 

  Toadette's character icon

• 

  Purple Captain Toad's character icon

So, yeah. Weegie baby (talk) 11:52, March 30, 2025 (EDT)

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

So will the criteria be a cropped and framed iteration of 2D vector images? I'm wondering why these qualify and not File:Mpsrart18.png, apparently. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:09, March 30, 2025 (EDT)

And what about Super Nintendo World stamps that are in the same style? — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 08:58, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

• 

  Goomba Crazy Crank

• 

  Koopa Troopa POWer Punch

• 

  Piranha Plant Nap Mishap

• 

  Thwomp Panel Panic

• 

  Bob-omb Kaboom Room

Answering Mario: they qualify because they’re 2D (I think) and, honestly, I would never see the 3D “icons” as character icons. Answering Lady Sophie: yes, they count as character icons (even though they’re species’.) Weegie baby (talk) 14:20, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

...is it JUST about the 2D character icon artworks in the modern 2D artstyle? Because I don't see the point of a gallery for such a thing as that. Might as well place them all on the artist's gallery page alongside all the other 2D art they made.
Now, if it were about character HUD icons (or even character minimap icons, which one could argue is also part if a game's HUD), THAT'S a different story, albeit slightly, since that's actually a recurring thing throughout the entire franchise, starting as early as Mario Bros. rend (talk) (edits) 13:18, April 1, 2025 (EDT)

I would presume things like selection screen icons as far back as the N64 era, and HUD icons as back as the beginning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:19, April 1, 2025 (EDT)

Make a page for Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour

Create page 10-0
You know that "game" announced to act as an interactive manual for the new console? The one that should be a free pack-in like Astro's Playroom and Wii Sports, but for $ome rea$on isn't? That one.

Today's Treehouse gameplay showcased a segment of the software where you play World 1-1 from Super Mario Bros. mapped pixel-to-pixel within the console's 4K screen. You're even given challenges to tick off beside simply reaching the level's finish. I'd say this pretty clearly constitutes a guest appearance according to the coverage policy, meaning the game should have a page that discusses this particular feature. But the policy says I need to make a proposal for it, so.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: April 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT Passed Early on April 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Make page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We're not entirely sure this actually needs a proposal. Given Art Style: PiCTOBiTS has an article without any real contention when that lets you use Mario items, having a section where you're in World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.) and play as Mario is a no-brainer.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock
4. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
5. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal in 4K.
6. Tails777 (talk) Per all... how much will it cost me to support this proposal?
7. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal 2.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
10. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per propo$al.

Comments about wiki coverage of the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)

@Camwoodstock, the policy I quoted should probably be reworded a little to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. Cases like this one where a non-Mario game lets you take control of Mario, interacting with coins, Goombas, and pipes, indeed shouldn't require a proposal to receive coverage. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:10, April 3, 2025 (EDT)

I think the goal is to make sure everyone's on the same page, so I would be worried about how broad this statement is. Remember, we don't give crossover characters articles just for being playable in a WarioWare microgame; ergo there is a minimum bar of involvement a game would have to pass to get to the "guest appearance: rank. I would prefer something along the lines of, "A Super Mario game or portion of a Super Mario game embedded in a second game means the second game is a guest appearance at minimum", because it is more specific. Salmancer (talk) 07:11, April 4, 2025 (EDT)

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

Keep as is 1-6
It's been three months, seven weeks, and three days since the last proposal was vetoed by the staff. Just as Bro3256 said, the video game console generations are categorized as follows within the scope of Nintendo's video game systems:

First generation

Color TV-Game

Second generation

Game & Watch

Third generation

Family Computer / Nintendo Entertainment System

Fourth generation

Super Famicom / Super Nintendo Entertainment System; Game Boy

Fifth generation

Virtual Boy; Nintendo 64; Game Boy Color

Sixth generation

Game Boy Advance; Nintendo GameCube

Seventh generation

Nintendo DS; Wii

Eighth generation

Nintendo 3DS; Wii U; Nintendo Switch

Ninth generation

Nintendo Switch; Nintendo Switch 2

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

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

This is what the generation parameter reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

|generation=eighth
|generation2=ninth

This will read as follows:

Cross-generation (eighth – ninth)

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

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

Support: We're crossing over!

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: We should cross it out...

1. Camwoodstock (talk) The amount of things that would properly qualify for being "cross-generation", unless you decide to count the entirety of the Switch or Switch 2 as being "cross-generation" (don't) or include re-releases as being "cross-generation" (please don't) are very few and far between. Off the cuff, we think it literally might just the "New Play Control!" ports, Skylanders: SuperChargers, and Nintendo Campus Challenge, which is going to be split soon anyways... by console generation. Furthermore, and far more pressing, none of these are consoles, they are individual video games; and this proposal specifically is targeting the system infobox. In the absence of anything compelling to use it on for systems themselves, and how niche this would be even if it was expanded to include games (something that would require us to specify a game's given console generation in the first place, which we don't currently do), we can't really see the reason to add this parameter.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) If we really wanted to mark consoles as cross-generational... just make it so we can put that information in the "generation" field. We would have to change the field a bit and move information out from the template itself into the arguments on the articles, but that would honestly be fine — as it stands, the field is a bit hyperspecialized and inflexible. Instead of doing that, this proposal is about creating a second inflexible and even more hyperspecialized field and adding it to {{system infobox}}, for use on... exactly one article. It's not a sensible way of solving this problem at all.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Let's not overcomplicate things.
4. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Camwoodstock. We only use the generation the console debuted in. The generations the console goes through after don't matter.
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
6. Hewer (talk) I still think we should get rid of the console generations.

Cross-comments

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

Actually, aside from the subject, Bro3256's proposal is entirely irrelevant to what GuntherBaybee is proposing, if I'm reading this correctly:

• Bro3256 proposed to entirely remove video game console generations and redefine it by home console and handheld console (and, for reasons I still don't understand to this day, not count the Virtual Boy at all).
• GuntherBayBee instead proposes to add a generation2 parameter to {{System infobox}}, to account for the fact that the Nintendo Switch is a cross-generational system. It's not about removing or redefining the console generations at all: it's just about the console generations.

rend (talk) (edits) 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

So let me get this out of the way first, I did not purposely not count the Virtual Boy, that was an oversight when I made the initial proposal and I do apologize. The main reason I pulled the initial proposal was due to the confusion it left on some users and I feel that partially had to do with how I presented said proposal. I am considering redoing the proposal at another time. In regards to this proposal, I just don't see the point in doing this. I do want to remind users that the current video game console generation system that is used was invented by Wikipedia users in the 2000s. The concept of video game console generations had been a thing before this but it wasn't until Wikipedia that we see the system that's used to this day. The system is arbitrary even more so now than back when it was created. The Nintendo Switch for example is categorized on Wikipedia under 8th and 9th

• "The Switch has been compared and considered to compete with consoles of both the eighth and ninth generation by sources.".

How can a video game platform be in two different console generations? If the Nintendo Switch can be in two console generations, what about other video game platforms? What the heck is a video game console generation? That last question should be quite simple to answer but frankly there is a good chance you will get a differing answer in both what it's supposed to categorize and how it's categorized. Super Mario Wiki is already an example of such an occurrence only labeling the Nintendo Switch in the 8th. I still stand by the idea about getting rid of the video game console generation system on Super Mario Wiki but I'll leave discussing that for any future proposal made in regards to this specific topic. --Bro3256 (talk) 08:47, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

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

I'm sure that the Switch 2 will be a cross-generation system if Sony and Microsoft officially announce the tenth-generation successors to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S respectively. GuntherBayBeee 13:45, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

No, I mean, the Switch 2 probably is not a gen 9 console. Obviously it will be competing with the successors of the PS5 and Xbox Series X, but I doubt it will compete with the PS5 and Xbox Series X themselves. rend (talk) (edits) 13:53, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

I recommend your proposals in the future to be much clearer in the problems identified and what the solutions are. Your proposals have been constantly running into the issues where people, getting swamped by verbiage and code block dumps, simply cannot comprehend what's the problem and the solutions to these. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:51, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Ditch classic course prefixes in Mario Kart course article names

canceled by proposer
Welp, here it is, a proposal that's been pretty overdue now. All beginning with the Booster Course Pass, the idea of rejecting the prefixes in article names has been tossed around a few times, thanks to Tour Ninja Hideaway. But now Mario Kart World is here and we only have been handed more reason to drop them from the titles, with classic course prefixes being eradicated entirely now. This means articles like 3DS Wario Shipyard and DS DK Pass will now have to be reverted back to just Wario Shipyard and DK Pass, and we can assume that this will only continue in the future, potentially.

So, to prevent inconsistency and confusion (Why would Choco Mountain lack a prefix but N64 Frappe Snowland wouldn't?) it is finally time to ask; should we drop these prefixes entirely from the article name? Links to courses would still, of course, use prefixes if they are referring to a course from a certain game (i.e. GBA Riverside Park in Mario Kart Tour) since that is how the course is referred to in said game. All that will be affected will be the actual titles of courses. Redirects will still, of course exist. This can also eliminate potential confusion about courses like Sky-High Sundae by removing the potential redirect with a prefix that'd be potentially suggested.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: April 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Drop prefixes in titles

1. YoYo (talk) As the creator of the proposal.

Keep prefixes in titles / status quo

1. JanMisali (talk) Was wondering when something like this would get proposed. Assuming this is the status quo option that means "keep prefixes in titles (except for the ones that will need to be updated for Mario Kart World)", I don't think the potential inconsistency alone is reason enough to drop the prefixes. We already lacked console prefixes for courses that have never reappeared, so I think it's fine to continue only using console prefixes for courses where the most recent appearance was one that used a console prefix.

Comments

I feel like this should be reserved until the game actually releases and we have a full image of how World is handling retros. For all we know, the lack of prefixes could be prerelease quirk, or the game may have some kind of history gallery with an entirely new naming scheme.--PopitTart (talk) 14:08, April 14, 2025 (EDT)

I think I'm leaning towards supporting this, but: what is your plan regarding courses currently distinguished from other MK courses by their console identifier? For instance, the course currently known as GCN Mario Circuit, as opposed to Mario Circuit. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:14, April 14, 2025 (EDT)

I'd imagine just use the game of origin's name in brackets like how Mario Circuit (Mario Kart 8) already does, for example - YoYo (Talk) 14:17, April 14, 2025 (EDT)

Change the moon icon for Dark Mode

NOTE: Yes, we see what day it is. No, this is not a prank proposal! The fact this is actually coherent should've told you that much, but in case you couldn't tell, we are being genuine about this one. However, given how silly the subject matter is, we couldn't resist.

In case you somehow missed it, fairly recently, a proper dark mode was added to the wiki. You can enable it by clicking the moon icon on the top of the page; it's black on light mode, and yellow on dark mode. This works. This is adequate. We won't say it's bad by any stretch of the imagination. But look at the iconography all around it! The background has assorted icons, the wiki logo and favicon is a mushroom, and heck, for as long as we can remember, a mushroom sprite has been next to the username bar! While the alert bell and inbox icons are both a rather understandable grey, the moon actively changes colors and is positioned right next to that mushroom sprite in the username bar, which begs the question why it's like that.

Having asked on the Discord, we've come up with 3 possible changes to make, displayed to the right there:

• Both Light and Dark Mode use a 3-Up Moon: Self-explanatory. Light Mode would be a white recoloring of the original SMW sprite, whereas dark mode would use the original yellow sprite.
• Light Mode has a Shine Sprite, Dark Mode uses a Power Moon: Similar concept, but with more modern day collectibles. We've made some edited sprites to use for this (using sprites from Bowser's Inside Story and Odyssey as a basis), but we'd be open to improvements.
• Do nothing: Light Mode uses a black crescent, dark mode uses a yellow crescent. Simple-as.

In addition, if there's genuine interest in doing so, we could perhaps make proposals to change the alert bell and notice inbox icons as well. For now, though, we'd like to keep it to the Dark Mode moon, as it's both new enough, and also it has the (dis)advantage of being juxtaposed directly with the mushroom next to the username, so it sticks out more to us.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

Which one for light mode?

Use White 3-Up Moon for light mode 4-3-0
Deadline: April 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

White 3-Up Moon

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. It's parity with the dark mode button, though we feel like making the light mode option a moon like the dark mode one is a missed opportunity.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how it matches the Mushroom it is next too. The Shine Sprite and Power Moon are too contemporary in aesthetics. However, I wonder if porplemontage uses the moon symbol across the wikis he manages, like SmashWiki and the like. This is speculative, but it may not be technically possible to update the moon on Super Mario Wiki and not for other wikis that share its infrastructure. But if it is possible, this is the direction I would go with.
3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Better aesthetic, in my opinion. The alternative sticks out like a sore thumb.
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Simple, clean, and fits with the Mushroom sprite perfectly.

Shine Sprite

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. While we stand firmly by the 3-Up Moon for dark mode, Shine Sprites are far more unique silhouette-wise.
2. Pizza Master (talk) Makes more sense as a symbol for light mode given shines are like micro suns.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) I feel like this one better matches the shading on the mushroom, making them look better next to each other.

Black Crescent (status quo)

Which one for dark mode?

Use Yellow 3-Up Moon for dark mode 5-0
Deadline: April 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yellow 3-Up Moon

1. Camwoodstock (talk) This one's our ride-or-die option. Ever since we saw the original icon, we've kinda been hoping it'd get to be a 3-Up Moon to go alongside the SMB3 Mushroom.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my vote above. I like how it compliments the Mushroom sprite it is next to aesthetically.
3. LinkTheLefty (talk) I like the sprites being the same, just palette-swapped, for the toggle. Simple's good.
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per my other vote.
5. Pizza Master (talk) Per all.

Power Moon

Yellow Crescent (status quo)

Comments (the sun & moon are fighting!)

The sun and moon are fighting, eh? I have a solution for that...

In all seriousness, I'm not entirely decided on my vote, but I feel like it would be better to have an different icon from the moon for light mode. That's just my 5 cents though. BMfan08 (talk) 20:27, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Im not sure making this a poll proposal is a good idea because the icon options are quite different stylistically. Imagine, for example, the detailed Shine Sprite sprite being used alongside the minimalistic yellow moon icon. Additionally, the Shine Sprite/Power Moon options could stand to be a little more cohesive between each other, mainly regarding the outline, but also the shading to some extent. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 20:35, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

We're well aware, don't worry; we'd be fine to tweak the actual images as need be, such as reducing the shading on the Shine Sprite if it wins alongside the 3-Up Moon. The images are just our little concept pieces to illustrate the point. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☼ contribs ) 20:38, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

I'm surprised Angry Sun/Moon aren't here. There's even the perfect quote in the latter article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:28, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Your honor... 1. we forgor 2. We weren't really confident in our ability to sprite a 16x16 Angry Sun that actually looks good by the time we remembered--let alone a SMM2 moon. Those sprites are larger for a reason! ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☼ contribs ) 14:23, April 1, 2025 (EDT)

Fair enough. By the way, if the 3-Up Moons pass, it'd look cute if the toggle was moved a little closer to the mushroom icon - since the sprite faces the other way, it'd seem like the moon's leaning against it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:19, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Create new "Media:" namespace for media subpages

vetoed by the administrators
Not technically possible, though a variation that is technically possible was put into effect immediately by the proprietor.
For as complex as this might be on the back end (even if the vast majority of it could be automated by PorpleBot), it's relatively straightforward to explain what we want changed. Take these specific pages:

• Gallery:Mario
• Gallery:Mario forms
• Gallery:? Block
• Gallery:Yoshi's Cookie
• Gallery:Shy Guy

All of these gallery subpages use the "Gallery:" namespace, and we even have compatibility for subpages between them. It's fairly straightforward so far. Now, take a look at these:

• List of Super Mario Bros. Special media
• List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! media
• List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest media

All of these are formatted similarly to gallery subpages, just for media files... But are inexplicably named "List of x media"? It's not like it's impossible to make a namespace or anything, either; we have dedicated namespaces for The 'Shroom:, and the long-since deprecated Pipe Projects used their own PipeProject: namespace. Thusly, the solution is simple enough: create a new Media: namespace, and move the various "List of x media" pages over to "Media:x".

As for why we want this... Admittedly, this is fairly niche, and your average browser won't benefit much from it; this much, we acknowledge. For them, this would mostly just be nice for the sake of parity between Gallery pages and Media pages. But there's one big reason we can think of to make a new namespace like this: ease of search for maintenance-related reasons. It would be very easy to filter edits to these Media pages on Recent changes, or to find them via search, if we had a namespace for them. If you want to find a gallery subpage, you just type "Gallery:"; if you want to find a media subpage, you have to try a lot harder. This would be a great convenience to editors who are specifically trying to search for specific Media subpages.

The only real downside (beyond it being niche, of course) is that this might be difficult to implement at such a large scale, but fortunately, we have PorpleBot for things like this. It's to our understanding PorpleBot mostly works off regex, which is practically built to handle situations such as this. The exception, of course, is we would have to be sure that it doesn't accidentally convert actual lists of various forms of media, such as List of unreleased media, to these Media: pages; obviously, Media: is specifically for these pages that use {{Media table}} to supplement a pre-existing topic, not actual list articles that contain prose describing various pieces of media.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (new namespace!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, of course. It bolsters parity between the Gallery and Media subpages when those have generally been treated similarly elsewhere, it would improve searches and filters, and while this might take some time to implement, it's nothing PorpleBot and regex changes for the bulk of it, and some caffeine to fix the outliers, can't fix.
2. Nelsonic (talk) Media:Support (per proposer).
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per!
4. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I can't imagine anyone who would mind this change.
5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
6. Rykitu (talk) Media:Per all

Oppose (to the list with ye!)

Nintendo101 (talk) I am of the view that there is no problem as a gallery does not necessarily have to be exclusively visual media. But regardless, "gallery" is a pretty recurring and ubiquitous term in wiki spaces across the internet for both the readers of wikis and those who edit them, and I feel like changing that name for our site brings more problems than it does solutions.

Comments (IRT media: as a namespace)

Is it possible to create a namespace with that prefix? "Media" is a built-in namespace on MediaWiki used as a way to link to files instead of embedding them (like Media:SPP-Bowsers_Ransom_Note.png). Dive Rocket Launcher 07:17, April 16, 2025 (EDT)

It's not technically possible to add a "Media" content namespace for the reason mentioned above. I veto this! --Steve (talk) 15:31, April 16, 2025 (EDT)

The addition of a "source needed" template

canceled by proposer
While editing, I noticed that there was a "better source needed" template, but not a template for when an article needs to be sourced ("source needed"). I actually wanted to add the template myself but then I thought "This could use some discussion". I also had the idea of merging the templates together. That would look something like this:

{{source|better}}

What would be displayed without better added (and how the template would look like if it was added standalone):

What would be displayed with better added is the same as the current "better source needed" template.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: April 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (add the template)

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary option. Most wikis have such a template when there's a source needed and not only a "better source needed" one. While I do know it's their own business what those wikis do. It would just make sense for the template to be here, instead of telling someone they need to source something in the edit summary. The template will also be easier to make for the programmers around here.

Merge "source needed" and "better source needed" into one template

1. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary option. Merging them could also be a convenient option, though I still rather make the template a standalone one. Just to make it a bit more clear.

Comments

Don't we already have Template:Unsourced? Maw-Ray Master (talk) 20:04, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

I can't imagine this is needed in addition to {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}}. I veto this! --Steve (talk) 15:31, April 16, 2025 (EDT)

I feel a bit dumb now to be honest. Totally didn't see those templates. Sorry guys. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:40, April 16, 2025 (EDT)

Split Mario & Sonic game categories by version

Split all categories 8-0-0-0
This proposal applies to the following games:

• Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)
• Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Nintendo DS)
• Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS)
• Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U) and Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS)

Put plainly, it doesn't make sense to me that the Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS versions of these games share the same categories. The versions quite substantially differ from each other to the point where each version gets its own page. I propose we handle categories for these games the same way we handle categories for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. For instance, with file categories, there is still Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U images and its subcategories for images that apply to both versions, but there are also split Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS images and Category:Super Smash Bros. for Wii U images categories and subcategories. So, for instance, even if we aren't sure where an asset comes from or if the two games share an asset, it can stay in the existing merged category. This split will be especially useful for screenshots, given it's sometimes not clear when a screenshot is from DS/3DS or Wii/Wii U (some screenshots of the former lack the double screen).

As for page categories, both versions of a game sharing them lead to confusion. For instance, there's the page 4x100m Relay (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). Its identifier doesn't list a version, so does that mean this event is in both the DS and Wii versions? Nope, only the Wii version (I don't think we should change identifiers, to be clear). From what I've seen, no event page covers both versions of a game. So why do we only have a single events category per game? Category:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games events is a confusing mess as it currently stands. This doesn't only apply to events, but items as well - the story mode of the DS version of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games has a lot of subjects not in the Wii version, and even some of the pages themselves don't clarify which version the subject is from (perhaps because of confusion on version differences - for example look at Battle Snow Machine). By splitting these categories, not only will navigation be easier, but there will be less confusion on subjects as well.

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on April 16th, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split all categories

1. Technetium (talk) As Olympian.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We encountered this exact issue last night, actually, while adding Aboutfile descriptions. We're a bit surprised this hasn't already been done. Per proposal.
3. Salmancer (talk) Per all.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) per proposal.
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
8. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link

Change entries cell and directory link 15-0
Currently, the previous and next cell in infoboxes for TV show episodes, levels and worlds have a few issues:

• The previous and next entries are displayed as "<<" and ">>", which make it more cumbersome to simply figure out what they are, since one may have to hover the cursor over it, and it is even worse on mobile, where you may have to open the link to learn what it is);
• It gets always more confusing and messy when more than one entry is displayed, especially for levels that link to secret levels, displayed as "**", as it is not immediately understandable what that means;
• Levels and worlds have a "directory of levels/worlds" link which just links to the Level category or World article. It is kind of pointless.

I propose we change that section to another format that:

• Includes a header labeling the section;
• Uses "previous" and "next" labels;
• Lists the names for the entries, and, for secret levels, attach a "(secret)" note to it.
• Links to the relevant section listing the entries in the specific article for the work;

Since some articles may have longer lists of entries (such as some levels in Super Mario Bros. Wonder, we can have an alternate format that stacks the previous and next cells instead, since it appears laid out more nicely. It may make that section take a lot more space, but cases like these are very few compared to most which have just one or two entries each side.

See examples
Level Donut Ghost House World Donut Plains Time limit 300 seconds Level sequence ← Previous Donut Plains 2 Donut Secret 1 Next → Donut Plains 3 Top Secret Area (secret) List of levels	Donkey Kong Country episode "Watch the Skies" Episode 8 Writer Dale Schott Episode chronology ← Previous "Bug a Boogie" Next → "Baby Kong Blues" List of episodes	Level The Desert Mystery World Sunbaked Desert Difficulty ★★ Level sequence ← Previous Sunbaked Desert House Next → Color-Switch Dungeon Secrets of Shova Mansion Sunbaked Desert Palace Badge Challenge Crouching High Jump II KO Arena Sunbaked Skirmish List of levels

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: April 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on April 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: change how previous and next entries are presented in infoboxes

1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.
2. PopitTart (talk) Good god, yes PLEASE. I was flabbergasted the first time I tried navigating levels in SMW and was redirected to a category of just. Every Single Level in Every Single Game the Wiki Covers. What use does that possibly have??
3. Ahemtoday (talk) You make a lot of good points about the current problems, and this is a natural solution to 'em. I'm not sure about "episode chronology" or especially "level sequence" as a header for the section, though — those terms describe something that these sections are just a small slice of. Maybe, say, "surrounding levels" or "surrounding episodes"? (Side note, but there's something magical to me about proposals being able to overturn longstanding bits of wiki policy. These infobox sections have been formatted that way for at least fifteen years...)
4. AmossGuy (talk) This simply shows the information more clearly, I think. And I like Ahemtoday's suggestion of "surrounding levels" for the terminology.
5. Sparks (talk) YES!!
6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is way overdue, especially after more non-linear games like Super Mario Bros. Wonder but even thanks to games as old as Super Mario World. Even for far more linear affairs, like your Super Mario Bros.es or your Donkey Kong 3: Dai Gyakushūs, we quite prefer the aesthetics of actually listing the page names over what we currently have; though we do feel it important to ask, in the case of games where levels are named stuff like just, "World 7-1" and "World 7-2" with nothing distinguishing them, would we just visually display them as "World 7-1" and "World 7-2", or would we include the parenthetical, and it'd display as "World 7-1 (Super Mario Bros. Special)" and "World 7-2 (Super Mario Bros. Special)"? While not a dealbreaker, it would be annoying, and we'd suggest... Not. ;P
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! huge fan of this
8. Hewer (talk) Good idea.
9. Jdtendo (talk) << >>
10. Pseudo (talk) This would be a huge improvement on the current infoboxes in a number of ways. Also, I would agree with Camwoodstock's suggestion to not include the parentheticals in level name links.
11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
12. Salmancer (talk) Yeah, current system could use a tune-up.
13. Scrooge200 (talk) Yes! This makes so much more sense. I'm surprised this hasn't been proposed earlier.
14. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all! I encourage this very much!
15. BMfan08 (talk) Thank you thank you THANK YOU! Arrows were a seamless option back when all games went from one level to the next but with multiple "next" or "previous" levels being a possibility now this produces a lot more headaches. Absolutely agree.

Comments (Change previous and next entries presentation in infoboxes)

i'm concerned the "List of levels" link could cause issues in games that have more than one version with differing amounts of levels (such as Mario vs. Donkey Kong). what could we do about that? — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 00:24, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Probably have two links, one each for each version of the game? This would be my first idea. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 12:27, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

maybe it could link to the "[game] levels" category? also as a sidenote, the tall version used for Wonder should align the Next levels to the right. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 00:13, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Can this proposal apply to Template:Mission infobox? At least everything in Category:Levels is the same kind of thing. That's untrue of the Missions category, which has achievements, levels, minigames, and those non-level scenario things all together because they're all called "missions". Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

And let's not forget Template:Tour infobox too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:41, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, this may apply to any infobox with that feature. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 13:11, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

For those concerned about the "sequence/chronology" header, I based that on how Wikipedia does it (where they have a "X chronology" in their infoboxes, like this). In my opinion, it makes more sense. (Subjective babble warning) The "previous and next" section is not a regular field, but a fixed "footer" to the infobox. It serves as a navigation aid to the topic of the infobox (e.g. "Super Mario Bros. levels" as a whole series of articles), not as data on the current subject alone. The fact the current format doesn't even list the names, but instead just tells us "go to the previous/next entry" with << and >> evidences that function. If we named it something like "surrounding levels", it would imply that these are to be taken as attributes of the entry isolatedly, like "timer" and "difficulty", when that is not the case. It doesn't seem to matter that much, but there is much implied from just a header title. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 13:11, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Noting the Switch 2 Editions

Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2 1-1-0-0-8
I have seen that it's kind of a mystery how we should note the Switch 2 Edition of a game. This question caused some controversy when I asked it in Talk:Super Mario Party Jamboree, so I have decided to involve the whole community in this to see what everyone thinks and so we all know what we should do in the future, when more Switch 2 Editions will follow.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles

1. memoryman3 (talk) Switch 2 Editions are unique game builds that Nintendo gives you the option to upgrade to, and as such should be treated as unique games. Determining whether a game deserves a separate article should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to other reissues. This would be no different from distinguishing a game like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD or Donkey Kong Country Returns HD as unique titles, unless the changes are so minimal that the games are classified as ports.

We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article

1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I’m in for this one.

Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Ideally, we should wait until after launch since there's still much we don't know. From what I understand, they don't even have their own physical versions when seemingly everything else does (literally just the original Switch copy with a one-time download-code, or for all intents and purposes, DLC). If these "upgrade packs" act just like DLC does on previous consoles, then I think we should treat them as such, but that's to be determined at a later time.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Yeah, no, we should definitely wait on this until the Switch 2 releases. Otherwise, we might end up pre-emptively codifying a ton of articles with nothing substantial to them beyond "It's exactly the same as Switch 1, the gameplay functions, visuals, text, audio, and everything are all the same, but it just runs smoother." We'd like to refer to the PC-88 and Sharp X1 versions of Super Mario Bros. Special, not just because it's fresh on our mind, but it is genuinely relevant to the subject; that is a game that very expressly has a performance-related different release on another platform, but outside of the very obvious audiovisual elements, there just isn't enough to warrant splitting on the gameplay side. We could very easily see the Switch 2 Editions being similar to this, where the gameplay is entirely intact with no unique mechanics or mild substitutions due to hardware improvements, but the vast majority of the differences are just "uh, it looks different and runs smoother", which is not particularly substantial.
3. Tails777 (talk) Per all. Too early at this point.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per all, and per my comment below
5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal and all.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) per everyone. No need to jump the shark.
8. Platform (talk) Per all.

Comments

We know so little about what a Switch 2 Edition will mean that I don't think a decision can be made right now. Salmancer (talk) 12:05, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Seconding this--wouldn't it be better to just wait for the Switch 2 to actually release to see how the Switch 2 editions actually work? We're highly skeptical they would actually feature exclusive content in the first place, mind you, but without a Switch 2 edition having actually released, we're kind of voting in the dark here. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☼ contribs ) 12:07, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

i want to point out the "Switch 2 Edition" moniker is specifically reserved for versions which have actual content changes (ie, not what Odyssey is getting, which is just a free compatibility update). however, i still think we should wait more before deciding what to do, and that it might be better to case-by-case it — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Case-by-case where we only split ones with significant new content might be the way to go. This reminds me of how New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is split while New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis isn't. As for determining which ones have enough new content, it seems like the titles can help with that - so far, ones that are mainly just graphical improvements are just called "Game – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition", while ones that have more content added have another bit on the end of the title after a "＋" (like Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition ＋ Jamboree TV). I guess the option closest to this is the fourth one, except I'd rather not strictly require a proposal to determine it in cases where it's obvious (though of course we'd be allowed to have one if it's not). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:50, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

I understand everyone's argument about this but I feel like we already know enough about the Switch 2 Edition of Jamboree to make this proposal. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)

It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Hey guys, I have a question. When this proposal ends, which color do I have to give it in the proposal archive page? Because it doesn’t seem like any of those fit. Should I color it Grey/Gray? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 07:14, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

I'd say red, assuming the last option passes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:05, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

But this'll get re-proposed when the Switch 2 (or the first Switch 2 Edition releases) so doesn’t that technically mean it passed, because the option that passed is that we'll discuss it later. Because if it didn't pass, no change would've been made, ever. But this time there will be a change made. Just not now, but like, it'll still happen this year. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 11:25, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

It'd be red because the option that passed was to not take action yet. If a later proposal decides on a change then the change is attributed to that proposal and this one could switch to the blue colour. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:38, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

That's actually not a bad idea! Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:13, April 15, 2025 (EDT)