MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68

Remove Zelda-Exclusive Pages

canceled by proposer
There are several pages in Category:The_Legend_of_Zelda_series that I believe should be deleted from the wiki. There are many pages in the category that should clearly remain on the wiki, like Ancient Tires, Hyrule Castle and Deku Baba, which appear in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe; 8-Bit Hero, a microgame in WarioWare: Touched!; Recorder, an item that has appeared in both series; or Link and Master Sword, which have appeared in multiple Mario games. Then there are pages that have no connection to the Mario series at all.

We have the List of references in Nintendo video games to cover topics such as these. I fail to see why they need their own pages. Even some of the links for these articles on the references page link to their equivalent articles on Zelda Wiki, our NIWA affiliate, because editors on our own wiki likely assume we don't have pages for Zelda-exclusive content. For example, why is Stone Elevator covered as a separate page but we don’t have a page for Gulliver, who references Toad Town and the Overthere in Animal Crossing, giving Gulliver, who has apparently visited places in the Mario series, a more direct connection than Stone Elevator, which just shares visual similarities to Thwomps? To be clear, I don’t think we should have a page for Gulliver for the reason that he does not appear in a Mario series game. Perhaps a more potent example is Togezo from Kirby’s Adventure, which is clearly a Kirbified version of a Spiny and even shares the same Japanese name. Why is there a page for Manhandla from Zelda, a variant of Piranha Plant, but not Togezo? There just doesn’t seem to be consistency.

For some reason, these pages seem to be disproportionally related to The Legend of Zelda: Link’s Awakening compared to other Zelda games. Perhaps that is because there’s more profound references in Link’s Awakening, but as someone not familiar with the Zelda series, it strikes me as very odd that there’s favoritism for references in that game but there aren't independent pages any other Zelda-exclusive references on the page. This proposal from 2022 permits the creation of non-Mario series pages, but they seem out of place on Mario Wiki, so I think we should explore undoing the consequences of this proposal.

Furthermore, pages like Keese only cover the enemies’ appearance in Mario games, whereas Manhandla covers the extensive history of Mandhala throughout the Zelda series. Again, notably, Manhandla doesn’t have any appearances in Mario games, so I suppose it has to cover everything it does in Zelda since otherwise the page would be blank.

If Yoshi doll exists as an independent page, then shouldn’t every Animal Crossing furniture series and clothing from the Animal Crossing series like the Big Bro's Hat that references the Mario series also be given its own page? I just fail to see the difference. It’s more of the disproportionate coverage of Link’s Awakening.

Perhaps the worst offender is Bombite, which has no confirmed connection to the Mario series whatsoever. Per the page, “They appear to be based on Bob-ombs.” That alone is sufficient to be given a page on the wiki?

To be fair, there is developer commentary about some of the Mario-inspired features in Zelda games affirming they were, indeed, inspired by Mario equivalents (not including Bombite), but is our threshold going to become developer confirmation for significance enough to the Mario series to have an independent page? I'm sure that similar commentary could be found for much listed on List of references in Nintendo video games. If that's our threshold, then shouldn't we create pages for everything confirmed to be inspired by anything to do with the Mario series? That would be a tidal wave of new pages. If not, why is Link's Awakening being treated differently from everything else?

Something of a middle-ground solution is to create a page on our wiki for Link's Awakening. Though I do not favor this idea, there is precedence for the creation of pages for games that pay significant homage to the Mario series but aren't in the series themselves, including but not limited to Captain Rainbow, Fortune Street, and, of course, the entire Super Smash Bros. (series). I don't favor this option given the roles of Mario characters in Link's Awakening are much more minor compared to something like Birdo having a mildly significant role in Captain Rainbow, but there seems to be a lot of love for Link's Awakening on this wiki, so maybe this could be a middle ground solution. This page would house the information for Bombite, Mega Thowmp, Spiked Thowmp, Stone Elevator, and Yoshi doll, but it would remove the independent pages for Manhandla (The Legend of Zelda) and Head Thwomp (Oracle of Ages) and just confine them to the references page.

Pages that would be deleted:

• Bombite - no connection to Mario series whatsoever other than looking like Bob-ombs
• Head Thwomp - never appeared in a Mario game but is related to Thwomp
• Mega Thwomp - same as above
• Spiked Thwomp - same as above
• Stone Elevator - same as above
• Yoshi doll - just a reference to Yoshi in Link’s Awakening

Options breakdown I’ve drafted nine options to address the inconsistencies or excess coverage.

• Option 1 deletes the pages I’ve highlights and incorporates relevant parts of the information on those pages elsewhere. In the case of the Thwomps, there is already a section referencing them on Thwomp.

• Option 2 takes the converse approach and adds exhaustive information about Zelda series pages on the wiki to bridge the gap between Manhandla and Keese and similar pages.

^ Note that no equivalent option for Option 2 exists that would simply remove the bulk of the information from the highlighted pages as there would be nothing to put on the pages other than "X is a variant of X", e.g. "Manhandla is a variant of Piranha Plant that appears in The Legend of Zelda series", since these enemies have no relation to the Mario series other than being inspired by enemies in the series.

• Option 3 implements Option 2 but also creates new pages for obvious inspirations from the Mario series like Togezo, Animal Crossing furniture and clothing, and similar examples.

• Option 4 keeps the Thwomp-related pages since they have a more potent connection to the Mario series, though I believe that if we do this we should create a page on the wiki for Togezo and every other enemy from a different franchise that is based on something from the Mario series, which I don’t think is necessary but becomes appropriate if we have pages for the Thwomp-relations and Manhandla. Yoshi doll is also kept in this option if people want that for whatever reason, but I again suggest that if we have a page for Yoshi doll, then we should have a page for all the similar furniture items from the Animal Crossing series and other series. I strongly believe all this information is best confined to List of references in Nintendo video games instead. If we're taking this option but not Option 3, I just see it as giving a lot of preferential coverage to Link's Awakening.

• Option 5 keeps Yoshi doll but deletes the Thwomp-related pages and Bombite. See argument against this in Option 4's description.

• Option 6 keeps all other pages but deletes Bombite since it is the least related to the Mario series and would suggest we should have pages for any enemy from any Nintendo game that resembles a Bob-omb, which, given their design, would be basically any sapient bomb enemy.

• Option 7 creates a page for Link's Awakening and deletes the highlighted pages. This gives a place for all the highlighted pages on the wiki to exist outside of the references list, minus Manhandla and Head Thwomp.

• Option 8 creates a page for Link's Awakening but keeps Manhandla and Head Thwomp as independent pages.

• Option 9, the do nothing option, would consider all of this as a non-issue and leave things as they are now.

Proposer: DrBaskerville (talk)
Deadline: July 08, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: July 01, 2024

Option 1: Remove the highlighted pages as independent pages, add information about them to Trivia on other pages where applicable, and ensure they are referenced on List of references in Nintendo video games

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. It's a good way of acknowledging these entities exist while not treating them as having the same amount of integration within the Super Mario franchise as Thwimps, for example.

Option 4: Keep Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Yoshi doll, but remove Bombite

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice.

Option 5: Keep Yoshi doll, but remove Thwomp-related pages, Manhandla, and Bombite

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Third choice.

Option 6: Keep all other pages, but remove Bombite

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fourth choice.

Option 7: Create page for Link's Awakening and remove highlighted independent pages

1. DrBaskerville (talk) Fifth choice.

Option 9: Do nothing

1. Axis (talk) The proposal fails to understand why these pages have been created in the first place. The Legend of Zelda series is considered a guest appearance, meaning anything Mario themed or derived from the Mario franchise gets a page. While Bombite and Stone Elevator have no direct connection to the Mario series (someone should dig up Player's Guide and Nintendo Power for these), other entries clearly do, and therefore should stay as independent pages (MarioWiki:Coverage). I believe Bombite and Stone Elevator should be handled seperately on their own respective talk pages (there is an ongoing discussion on Stone Elevator's talk page). The reason items from Animal Crossing don't get their own pages is because noone made a proposal to classify the series as guest appearance yet (unlike the Zelda series, the items in Animal Crossing are purely decorational. I doubt anyone would make a proposal).
2. Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. It seems to me that this proposal underestimates just how much of a guest appearance Link’s Awakening is for the Mario series—there really are a lot of crossover enemies.
3. Hewer (talk) Leaning towards this for now, partly because the proposer seems to have been unaware that Link's Awakening is already classified as a guest appearance with its own page, but mostly because this seems a bit too much for a single proposal. If there are issues with our current handling of this, it'd be better to solve them individually than in a giant, sweeping proposal.
4. Arend (talk) The fact that Options 7 and 8 involves creating an article for Link's Awakening when we already have an article for such a thing makes it apparent that the proposer has not done enough research before setting up this proposal - and thus is in need for some retooling. It reminds me of this one proposal in which the proposer wanted to add a Composers subsection to the Recurring themes nav template (which would be rather unfitting) and was pitching an idea about dedicated articles for composers as if we did not have those yet (even though we already have several of those, and all of them, plus the ones we don't have yet, are already included in the Composers subsection of the People nav template, rendering the whole point of the proposal redundant).

Comments

I apologize for the length of this proposal and the number of options, but I wanted to ensure as many approaches as possible were offered. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

It's possible that there are other pages exclusively related to other series on the wiki as well outside of the Zelda pages that I've highlighted. Their exclusion from this proposal is not due to me believing they should remain but instead being ignorant of their existence. If similar pages exist from other franchises, please feel free to note them in reply to this comment and, if this proposal passes, I'll explore deletion proposals for them as well depending on the strength of their relationship to the Mario series. Dr. Baskerville 03:55, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, there is a Link's Awakening page. It was classified as a guest appearance (i.e. page-worthy) by that 2022 proposal you linked to, and MarioWiki:Coverage tells us that "if a subject is unique to [a guest appearance] while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise, they can receive individual articles", so all the Link's Awakening Mario-inspired enemies are therefore eligible to get articles. Admittedly though, I'm not sure about pages for the Mario-inspired enemies from other games that we don't consider guest appearances, as while it was technically decided by that 2022 proposal, it was only clarified in a comment that it would extend to all Zelda games rather than just Link's Awakening, and it's less supported by policy. And yeah, some of them (like Bombite) do kinda seem to be stretches, but that's probably better handled on its own rather than in a giant proposal like this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:19, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

Do not include 3-6
An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
4. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
5. Arend (talk) I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Dr. Baskerville 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels

split 5-1
This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:

• Rollanratl → Rollanratl Battle
• Hot Roderick → Hot Roderick Race
• Chortlebot → Chortlebot Challenge
• Bloomsday → Bloomsday Blowout
• Large Fry → Large Fry Cook-Off
• Shake King → VS the Shake King

Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
4. Arend (talk) I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
5. Jazama (talk) Per all

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.

Comments

Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Dr. Baskerville 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

standardize 11-0-2-0
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.

At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.

The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:

Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm

• Playable characters: characters controlled
• Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled

Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character

• Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
• Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
• Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression

Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic

• Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
• Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
• Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items

This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles.

Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.

I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.

I offer four options.

1. Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles)
2. Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
3. Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
4. Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this! Let's do it

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Consistency is never a bad thing.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
4. Hewer (talk) I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
6. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per proposal.
7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all. Consistency is good.
8. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
9. Jazama (talk) Per all
10. Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages.
11. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. I'm a sucker for consistency.

Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

Allow colorful tables again

allow 16-0
Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.

Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists:

---

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

---

Level number	Level name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:

• 
• 

The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.

Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: Allow colors

1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal, and per all.
5. Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
6. Meester Tweester (talk) Per proposal.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
9. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
10. Arend (talk) TBH I always found it odd why only the Donkey Kong games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though)
11. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. This makes the tables easier to read, and it's also easier to find specific sections. I do think we should standardize the colors, though. Order above all.
12. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I am not sure what caused this recent trend of table bleaching, but it drained all appeal from them. I don't think we need to standardize colors for specific purposes, either. Just give each game or topic a color that is fitting for that particular case. Not everything needs to be set to rigorous standards, live a little.
13. Technetium (talk) Per all.
14. Yook Bab-imba (talk) We should embrace colors in the Mario wiki. I think the DKC games are some of our best looking articles, the tables playing a huge part. I do think some consistency is needed, though (a light yellow row next to a dark purple row with white text for example is just garish).
15. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
16. Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, I can see some use for this, but I still feel they should be table classes each used under select circumstances.

Oppose: Prioritize gray

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes?
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk).

@Ahemtoday Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for Donkey Kong content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names

do not move 3-8
Or, to be specific, move:

• G. R. P-Troopa to "Glad Red Paratroopa"
• G. Torpedo Ted to "Glad Torpedo Ted"
• Glad P. Plant to "Glad Piranha Plant"
• M. M-Spike Top to "Mad Mecha-Spike Top"
• M. Red P-Goomba to "Mad Red Paragoomba"
• Mad G. P-Troopa to "Mad Green Paratroopa"
• Sad N. Plant to "Sad Nipper Plant"
• C. A. F. H. Bro to "Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother"
• C. Chain Chomp to "Calm Chain Chomp"
• C. Fishing Boo to "Calm Fishing Boo"
• C. V. Plant to "Calm Volcano Plant"
• A. F. H. Bro to... nothing in particular, actually, they're already included on the same page as the SMW one. More on that later.

We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings.

In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating.

That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called.

But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies.

Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit.

The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead."

So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way?

Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys.

Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name.

Proposer: Exiled.Serenity (talk)
Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Exiled.Serenity (talk) Proposer.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) My vote seems unlikely to sway things at this stage, but I find the argument that these are forced abbreviations we are divorcing from their original context compelling.

Oppose

1. Pseudo (talk) These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly read between the lines regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother to A. F. H. Bro despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway).
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Pseudo.
3. Hewer (talk) I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. There is plenty of precedent now for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not.
4. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names".
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Those are their names.
6. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all, especially given ongoing Daisy proposal.
7. YoYo (talk) per all.
8. Sdman213 (talk) per all.

Comments

To clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll). rend (talk) (edits) 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Not just in TTYD, but also in the first Paper Mario they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. Nightwicked Bowser 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

The tattle log thing is the exact reason why I'm fine with B. Bill Blasters. They had ample opportunity to give a full name, and didn't. In TTYD, they even make something of a joke out of it. Plus, I think it isn't truly unbelievable that they could be, like, "Buff Bill Blasters" or whatever. Meanwhile, Super Princess Peach had nowhere to clarify this, and all of the abbreviated enemies save AFH Bro are variants of enemies that do have official names in the exact same menu. Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable to treat these aliases as official names in this one specific case. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:29, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Contextually speaking, "Buff Bill Blaster" should not make any sense. Given the Japanese names for this (スーパーキラーたいほう/スーパーキラー大砲 Super Killer Taihō) matching with that of Bombshell Bill (スーパーキラー Super Killer), one can easily determine that the "B." stands for "Bombshell". Yet, we did not rename this to Bombshell Bill Blaster until the TTYD remake, because the full name hadn't been recorded in an official game until now. And we should treat these Super Princess Peach enemies the same. rend (talk) (edits) 14:14, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

The Japanese name certainly heavily implies this, but the localization team is under no obligation to accurately reflect that, and had ample room to make clear that the enemy was deliberately, officially localized this way. Additionally, unlike SPP, there aren't twenty other enemies in the game referred to officially in full as "Bombshell" variants, all with similar aesthetics and mechanics, in a game where the central gimmick is that both you and your enemies have undergone "Bombshellification". It's just a one off that they could've localized more accurately but decided not to for whatever reason. I get where you're coming from, but I think SPP is in a very unique situation. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 19:49, July 8, 2024 (EDT)

Wanted to add a couple comments since it's been a day:

• I think that DrBaskerville raised a significant point here that I overlooked. Insisting that these literal names are official is fine if you already know what they're supposed to be short for, as we all do, but if you're just a random person browsing variants of Goomba then "M. Red P-Goomba" tells you absolutely nothing. Frankly, it looks like it could just be some guy's real name.
• I think a lot of the opposition votes aren't contending with our central point here. To be clear: We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names, because they are obvious nicknames describing variants of enemies which themselves have official names in the exact same menu. I don't think there's any real reason to take these names as definitive or official, because they're mistranslations, aliases, and nicknames all at once and there's nothing in the game which goes against this.

Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:59, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

"We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names" ...What? That is discounting the official names. If no official sources back up a name, then it's simply not an official name, no matter how much you think it ought to be. And even if we did have a source for these full names, see the proposals I linked to in my vote - do you disagree with the recent Baby DK rename, for instance? If a shortened name is used significantly more often than a full name, the shortened one is what should take priority. In this case, we've got a usage of the shortened names vs. no usage of the longer names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

What we're saying is that, because these enemies are only referenced via a name that is a forced translation error, they effectively do not have official names. Comparatively, every letter in each acronym (save AFH Bro) has an official indication of what it's supposed to be short for in other official enemy names in the same menu. So, in lieu of an official name, we resort to a conjectural one based on an immense amount of official information. And as a bonus, it also more clearly describes at a glance what an enemy is. As for Baby DK et al, we agree with the change. The SPP enemies are pretty much the only case in which we would want to make an exception. Honestly, we've even pretty much turned around on AFH Bro at this point, though it's too late to edit the proposal now. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 12:15, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

They are officially referred to using names. Thus, whether you like them or not, they have official names. Conjectural names should be an absolute last resort when there is no official name at all, not just a way to get out of using official names we don't like - technically, even if they did have no official English name, we'd first have to fall back on the Japanese names before making anything conjectural. It doesn't matter whether we know what the letters stand for, we know what the DK in Baby DK stands for too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to Goobles as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their Super Mario Sunshine appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well and might've been for Winged Strollin' Stu instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble.
Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like Mecha-Spike Top, Volcano Plant and Boss P. Plant certainly are, but G. R. P-Troopa is not given in error, but as I said before, due to character limitations. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god translation error? rend (talk) (edits) 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT)

Decide how to handle identifiers for non-Mario characters

Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one 0-8-3-0
Some subjects that pertain to the Mario series share names with characters from outside franchises that have articles here. The wiki's had a bit of an inconsistency in how these characters are identified in article titles, signalled as far back as when Steve Minecraft was added to Smash Ultimate: on the one hand, the character Big from the Sonic series uses the "character" identifier, whereas the obstacle from Wario Land named "Big" lacks any identifier whatsoever, reason being that the latter pertains to the Mario series (specifically, the Wario branch) and should consequently be prioritized on a wiki titled after Mario; on the other hand, you have the case of Steve from NES Open Tournament Golf (a game billed as part of the Mario franchise) using an identifier to separate himself from Steve the Minecraft avatar, who punches Mario in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Let's make up our mind on one universal course for all such instances.

This proposal concerns two parties:

• one subject that is considered a part of Super Mario or any other franchise that receives full coverage according to the MarioWiki:Coverage policy; hereafter called "Mario-adjacent";
• any subjects considered a part of franchises outside of the wiki's scope, who share the same name as the aforementioned Mario-adjacent subject and, for one reason or another, have an article or redirect on this wiki.

I chose to consider only one subject on the Mario side because, given two or more Mario-adjacent subjects of the same name, these would already require identifiers as dictated by current policy and thus shouldn't be affected by this proposal's outcome.

With these parties so delineated, I propose three options:

• Option 1: Both parties, including the Mario-adjacent party, use an identifier.
  • Example: Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Steve (Minecraft) retain this naming scheme.
• Option 2: Identifiers are added or omitted depending on how prominent a subject is deemed to be. Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one.^*
  • Example: Knuckles (Saturday Supercade) is an obscure character from one episode in a very early Donkey Kong show that is currently in large part considered what kids today call "lost media". Contrarily, Knuckles (Sonic the Hedgehog) is a significant character from one of the biggest video game franchises on the planet for the past 3 decades. It doesn't matter who is Mario-adjacent or not; the Sonic character is more prominent and would be prioritized by dropping his identifier, while the Saturday Supercade character retains his. The Sonic character will contain an {{about}} tag linking to the Mario-adjacent Knuckles, and if an additional three or more non-prominent things named "Knuckles" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by a "Knuckles (disambiguation)" page.^**
• Option 3: Do not use an identifier for the Mario-adjacent party, but use identifier(s) for the outside parties, without respect to how prominent one is over the other.
  • Example: Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!) drops the identifier and takes over the current Ike disambiguation page because the character comes from a Mario cartoon, while Ike (Fire Emblem) retains his identifier due to pertaining to the Fire Emblem games. The Mario-adjacent Ike will contain an "about" tag linking to the Fire Emblem character, and if an additional three or more non-Mario things named "Ike" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by an "Ike (disambiguation)" page.^**

In any case, the nature of the identifier(s) and the disambiguations that may result from these changes are subject to current naming policy.

^* - Whether one subject is more prominent over another may be up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, though the majority of the cases I've seen are pretty cut and dry, like the one related to the two Knuckles. Use common sense.
^** - Per MarioWiki:Naming: "If there are five or more pages sharing the same name, a disambiguation page must be used, although it may be given a "(disambiguation)" qualifier if one of the articles has the plain title."

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 2: Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one

1. Hewer (talk) Per naming policy, "if there is one subject that is clearly more popular than the others, the popular subject will keep the original title while the others use identifiers". I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for crossover characters. Sure, they're not from Mario originally, but they are related to Mario, otherwise they wouldn't be covered here. People who search "Knuckles" are extraordinarily more likely to be looking for the echidna, and they have every reason to be since we give full coverage to the Mario & Sonic series of six games (more if you count the paired releases individually) where he is a fully playable character in every installment, compared to a one-off supporting character in an ancient and highly obscure show that we only cover the DK and DK Jr. segments of. I don't really see why being a non-Mario character by origin is a reason to be excluded from the usual identifier rules, since it doesn't really correlate to the likelihood of them being searched for (which is what identifier rules are based on).
2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Hewer.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer. If we were to make a ruling for which subject with a shared title has priority as the primary subject, prioritizing subjects based on how often they appear in Super Mario-related media makes more sense than prioritizing subjects based on how closely connected to the greater Super Mario franchise their origins are.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer and JanMisali.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all.
6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Hewer and JanMisali.
7. Mario jc (talk) Per Hewer and my comment here.
8. Arend (talk) Personally, I think which subject gets prioritized should be based on in how many (relevant) Mario titles it has appeared (e.g. Knuckles the Echidna has appeared as a main playable character in a ton of Mario & Sonic titles, while Knuckles the gangster only appeared in a single Saturday Supercade episode), but this is close enough.

Option 3: Use identifiers only for the crossover subjects, prioritize the Mario-adjacent subject

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per what I said here.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm with Koopa con Carne. It makes sense to give priority to core-franchise characters over off-franchise ones, and I don't see this as anything that well-placed "about" templates can't solve.
3. SeanWheeler (talk) I think this proposal that had use removing the crossover character's surnames was the reason that we're having this problem. And I would like that overturned, especially with other proposals shortening character names failing. And even for crossover characters with just one name that weren't shortened by that proposal, it would be good to have an identifier to distinguish them from Mario subjects. Popularity is subjective. People would come here for information about the Mario games, so Mario subjects should get the simplified names while the crossover subjects should have more specific titles. That way, people looking up obscure Mario characters won't be taken to a Sonic or Smash article.

Comments

For the record, if the "most prominent subject" option passes I'd be interested in generalizing that into a formal policy, replacing the "clearly more popular" clause in MarioWiki:NAME. "Popularity" is difficult to define and cases where it's "clear" which subject is more popular are somewhat rare, but prominence is a somewhat more straightforward concept. Neither the Super Paper Mario character named Red nor the WarioWare character named Red are "clearly more popular" than Red from Pokémon (who doesn't have a dedicated article, and when he did it wasn't at "Red"), but the WarioWare character is clearly the most "prominent" in Super Mario-related media of the subjects named "Red" that have dedicated articles. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:12, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Seems sensible to me. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 12:19, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

The proposal mentions the concept of prominence in a cultural sense, less so in reference to gameplay or story. Let's say Pokemon Trainer is renamed "Red" in future Smash Bros games and the wiki uses that name on List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl; under option 2 of this proposal, the page Red (no identifier) would redirect to that character, because he is decidedly so much more culturally significant than anything else on the current disambig for Red (he was the playable avatar in the games that kicked off the biggest media franchise on the planet). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:22, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

To be clear, I do think relevance and significance to the Mario franchise should be considered, I just don't think that's as simple as everything that wasn't originally Mario automatically being less significant. Despite Supercade Knuckles being originally Mario, he's ended up less prominent in the franchise than the echidna. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I suppose that isn't exactly what I would want, but I do think that's preferable to the alternatives given here at least. Prioritizing Super Mario-ness could run into a different hypothetical future where a Mario RPG has some key item called a "link" (as in part of a chain), which would mean moving Link to "Link (character)". Or, in a contrived more extreme example, if a new character named "Wart" is introduced in a Mario-branded game, that would take priority over Wart, a character from Doki Doki Panic (which the wiki covers but does not give complete coverage, as the proposal suggests). jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:36, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I've been interpreting "most prominent" here to be used with the same meaning as "most popular" in the naming policy. Regardless of what the literal definitions of the words may be, the point is that the subject without the identifier should be the one people who search the name are most likely to be looking for, hence the policy advises considering which page is more "likely to be linked to or searched for". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:25, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

@Everyone: Would you consider it relevant if I split option 2 into an option that includes redirects (e.g. Ike (Fire Emblem)) and one that excludes them? I personally think this action would be more thorough, but I'd like to know your opinions first. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:39, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think we need to vote on making redirects, they feel like they should generally be a given. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I guess my question was poorly formulated. Should redirects to a non-Mario subject be prioritized if the corresponding subject is the most prominent, or not? For instance, the page "Ike", currently a disambig page, would be repurposed to redirect to the Fire Emblem fighter. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:05, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Generally a subject not even significant enough to have its own page is unlikely to be the one without the identifier, but sure, I say we should continue handling that case-by-case in the same way as with articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:15, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

What would be the point of a disambiguation page between two pages, one being a redirect to section on a list page? The dog would be better off as just Ike with a {{Distinguish}} template linking to List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Ike. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:42, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I guess the point would be if we really can't decide which subject should get the identifier, e.g. if they were roughly equal in likelihood of being searched for (but I'm not sure that applies to Ike). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: Popularity is how we determine what gets identifiers across the whole wiki, and that won't be changed by this proposal - option 2 passing would just make that consistent for crossover subjects as well. The idea that people are automatically less likely to be looking for something on this wiki because it didn't originate from Mario is simply incorrect - we're only covering crossover subjects because of their relevance to the Mario franchise, and I feel like barely anyone searching "Knuckles" is really looking for the Saturday Supercade character rather than the Sonic character. I also disagree that the proposal you link to is relevant to this one, especially since I specifically made it so that no crossover characters would take priority over Mario characters after being told to in the comments and not really thinking to question it at the time. Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what "other proposals shortening character names failing" you're referring to - I can only think of the Koopalings one from a couple years ago, which has since been outnumbered by successful shortenings like Professor E. Gadd, Baby DK, etc. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Rename Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon article

Do not rename 1-3-10
Luigi's Mansion 2 was renamed as Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon in the North American version. However, Luigi's Mansion 3 was not renamed into subtitle and numbered "3" internationally. Accordingly, the number was maintained in Luigi's Mansion 2 HD.

From King Boo article, the section is named as "Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon / Luigi's Mansion 2 HD". The HD version and the name are different, adding to the complexity and confusion. Now that HD is out, the article name must be unified into one name.

Should the names in the articles be unified by number "2"?

Category:Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon locations → Category:Luigi's Mansion 2 locations

Proposer: Windy (talk)
Deadline: July 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support 1: Rename everything

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I was actually going to bring up this idea as possibly being supported by this proposal, but the HD release date slipped my mind. I'm all for keeping them consistent, especially since most players will know the game as Luigi's Mansion 2 now.

Support 2: Rename if have two names in the article

1. Windy (talk) Semi-support. Category won't be renamed, but I want to unified into "Luigi's Mansion 2" in each articles if listed as "Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon / Luigi's Mansion 2 HD".
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Personally, I think this is better for a broader discussion since it would be nice to have it streamlined in general, but I'll take it.
3. Blinker (talk) Per proposal

Oppose: Do nothing

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) North American names often take priority for subjects.
2. Hewer (talk) Per MarioWiki:Naming, we always prioritise the North American names for games. While that does cause some inconsistencies in this case, it's simply a reflection of the official naming inconsistency, so by all means it should be inconsistent. It's our job to report the facts, not to "fix" the official naming. In fact, the Nintendo Direct that announced Luigi's Mansion 2 HD called it "a visually enhanced version of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon", so it's not like they've erased the "Dark Moon" name. Also, what about this is different to Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, which is called just "Super Mario RPG" in Japan and was then named as such worldwide with the remake?
3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Hewer
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
6. Shadow2 (talk) The 3DS version is entitled "Dark Moon"
7. SeanWheeler (talk) If we do this, would we have to rename Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels as Super Mario Bros. 2? We already got a Super Mario Bros. 2, the one called "Super Mario Bros. USA" that Mariofied the Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic game. I don't want to cause confusion over Super Mario Bros. 2 or any games that were retitled outside of Japan just because of a proposal changing Dark Moon to Luigi's Mansion 2. It's good to prioritize names from this website's home country.
8. Technetium (talk) Per all.
9. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Hewer.
10. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all.

Comments

Shouldn't the proposer weigh in? LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:42, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

Slightly off-topic, but I've been thinking about making a proposal for changing the (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) disambiguation identifier to (Luigi's Mansion 2), in lieu to previous proposals about shortening identifiers, now that Luigi's Mansion 2 HD is out. The problem, however, that the American name does not contain a single 2 in the title, unlike its name in most other regions, and it's the American names that must be prioritized according to MarioWiki:Naming. Should I still make a proposal about this or just drop it? rend (talk) (edits) 07:46, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure this proposal passing would achieve that anyway, so you should probably at least wait until this one's over before making that proposal. I'd likely oppose it for the reasons you mentioned, though. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:52, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer: Super Mario RPG has a different precedent that would have to be set by a separate proposal - the Japanese title is the one favored by the reissue worldwide (there's no telling if the PAL version would've kept the North American subtitle since it was canceled). In contrast, most of the world knows Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon as Luigi/Luigi's Mansion 2, and it's an existing title for English audiences. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:07, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

But it's not the one used in the part of the world prioritised by this wiki's naming policy (and often by Nintendo), and I'd rather stay consistent with that preference. This isn't the only time the American name is the odd one out - DK Summit, for example, is "DK Snowboard Cross" in Japan and "DK's Snowboard Cross" in Europe. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:41, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, we know things can differ for different English audiences (although I don't know enough about Mario Kart courses to say if your example is a consistent difference between the American and British English versions in each game or if the latter localization eventually got discontinued later on). The part I want to underline is "most commonly used English name". Historically, Nintendo generally prefers North America for reissues for brand unification when the British English material differs; for example, Star Fox 64's reissue is Star Fox 64 3D instead of Lylat Wars 3D in terrorities where the original sold as Lylat Wars; Fire Emblem titles after Shadow Dragon for DS use American English localization terms where the British English versions differed; etc. What happened with Luigi's Mansion 2 is a deviation from expected norms, and so, it makes sense to respect that deviation. Yes, a preview called it Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon in the North American version of the Direct before the final title was revealed at a later point, but I don't think there were any more references to that subtitle. It was, effectively, cleaned up by Nintendo themselves, likely so there was no casual mistaking that it was 3's predecessor in a Switch collection. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:24, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

DK Summit's regional naming difference remains in the Booster Course Pass, released only last year (there are a few other courses with similar regional naming differences, but usually the American name is the one that matches the Japanese more closely while the European name deviates, whereas it's the other way round for DK Summit). Anyway, the "most commonly used English name" bit in the naming policy is in the same sentence as the stipulation that we must use North American names, that's what it refers to. We are respecting Nintendo's deviation by calling Luigi's Mansion 2 HD as such, not by retroactively changing the name of the original 3DS version, which matches neither Nintendo's handling nor our own naming policy. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:40, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

A recent blurb from NoA (the only Nintendo apparently) for the launch trailer states the following: "You may notice that the Luigi’s Mansion™ 2 HD game looks a bit familiar. That’s because this classic adventure from the Nintendo 3DS™ system is returning in style!" No, it doesn't explicitly refer to the original as such, but it is strongly implicit in the wording as a returning classic. I don't see anything wrong with this; it makes things easier to follow for everyone, and makes identifiers and categories more navigatable. We're not removing the old name; it will just be acknowledged as the North American name of the original. There was probably an expectation that the final NA title might've been along the lines of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon HD, but that didn't happen. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:04, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not denying that the game is a re-release, that doesn't have anything to do with its different title. As much as I'm glad Nintendo removed this regional difference for the re-release, I think us retroactively applying that to the original game is the wrong move. It only makes things more confusing for every game covered on the wiki that was released in North America to use its name from that region except for this particular one, and due only to a re-release of it from years later. While I don't normally like using examples from different series, Kirby's Return to Dream Land feels like a similar enough case here: it was called "Kirby's Adventure Wii" in Europe, then the remake had its English name standardised to "Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe" worldwide, yet European promotional material refers to a game titled "Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe" as "a deluxe version of Kirby's Adventure Wii", showing that Nintendo doesn't necessarily consider a changed name for a re-release to mean that the original game's name for that region has changed as well, so we can follow suit here. Also, a bit of an aside, but what box art do we prioritise for the game's article if this proposal passes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:30, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

I'd look to Kirby's Fun Pak (EU), which has been re-released as Kirby Super Star Ultra on DS and then as Kirby Super Star (NA) ever since the Super NES Classic Mini in 2017 (I think Star Fox, too, which was Starwing in the same territories). It seems like Nintendo of Europe is intent on using those releases going forward, and yes, this is relevant as it's the same publisher and we can see a break of pattern. I think we can throw a bone when the tables have turned. (As for box art: does that even need to change when Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels's article captions the original unaltered title screen showing Super Mario Bros. 2 as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels? Clean key artwork might be best, but I guess you can make it the European or Australian one.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:45, July 10, 2024 (EDT)

Super Star is simply a different case to Return to Dream Land, which still shows that they can give a game's re-release a different name without retroactively changing the name of the original too (my European version of Kirby Star Allies demonstrates this - in the pause screen text that references previous games, Kirby Super Star is named as such, but Squeak Squad and Return to Dream Land still use their European names of Mouse Attack and Adventure Wii respectively). Therefore, a differently named re-release isn't grounds to assume that the original got renamed too (since that did happen with Super Star but didn't with Return to Dream Land). In this case, I don't know of any North American sources about Luigi's Mansion 2 HD that directly refer to the original as "Luigi's Mansion 2", with the only source I know of relating to the game that does refer to original by name still calling it "Dark Moon", so there isn't enough evidence here that the original game also got renamed (though to be honest even if there were American sources for "Luigi's Mansion 2" I'm still not sure if that should override the name that the game was actually released under). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:02, July 11, 2024 (EDT)

Star Allies released before Return to Dream Land Deluxe, though, so it's not really a good indicator. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:14, July 11, 2024 (EDT)

Right, but like I mentioned before, European promotional material says that Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe is "a deluxe version of Kirby's Adventure Wii" (quoted from its page on Nintendo eShop). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:17, July 11, 2024 (EDT)

Also, shouldn't this be a talk page proposal, not a "main" proposal? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:09, July 12, 2024 (EDT)

Because E. Gadd, King Boo and other articles have two names in a section. Windy (talk) 15:37, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

Expand use of "rawsize" gallery class

Allow usage in sprite galleries 12-4
So Porple helped me with creating a method to keep sprites at their raw size in galleries (yay!), which replaces the somewhat awkward way I previously did it for mostly-consistently-sized sprites (see the page history for Gallery:Golf (Game Boy), which is what I specifically directed him towards while doing it), and it's also highly useful for icons (especially when we don't have the raw parameters already, like the car icons for Mario Kart Wii), and cases where a size comparison is useful (like Bigger Boo's growth). In general, it's a good way to keep them from looking bloated and crusty with inconsistently-sized pixels, which I feel looks bad and degrades their quality, while keeping an upper limit on size so "huge" sprites don't take up all the space (and shrunken large sprites are preferable to bloated small sprites, in my opinion).

Now what I want to see consensus on, is whether this concept should be expanded to more common usage for sprite galleries, so that people can actually see the size difference between these entities. For example:

• 

  Fat rat

• 

  Pixel snake

• 

  Frying my eyes

• 

  Is this the crusty crab?

• 

  Lots of warts, all square

compared to

• 

  Rat's all, folks!

• 

  Snake me wanna shout

• 

  Pretty fly for a Fry Guy

• 

  I'm NOT a crusty crab!

• 

  The frog is coming!

or

• 

  This is a big sprite

• 

  Onward, bumpy Chomp!

• 

  Is this the crusty Koop?

• 

  I'm blue, dabba dee dabba died

• 

  Everything's so blurrrrrrrrrrry...

• 

  ...and everything's so fake...

compared to

• 

  This is still a lot bigger than this box

• 

  Onward, small Chomp!

• 

  I'm not a crusty Koop!

• 

  I'm small, dabba dee dabbadied

• 

  Everything's so big...

• 

  ...and I'm trapped in this white box!

Now, you'll notice, that on ones where there is difference in size, the smaller ones will appear just that: small, but their bounding boxes are the same as the others (which is an issue my old "give separate galleries with different widths and heights as well as inline-block display" strategy didn't have, but costed a lot more HTML data). I can see how some people may have issues with that, though speaking as a spriter, I find it preferable to blown up pixels. Also, you may notice some stretched captions there, that of course won't be much of an issue with the usually short captions sprites in galleries have.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: July 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - allow it for general use in sprite galleries

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal (and the crusty crab)
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) - I don't like the argument of "it doesn't look good." This provides the immediate benefit of showing the reader the original sizes of the sprites without having to click on each and every file link. Per proposer.
3. LinkTheLefty (talk) I always found the size discrepancy to be an eyesore.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) The inconsistent pixel sizes on the SMB2 examples are very apparent to me — you highlight Clawgrip, but I think Tryclyde has it the worst, personally. Now that we have the ability to upscale these by consistent amounts to keep them at reasonable sizes while not introducing nearest-neighbor weirdness, that takes me off the fence in voting for it provided we do that. I still don't really see the issue with the MP6 renders, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:23, July 14, 2024 (EDT)
5. Mario (talk) Cautious support after the option to scale sprites was implemented. I'd like to see this implemented in some galleries, such as Super Mario Bros. 2, as it's much easier to ascertain the scale of these sprites and it's more attractive to see them in this kind of array vs all being scaled to the same portion. Certainly not a fan of how the current method scales some sprites; Wart and Tricylyde's sprite do have inconsistent pixelation when scaled up due to the scale factor not evenly affecting all pixels, and forcing scales at factors seems to be a feasible solution. I don't think it needs to be applied in other galleries, however; Mario Party 6 doesn't really need to preserve pixel display, and the large Mario sprite has to be scaled down, so kind of defeating the purpose of keeping these scaled down to show relative scales (imo).
6. Hewer (talk) Don't see why not to allow this on a case-by-case basis.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) The examples above look a lot nicer than they did first time around. As long as users still have some curatorial discretion with how galleries are laid out, I think this is a nice tool to have available.
8. Shokora (talk) – Per all. If galleries are more presentable with this option, it's worth doing.
9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
10. Pseudo (talk) Alright, if display options will be available, then I’m sold.
11. LadySophie17 (talk) This new option changed my mind.
12. Waluigi Time (talk) Porple's changes fix the issues I had with implementing this, so I'm good with moving forward. I don't think this needs to be used for every sprite gallery though, per Mario.

Oppose - leave it exclusive to consistent sized icons and other special cases

1. Technetium (talk) Per all.
2. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
3. FanOfYoshi (talk) NO!!! THIS IS PATRICK!!! Per all.
4. Murphmario (talk) Per all.

#LadySophie17 (talk) None of the pixels look blurry or blown out to me, they're just larger, which is generally how they would appear on any modern screen displaying them anyway. Displaying them in their original size makes details harder to see (important!), and the empty space around the boxes is just unappealing. As long as the wiki has these images saved at their true resolution, I see no issue in displaying them at a larger scale for clarity and convenience.

#Mario (talk) See comment

#Nintendo101 (talk) I think a nice benefit in supporting reference material or an encyclopedia is in allowing readers to view subjects in contexts otherwise tough to see, especially for galleries that are intended to support visual material. I have a number of books on small artefacts or organisms (insects, microbes, etc.) where they are not displayed to scale. I know and have seen users change the scaling of individual subcategories on galleries, but I'd rather that was up to their discretion rather than blanket policy. As long as the true dimensions of the uploaded files have not been messed with, I do not think there is much harm in allowing users to scale assets on the gallery pages.

#Sparks (talk) Per all.

#Pseudo (talk) Per Lady Sophie. The point of a gallery is to allow wiki visitors to look at the images therein, and leaving them too tiny to inspect closely feels counterintuitive, even if it’s not the original state of the images.

#Waluigi Time (talk) Per Lady Sophie. I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of quality than have these be too tiny to tell what anything is.

Comments

Regarding "detail," when it's all the same pixels anyway with no "zoom and enhance" going on, making them larger doesn't add any detail. That's why we upload sprites in their native res to begin with. The only "detail" you're going to see is how any dithering looks when it's not blending as intended, which is what "crusty" generally means in this case. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:46, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

I am perfectly aware that making an image larger does not create pixels out of nowhere, thank you very much. What it does is make small pixels (and therefore details) larger and easier to see.— Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 13:11, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

Problem is that the ruined dithering actually makes detail harder to see. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:38, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not opposed to its implementation entirely; I think you can have a case for it. For instance Gallery:Mario Kart Wii#Mugshots already uses a version of it to scale all those 64x64 sprites consistently. Gallery:Super_Smash_Bros.#Icons can also use a more consistent scaling scheme, but using class="rawsize" in the Smash Bros. example is not the solution, as it makes the icons much more difficult to ascertain especially on desktop monitors where zooming is not as easy vs a touchscreen finger swipe.

The reasoning for the proposal I also do not agree with and I believe it's based off trying to preserve how an asset to the perceived display from a game, which I argue is flawed reasoning as we are a wiki with different set of ideal ways and constrictions in how we can display information. This is not to mention that these sprites are often scaled in the games themselves and display differently based on the monitors. Paper Mario sprites for instance, are likely not even intended to be viewed at the resolution they're in; they're scaled up from camera, the game itself, and TV displays (CRT TVs are much less lower-resolution than the monitors we have today, so the original experience on these older games tend to show very blown-up scales), so sometimes details and text screenshots using the native resolution actually appear quite difficult to ascertain, see File:PM Koopa Bros Introducing Themselves Screenshot.png. The games themselves also scale these sprites often; using Smash Bros. 64 again as an example, the stock icon scales from an emulator screenshot in File:SSBStockmatch.png are increased and are filtered applied to blur out the pixels.

Finally, the examples used are flawed. At least from my display, Triclyde and Wart appear to be slightly scaled down, which undermines the point that not not applying scales to sprites maintains the desired factor of 2 that galleries autoscales fail to do (which perhaps the proposal can resolve and should address right away). The solution for this is either applying a consistent scale factor to all sprites, which means scaling them up, increasing the field size that the sprites occupy themselves in, or just going in one-by-one to maintain a consistent look (is this even feasible?). I do recommend trying to apply a scale factor to some low-resolution sprites including the NES/SNES era ones so the pixels display properly. I also recommend the terminologies, for clarity, is resolution (which is referred to as "raw size") vs scale.

So anyway, this proposal I understand where it's coming from but there are better solutions to address scale factor in galleries, and the practice appears to have already been employed in some galleries, particularly concerning higher resolution UI elements from games that maintain consistent aspect ratios like Mario Kart Wii's 64x64 sprites; these are high enough resolution that displaying them at no scale shows enough detail, but not high enough to occupy too much space for galleries. There might be more cases where this noscale parameter applies well, but I think we have to comb through them due to the amount of specifications Mario Kart Wii had going for it, which likely many galleries won't. Scale differences may be useful, such as in Big Boo's case and perhaps in the Super Mario Bros. 2 case but there is a downside of shrinking sprites too much, especially for variable games like Super Mario RPG that has zoomed out Luigi and big monsters like (??? i haven't played that game lol), which leaves behind empty space in galleries It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:52, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

I put the wrong parameters for the SMB2 one when I made the proposal, it's fixed now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

Ok. Struck out that part. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:59, July 13, 2024 (EDT)

@FOY Oi, don't use a proposer's own joke against them. That's rude. :( Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:30, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

I guess i could say "Right Back at Ya!", right now.:D -- FanOfYoshi at 05:49, July 17, 2024 (EDT)

Is there possibly a way to have scale factors for the galleries? Such as the ability to increase these by 200%. It could be a way to display more easily viewed sprites while maintain relative sizes of sprites. I need to see if it'll work for larger sprites. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:43, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

As it is, we can't even do that with normal images, unfortunately, I've tried for tables many times for 200% or 50%, depending on the type, doesn't work for either. Guess that's a thing we can ask Porple. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:41, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

Okay, using a parameter Steve has put in your talk page[1], I've previewed the Super Mario Bros. 2 sprite array with a x2 scale factor. I like it more (not going to show it here; might be subject to change). I wonder what other people think of it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk)

Well, as that is an update to the rawsize amount, it works about the same for the purposes of this proposal. So long as there's a consistent scale, it's better than what we've had historically. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:18, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

I was actually thinking to myself "I might back this proposal if we scaled up the sprites by consistent round-number amounts". Ahemtoday (talk) 22:23, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

There has been an update to the parameters which allow scaling of these sprites to larger iterations, which should alleviate concerns about small sprites. Here is what I'm putting out:

Original

• 

  Fat rat

• 

  Pixel snake

• 

  Frying my eyes

• 

  Is this the crusty crab?

• 

  Lots of warts, all square

No scale

• 

  Rat's all, folks!

• 

  Snake me wanna shout

• 

  Pretty fly for a Fry Guy

• 

  I'm NOT a crusty crab!

• 

  The frog is coming!

2x scale

• 

  I smell a rat

• 

  Wingless Ghidorah

• 

  Not a Shy Guy

• 

  I ain't done counting me moneh. NOOO

• 

  Amphibious Bowser

And here's the 4x which I think is too big but it's just proof of concept (set width to 120px, causes sprite to leak out but technical restrictions mean we can't go beyond this)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:54, July 18, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah as long as the pixels are squares and not inconsistent near-square rectangles to mess with my OCD (and are relatively consistent between image groups), it's OK by me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:01, July 18, 2024 (EDT)

Please do not increase the size of the widths/heights value beyond the default 120px to make room for scaled images (but going smaller is fine). Doing so can cause overflowing on mobile Minerva. Here are a couple more options:

3x scale

• 

  I smell a rat

• 

  Wingless Ghidorah

• 

  Not a Shy Guy

• 

  I ain't done counting me moneh. NOOO

• 

  Amphibious Bowser

Mix of 4x and 3x

• 

  I smell a rat

• 

  Wingless Ghidorah

• 

  Not a Shy Guy

• 

  I ain't done counting me moneh. NOOO

• 

  Amphibious Bowser

--Steve (talk) 00:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

Create a list of official hashtags

Create list of Mario-related hashtags 0-4-0
This proposal targets the creation of an index for social media hashtags that:

1. relate to the Mario series;
2. were used or otherwise disseminated by Nintendo, a representative, or any other official partner in the context of a Mario product.

If a hashtag meets these two criteria, it's eligible for inclusion no matter which social media network it's used on. It could be YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, you name it.

These hashtags count as official content, so I figured what's not to gain from having them gathered up in a historical record? I haven't seen anyone complain about the current list of fonts, which has a similarly huge scope and I assume is currently inexhaustive.

You can see how I envision the list's appearance in my sandbox, but this aspect is not enforced by the proposal and I am open to feedback. As you can see here, the list explains the context of each hashtag, cites references, and includes imagery appended to the hashtags upon use when applicable.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: July 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create a list of official hashtags that only relate to Mario specifically

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) #perproposal
2. Hewer (talk) anything to improve our Wiggler Wednesday coverage Sure, per proposal.
3. Mario (talk) Weak support. Seems really particular and niche, but if someone is willing to do the motions for this, okay. I guess someone will find this useful, but I'm not really a social media user.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Eh, why not.

Comments

I think we're underestimating just how often Play Nintendo uses hashtags. I wouldn't be surprised if a big portion of them are one-offs. Axis (talk) 08:38, July 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't really see the problem there. I like the idea of being as comprehensive as possible with our coverage. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, July 17, 2024 (EDT)

The only thing I fear is that eventually people will stop maintaining this list, really. Axis (talk) 09:31, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

I'm hopeful given our very thorough coverage of other online promotional stuff. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:35, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

TBH that was mostly maintained by me, Axis, and LuigiMaster123 lol -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:34, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

As I'm looking for hashtags to fill up that page, I discover that Nintendo has seemingly only ever made one tweet with the hashtag "#Waluigi" across all of their Twitter accounts with "Nintendo" in the name. Just throwing this out there. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:11, July 19, 2024 (EDT)

#WaluigiWednesday lives on in our hearts Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:28, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize the coverage of elements from guest appearance titles

Do not use similar appearance to justify an article 7-0-0
As brought up by an earlier cancelled proposal, the current coverage of The Legend of Zelda series is very inconsistent, and the worst offender is Bombite. Unlike Spiked Thwomp, Stone Elevator or Mega Thwomp, it has no direct or implied connection to the Mario franchise, but has an article anyway, solely based on its appearance.

MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest_appearances permits giving individual articles for subjects "unique to the [guest appearance] game while also being clearly derived from the Super Mario franchise". I propose to more clearly define on MarioWiki:Coverage what elements from guest appearance titles should be given their own pages:

1. The subject is clearly derived from or based on the Super Mario franchise, as confirmed by Nintendo. (Nintendo Land minigames, Thwomp types exclusive to The Legend of Zelda, etc.)
2. The subject is distinct enough to justify its own article. (Cannot be merged with an existing page. BowWows or Cheep-Sheeps don't get individual articles because they're not distinct enough from their Mario counterparts)
3. Subjects exclusive to Mario-themed stages or minigames (Chili plate, Blue check mark, etc. Monita still doesn't get her own page, despite her role in the Luigi's Ghost Mansion minigame)
4. If the subject derived from the Mario franchise appears in a Nintendo-published or endorsed media that isn't considered guest appearance, a proposal is required before creating a page. (If Nintendo ever releases a game with a unique Mario subject that can't otherwise be considered a guest appearance title, wiki editors have an option to consider if it's worth covering anyway)

This is where Bombite comes into play:

Option 1: Similar appearance isn't enough to justify creating a new article. This option would result in the deletion of Bombite, its contents will be merged with the Zelda section of Bob-omb's article

Option 2: Similar appearance is a good justification for creating a new article for a distinct enemy. Bombite's page remains

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: July 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. Axis (talk) Per proposal
2. Hewer (talk) Connecting Bombite to Bob-omb does feel like a stretch, so yeah it doesn't need an article.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per all.
5. Arend (talk) As I already stated here, Bombite being covered here with its own article is really strange, even if it does resemble Bob-omb, and the game it's from references Mario a lot. Rest of the proposed guidelines also check out, per all.
6. 7feetunder (talk) I really have no idea why Bombites even exist when they could've just put Bob-ombs in Link's Awakening. Regardless, per proposal.
7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

Comments

How is "Option 2" any different from "Oppose"? Doesn't this proposal just decide whether Bombite stays or goes? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's about standardizing it so there's something to refer to in case something like this comes up again. Both options support the new standart, the difference is whether or not visual similary qualifies as a connection Axis (talk) 08:31, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A somewhat recent proposal about the coverage of the Rhythm Heaven series decided that Rhythm Heaven minigames with WarioWare characters in them (including Kung Fu Ball from Rhythm Heaven Fever, the debut of Cicada) should not get dedicated articles. Would this new definition overturn that decision? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:33, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

It is not within the scope of this proposal, no Axis (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Relatedly, though I did vote against Monita having a page a couple years ago, I have started to reconsider a bit. She's a bit of an edge case, but not having a page on her creates a gap in our otherwise full coverage for Luigi's Ghost Mansion. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:56, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Side note, would Togezo also be affected by the scope of the proposal? It's currently being covered on the Spiny article as if it's the same thing, even though it only vaguely resembles a Spiny (read: it's a black ball with two Kirby feet, dot eyes and a Spiny Shell helmet), and even had the Japanese and English name for Spiny swapped at first. Even with Doc's explanation in this discussion, I'm still unsure if Togezo was meant to be the same creature as Spiny, or anything more than a simple reference to Spiny (it honestly looks more like Spiky, or even Bumbleprod). The Spiked Beetle, in comparison, resembles Spiny much more, especially in the Switch version of Link's Awakening. rend (talk) (edits) 12:09, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Whether part of this proposal or not, we should absolutely stop considering Togezo to be Spiny, it's patent speculation and the enemies don't even look alike besides having spiky shells. For all we know, they could've been created entirely separately from each other and coincidentally ended up with the same spike-based names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Hewer, unless any of the guides say otherwise. Either way, it should be handled by a different proposal. (Also, I don't think any of the Kirby games are considered guest appearance anyway? So it isn't related, really) Axis (talk) 14:01, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Y'all keep neglecting to bring up the "rolling into ball" bit as well as Spiny having the same black face in their prior appearances in SMB3 and SMW. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I really don't see how that changes anything. Neither aspect is uncommon among Kirby characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later Kirby characters. Remember, Spinies were introduced to Kirby in that series' second game, and those attributes didn't become "common" to that series until after it was suspiciously phased out for the remake and onward... not unlike how Capsule J was phased out for being a Twinbee clone. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I still think it's too much of a stretch based entirely on conjecture. We have absolutely no idea what went on behind the scenes with Kirby enemy designs over the years, we weren't there with the developers, and even if they did base it on Spiny, that doesn't mean it has to be literally the same character. And I don't see what's "suspicious" about it no longer appearing (which is yet another trait not uncommon among Kirby enemies), or why its vague Spiny resemblance would have anything to do with that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

(ec) Not particularly convinced we should have the Kirby enemy Togezo lumped with the Mario enemy in the Spiny article and in the gallery for the Spiny. Differences are too significant. The dark face in a sprite seems to just be a coloration quirk; they're not dark in official art and the whole rolling up into ball is just probably just a coincidence since they're both round enemies anyway. How they become a ball is so vastly different; in the original games, Spinys are balls while being thrown out; Togezo patrols areas, rolls into a ball, bounces, and spins around like a hedgehog. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:40, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later games give Spiny the ability to roll on a whim, like Paper Mario and NSMB. And I find it too unlikely that they'd happen to share both a name and basic appearance plan with an iconic creature from their creator's parent company's primary money-maker - especially when Kirby Super Star from the same dev team as Kirby's Adventure (ie, the Sakurai-headed one rather than the other one the so-called "Dark Matter saga" games had) went all-out on Nintendo cameos. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:46, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Later Spiny abilities (and in games with no relation to Kirby). And was Spiny really that iconic as of Kirby's Adventure, to the point that there's no way they could've made their own separate spiked-shelled enemy? At best Togezo warrants a mention in trivia or something on Spiny's page for possibly being inspired by the Mario character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:54, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Any SMB1 enemy I'd count as fair game, to be frank. Granted, last I checked Sakurai was fairly open on social media so I suppose someone could ask him if it was an intentional cameo. Either way, we both know that if that ever gets a proposal itself, we'll have forgotten (conveniently or otherwise) each other's points by that point, so no point wasting our keystrokes here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:11, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Well, if we would've forgotten each other's points if it ever gets a proposal by itself, why not strike while the iron's hot, then? rend (talk) (edits) 19:59, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

A friend once asked this very question, Doc, but all we got was a curious like from the programmer of Gimmick! LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:00, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Gimmick also had a similar-looking enemy (in fact, it looked right in between those designs), but its only deal was flipping over when hit and having the feet function as a tiny conveyor belt. And that game was entirely 3rd party, and the enemies in that game seem to be unnamed. Here it is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:05, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Thing about Bombite is Bob-ombs themselves appear with a basically identical behavior in the GBA Zelda games, which themselves heavily borrow from Link's Awakening - particularly Four Swords Anniversary Edition having a new area based on it (though admittedly I forget if Bob-ombs appear in that stage). Either way, it is inherently better to convert to a redirect rather than delete outright. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:14, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

I should've worded it better, but yes, if option 1 wins, the page would be turned into a redirect. Axis (talk) 14:23, July 20, 2024 (EDT)

Amend notability threshold for recurring musical themes from external sources

Amend 6-1-0
Currently, the standard for coverage of recurring musical themes is that any theme appearing in at least eight pieces of Super Mario-related media is notable. This is a reasonable standard, but it leads to a somewhat strange edge case which could become more relevant in the long-term: what about musical themes that do not originate in the greater Super Mario franchise but have appeared in at least eight wiki-notable crossovers?

Here's a concrete example: "Gourmet Race" from the Kirby series has appeared in some form in every single Super Smash Bros. game. That alone counts as six pieces of Super Mario-related media (Super Smash Bros., Melee, Brawl, for Nintendo 3DS, for Wii U, and Ultimate), and its appearances in Nintendo All-Star! Dairantō Smash Brothers Original Soundtrack and Super Smash Bros. Melee: Smashing...Live! (which explicitly count separately according to the eligibility guidelines) bring that up to the threshold of eight appearances.

While music from outside the greater Super Mario franchise certainly can be notable enough to deserve coverage (Game Start A comes to mind), I don't think the "eight appearances" threshold is a good enough metric in these cases. As such, I propose that the notability requirements for musical themes be adjusted:

1. If the debut of the musical theme is a piece of Super Mario-related media (here meaning "a piece of media that has a dedicated article on this wiki"), the current system still applies unchanged. Crossovers still count towards the threshold in this case.
2. If the debut of the musical theme is not a piece of Super Mario-related media, it must appear in at least eight pieces of non-crossover Super Mario-related media. The classification of "crossovers" for this purpose should be consistent with how crossovers are classified elsewhere on the wiki: Super Smash Bros. and Nintendo Land are crossovers, but Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and WarioWare are not crossovers.

It might make sense to say that crossover appearances of a musical theme shouldn't count for themes from the greater Super Mario franchise either (and I have included this as a separate option), but I think it's reasonable to give those themes "preferential treatment" in this way.

Proposer: JanMisali (talk)
Deadline: August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Amend

1. JanMisali (talk) As proposer.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
3. Yook Bab-imba (talk) My second option.
4. Arend (talk) Super Smash Bros. and Nintendo Land are their own thing that compile several series in one title, and their only relevance to Super Mario is because Super Mario gets heavy representation in those titles (which is why it's important that the current standard still applies to Mario music). So when other franchises like The Legend of Zelda, Splatoon and Animal Crossing are also represented in those titles, that means these titles are also relevant to those franchises, but should NOT automatically mean those franchises are in turn relevant to Super Mario. So if, say, Min Min is not allowed an article because she hasn't appeared in a single Super Mario game yet, why should we need to make an article for "Samus Appears" from Metroid when out of the 9 Mario-relevant games it shows up in, only three are actually from the Super Mario franchise?
5. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
6. SeanWheeler (talk) We should focus more on Mario content because we're the Super Mario Wiki.

Amend, but exclude crossovers from the notability threshold for all musical themes rather than having two separate standards

1. Yook Bab-imba (talk) My preferred option.

Comments

Do the Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games or Mario + Rabbids titles count as crossovers on the same level as Super Smash Bros., or not? I suppose they do, considering the non-Mario material would clearly not be in it if it didn't double as a game for the other franchise, but then again, it's still clearly a Mario title whereas Smash Bros and Nintendo Land are not (being instead their own thing that compile several series in one title), so some clarification would still be nice. rend (talk) (edits) 05:25, August 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think they still count as crossovers. I'm pretty sure there's some Sonic music that's been in enough Mario & Sonic and Smash Bros. games collectively to be considered notable otherwise. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:24, August 3, 2024 (EDT)

Allow a page for references in mainstream pornography (in observance of the Children's Internet Protection Act)

canceled by proposer
What I am proposing here stems from two observations:

• The wiki already features pages dedicated entirely to references to the Super Mario franchise in popular culture. The works invoked in these pages typically need to fulfill some criteria for notability, ranging from having an apparent and indisputable significance to our culture (The Simpsons, Scooby-Doo, Transformers etc.), to simply checking the boxes of social media verification (e.g. the creator of said work has a verification badge on YouTube, see the channels listed here) or being published in libraries and whatnot. A significant amount of adult-oriented works also fall snugly within this range and thus deserve, at least in theory, some acknowledgement on this wiki insofar as their relevance to Mario is concerned.
• The wiki is already no stranger to documenting vulgar and obscene instances throughout official Mario works and even the aforementioned reference pages. Possibly the most obvious examples of such are the infamous Satellaview broadcasts, the Super Hornio Brothers film, and the accidental use of a slur by Nintendo's social media intern. Less notably, the List of references in music contains two instances of the N-word. There could me more examples of such displays, but so far it's enough to drive the point that has been so thoroughly debated on Bob Hoskins's talk page: the Super Mario Wiki is not set to censor information borne out of sheer impropriety and any attempt so far has crashed and burned tremendously. I will say, though, that I think there should exist a line beyond which certain content is out of question, but it has more to do with potential legal repercussions and is something I believe what I am proposing can easily comply with; more on that shortly.

The gist of the proposal is to allow the creation of a page for Mario-related references in adult-oriented media which is produced or distributed by notable studios, in congruence with the wiki's pages on references in film, video games, publications, and other media. For instance, if a film is a re-enactment of Super Mario Bros. where the actors cosplay as Mario and Princess Peach, such a page would serve to document the film in its own section. Pictures, such as photoshoots and artwork, are allowed as long as they do not depict any sort of age-inappropriate workings; this is to avoid a pit of needles called the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which states that educational institutions should employ a program that restricts internet access from websites that host explicit pictures (something I am positive nobody here would want to happen with mariowiki.com). To better get the grasp of what kind of content will be forbidden even if this proposal passes, please take a look at how CIPA describes content that is "harmful to minors", as copied from the law's Wikipedia article:

Any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that – (i) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (ii) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and (iii) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

It is within the wiki's best interest to be as thorough as it can within the premises set, and I believe it can still easily educate the public on a potentially outrageous subject such as "Mario porn" without employing content that isn't compliant to US minor protection acts.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: August 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: August 10, 2024

Support

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Course y'all want this, ya Goonies.

#Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense given the wiki's longstanding anti-censorship stance, so per proposal.

Oppose

1. Blhte (talk) If we allow them then victims will expand to the makers of pornography and even more associated innocent people so what can I say anymore?
2. Mario (talk) Given the obvious lack of official venues, I don't think it's worthwhile to really open up discussions of said content (imagine if I have to be compelled to vote or weigh in a contentious proposal involving a porno film) particularly the notability of it. We already filter pretty hard the memes and internet culture, don't really cover fangames, don't cover fan animations on YouTube, don't cover bootleg games unless if it's about their existence being handled by Nintendo. And also if this proposal passes I'll find out who's been watching enough pornography to be able to figure out notability enough to contribute to a page of "list of Mario references in porn" (I say this as matter of fact, not to cast judgement; other users will also know). And who's going to also be knowledgeable enough to curate what goes in this page or not...? The first support vote is definitely a brow raiser. This proposal invites more questions than not, with not... great answers.
3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.
4. Sparks (talk) Per all, especially Mario.
5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Blhte, mainly. This may surprise y'all, but most of the people who make this sort of thing (nowadays at least) are actually very nice, respectful (and honestly normal) people if you actually talk to them - they just have talents in a field most people look down on, and don't like to be shunned in their personal lives because people found out about their... societally-unsavory aspects in an unrelated location. Also, most of said people wouldn't want to call attention to themselves by adding their knowledge of it in said unrelated location, as LGM said.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Mario. I really don't think there has been any pornographic production culturally prolific enough to cover on the wiki other than Super Hornio Brothers anyways, which is already covered in a way I think is serviceable.
7. Ray Trace (talk) Per all, I think it would open a Pandora's box since most of it isn't even officially curated regardless. Plus, mainstream pornography at least in regards to the Mario series is also an oxymoron, it's the type of stuff you only really know if you're into those circles to begin with which are obviously kept incognito for a reason. Obviously I'm not, and neither should a lot of the target audience who use this site.
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Doc Von. We shouldn't raise the age rating of the entire website under the pretense of maybe... like... one extra article, since only Super Hornio Bros. would warrant an article if you ask me; and even in a perfect world where we don't have to worry about age appropriateness or y'know, advertiser revenue, since we are not monetized via donations, it feels a little too much like gawking for its own good.
9. MCD (talk) "Is pornography a medium or a genre?" is not a question I expected to be asking myself when I opened the Mario Wiki today but - in this context - it is not a medium in the same way as film, music, literature, etc. Functionally it works as a genre which can be applied across any of the different media the pages are already split into. The only reason to split one of the existing pages would be when there's a format, genre or attribute with an overwhelmingly large amount of members (i.e. Nintendo vs non-Nintendo games; animated vs live action film & TV). The existing pages are very clearly not flooded with porn. Based on this, there's no justification to split it off as a medium in itself. If there's really anything culturally mainstream which does have a notable Mario reference - which you've provided no examples of - then just add it to the relevant page. If you don't feel comfortable mentioning it on these pages, even just via a text description, then it crosses that line you've mentioned. It should be common sense.
10. Hewer (talk) The opposition has swayed me, particularly MCD's argument. My logic, as touched on in the comments, was that having a separate pornography list would allow for some level of censorship by separating it, but that doesn't really make sense with my initial vote reasoning that the wiki shouldn't be censored, and the one we already have coverage of, Super Hornio Brothers, is just on the list of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo with no separation, so it makes sense to follow that standard. (Though, there is the disclaimer on the list of references on the Internet saying that it excludes "content with pornography, sex, or other adult-based content", even though that seems at odds with MarioWiki:Courtesy's statement that "the Super Mario Wiki is an encyclopedia and will not censor its information", so maybe something needs changing there.)

Comments

I'm neutral to this, on the grounds that no such thing has existed as "mainstream pornography" for almost 30 years (The production industry moved practically entirely to small-timer groups by 2003 at latest), and thus there is nothing to vote on in either direction. Although I see the humor in the extremely "between the lines" "hint-hint"-type argumentations, the situation remains that there's virtually nothing at all to work with. DandelionSprout (talk)

A while ago, I mentioned it would be good to create a notice template that warns the reader for mature/explicit, and/or sensitive material on an article, and also noted that a similar notice template exists on Bulbapedia (used on Lopunny's trivia section, for instance); I believe implementing something like that is much better than outright removing or not mentioning explicit content. Do you all think it's a good idea, or is it unnecessary? rend (talk) (edits) 10:11, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

In this case, the proposal is to make a separate list for explicit content rather than just covering it on the pre-existing reference lists, which I think already serves the purpose of separating the explicit content. We can trust our readers to not click on "List of references in pornography" (or whatever it may end up being titled) if they don't want to see such material. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:18, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Even so, I think it's still worth considering to make a notice template regarding this subject. Readers might expect explicit content on a hypothetical list of references in porn that this proposal is suggesting, but they're not very likely to expect such a thing on pages such as List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo (which contains information on a porn fangame titled Mario Is Missing: Peach's Untold Tale (which on its own is also a rather unassuming title for porn)), or Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō (which is accessed on official Nintendo material and is licensed by Nintendo). I suppose this may not be the perfect discussion for it and may be better discussed on its own proposal, though. rend (talk) (edits) 16:40, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Under the standards of notability outlined by this proposal (which admitelly, I am not convinced are all that clear when 100% of pornography is not distributed through professional means and the standards we currently use on the References page don't really apply) does this mean we can finally look forward to a mention of beloved Retsupurae running joke "Bowser & Peach Hentai"? I'm asking the real shit you know. --Glowsquid (talk) 10:25, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Where exactly is the line drawn for "mainstream" and "not notable," considering what constitutes as a "notable studio" has become very vague in this age of self-publishing? Obviously, there's a fuckton (no pun intended) of R34 fan art (hell, Peach herself is an utter fetish-magnet mainly for her recognizability and cute design, as Bowsette demonstrated to all the normal people of the world, and that ongoing "Peach's back in her Strikers outfit" thing shows currently). And while most of that is not notable outside of.... very specific circles, then there's stuff like that "Shy Gal" thing that became a major meme in its own right even in more normal circles (becoming a running gag on the SMG4 series, for example), despite (iirc) being made by the infamous porn artist Minus8 - which themself could be considered a "notable studio" through the vague definition considering how prolific they seem to be. Not to mention all the less-than-SFW jokes that have become memes on places like VineSauce... and SMG4 itself, for that matter. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:43, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Who gets to define the line? I imagine those who have an extensive knowledge of the pornography world? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 11:59, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I'd rather abstain on this proposal (pun non intended)... -- FanOfYoshi at 12:21, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The impression I got from the proposal was that the page would be based on the same standards of notability as the other references lists, and that it's not meant to be "pornography of Mario" so much as "references to Mario in media that happens to be excluded from the other lists for being pornographic". So probably not just random fanart. Though admittedly, I don't have the knowledge to say what the "notable" media may actually be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

That's the biggest problem of the proposal, it relies on an oxymoron of "notable pornography", something you know only if you're in the circle to begin with. I'm not aware of any, and none of this has penetrated any public conscious for obvious reasons, even less so than the more known internet fangames you can find on MFGG (like Psycho Waluigi). Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:46, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not sure about that. I'll give you this, porn is something that many people consume, but indeed few are actually willing to talk about. Its presence in everyday talk is intentionally kept low-key due to its inappropriate nature--but that doesn't make it "unnotable" in the same way you'd perceive a low-reaching, local garage band or the average ROM hack to be. The scale of this industry is comparable to others', and relevant works attract enough dedicated fans as to have evolved outside the confines of the product: there are tabloids dedicated to this topic, and there exist entire fan conventions where people can meet and greet their favorite performers in the industry, not unlike Comic Con. That doesn't even get into the parts that have become mainstream, with or without the effort of fans: one way or another, everyone's heard of a certain sinful bald man who is simultaneously a plumber, a doctor, and an astronaut, no? If that isn't enough to make such media notable, I struggle to think of anything else. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:04, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The intentional incognito nature and taboo of porn is the entire root problem of this proposal, and all that you said is really only popular in *that* specific sphere of influence. Whereas, as for local garage band or ROM hacks, those at least can be freely discussed in clearnet in sites without much repercussion. We're also getting into notability debates when IMO, that's a whole nother can of worms that this proposal didn't exactly have good answers for. Ray Trace^(T|C) 16:14, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Hewer (talk) I really doubt conditions since Super Hornio Brothers have changed, in which Nintendo legally intervened in its distribution. The proposal explicitly delineates material "produced or distributed by notable studios", but no major production studio of any medium would incorporate explicit references to another (more powerful) company's popular IP out of fear of legal ligation. I can imagine that is especially true of a children's IP owned by a big company like Nintendo who have the resources to bury any studio if they felt it was necessary. So, the only thing I think would be worth including in an article of this scope is Super Hornio Brothers... which I think is adequately covered elsewhere on its current article. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:47, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

The List of references on the Internet, at least, states in its opening paragraph that it excludes "content with pornography, sex, or other adult-based content", which implies that there is such content that would otherwise be notable enough to cover. But again, I wouldn't know myself. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101, Parodies are protected by law in the US. There are parodies of Mario other than Super Hornio Bros. that Nintendo didn't do a thing about. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:04, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

@MCD, don't be patronizing and don't assume the proposal is laid out the way it is out of a lack of common sense. Obviously it's more of a genre of picture, but if you paid attention to the attitudes regarding it, on this site or otherwise, it is a pretty tender subject. Certainly almost nobody on this site would be open to having such works intermingling with entries in the List of references in film, despite being made to elicit some form emotion from viewers rather than to inform like a documentary. No problem having a dedicated page for that.
Also, I'd like to request that you do not force my hand into providing examples on this particular page. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:38, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

If this page hypothetically did get created, and you don't want to provide examples here, I'm just not really sure what would be on it. I'm immensely struggling to come up with more than three mainstream pornography-related-or-adjacent Mario references (one of the sentences ever typed). Like, uh, we cover Super Hornio Brothers, we cover Lily Franky Theater, we cover that one Saturday Night Live Mario reference w/r/t the Stormy Daniels & Donald Trump Toad thing (genuinely don't know how else to word that, apologies for my aversion to properly describing these things in the proposal comments). What exactly are we supposed to feature that is both significant enough to warrant coverage yet hasn't already been covered? - Turboo (talk) 17:44, August 10, 2024 (EDT)

Decide how to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link

Do nothing 2-1-6
Since there are articles about subjects from the Final Fantasy series that have appeared in Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Mario Sports Mix, and/or certain Super Smash Bros. games (Nintendo 3DS / Wii U and/or Ultimate), I'm looking forward to add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link. The issue is that there is also a wiki from Fandom (powered by Wikia) that is also named Final Fantasy Wiki. The good news, I've come up with three options:

Option 1

Change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages AND add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link.

Option 2

ONLY add the Final Fantasy Wiki as an interwiki link (even if confusing).

Option 3

Do NOTHING.

Here is an example on the use of the interwiki link for the Final Fantasy Wiki:

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cactuar}}

Cactuar

{{iw|finalfantasywiki|Cloud Strife|Cloud}}

Cloud

That way, we'll be able to use the Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link once it gets added right after either Option 1 or Option 2 passes, as well as change the text for Fandom's wiki from "Final Fantasy Wiki" to "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" on pages right after only Option 1 passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: August 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.

#Arend (talk) I suppose it makes sense to add it; HOWEVER, SeanWheeler makes a good point that the independent wiki is VERY incomplete and full of red links. For instance, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 features the Mimic enemy and thus should also be covered on our wiki with an article (which we do, but for some godforsaken reason, is shared with the Mimic enemy from Dragon Quest), and would also be useful to link to a Final Fantasy Wiki article covering the same thing. The independent wiki doesn't HAVE an article on the Mimic enemy, but the Fandom wiki DOES. So I should stress that the Fandom wiki links are NOT to be removed when the interwiki link gets added until we find a more complete independent wiki (or this one actually gets completed at some point).

Option 2

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice

Option 3

1. SeanWheeler (talk) The independant Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete compared to FANDOM's wiki.
2. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) We shouldn't be adding wikis to the interwiki links just because their independent wikis, they should be added because they contain relevant info. The Final Fantasy wiki mentioned is fairly barren and there is little to no actual activity on there either. The point of interwiki links is so readers can get more informantion on a given topic, by sending them to a wiki that covers franchise we do not, it completely misses the point to link to a wiki that does not have any info in the first place.
3. Shoey (talk) In theory I would agree with linking to the Final Fantasy Wiki. But the independent one is hot garbage and there's no reason to link to a site that doesn't actually have good coverage on it's stated topic. Basically per Sgow.
4. Superchao (talk) Per SGOW. Just because a wiki is independent doesn't mean we should link it based on that alone, when the non-independent one has far superior coverage. All it does is direct our readers to an inferior resource that might not even help them, solely to try and make a point.
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Completion > independence. Per all.
6. Arend (talk) As I stated in my initial vote: SeanWheeler (and the rest of the opposers, at this point) makes a good point that the independent wiki is VERY incomplete and full of red links. For instance, Mario Hoops 3-on-3 features the Mimic enemy and thus should also be covered on our wiki with an article, and would also be useful to link to a Final Fantasy Wiki article covering the same thing. The independent wiki doesn't HAVE an article on the Mimic enemy, but the Fandom wiki DOES. Independent wikis are normally preferred over Fandom wikis, but as Shy Guy on Wheels says, we redirect people to other wikis so they can get more information on a given topic that falls out of the scope of our wiki, and in that case, where the wiki is being hosted should hardly matter if the wiki contains barely anything, since a barren wiki is completely useless for readers.

Comments

The Fandom wiki is not actually called "Final Fantasy Wikia", not to mention that Fandom not even refers to itself as "Wikia" anymore, to the point that they also dropped that "Powered by Wikia" tagline. Wouldn't it be better to instead refer to it as "Final Fantasy Wiki (Fandom)" to differentiate the two wikis? rend (talk) (edits) 17:40, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Also, what even is the "text" being referred to in the proposal that needs changing? When do we need to refer to the Fandom Final Fantasy Wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure they may be referring to External link sections, e.g. here. Currently, the Super Mario Wiki links to specifically the Fandom wiki when it comes to anything Final Fantasy (even outside External link sections), since we don't have an interwiki link for an independent Final Fantasy Wiki yet. I imagine they wouldn't simply replace the Fandom wiki link with the independent wiki link and rather include both wikis. rend (talk) (edits) 17:50, July 25, 2024 (EDT)

Last week, I replaced "Wikia" with "Wiki (Fandom)." How do you think the proposal looks? GuntherBayBeee 10:00, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

Why are you saying this a literal week after making the change, instead of (nearly) immediately after? Wouldn't that make more sense? Or are you asking this only now, because you're either subtly asking me to vote again, or trying to drum up more engagement again, because your proposal did not get any votes?
Either way, while it's good that you applied the change, I'm still abstaining because I'm unsure which option is better. And in case I need to make it clear, I'm NOT obligated to vote, and NOT obligated to say why I'm not voting, and I should NOT be obligated about either option JUST because I engaged in the comment section. As I said before: "no one is forced to vote for an option, even if they're joining in the conversation, so I'd appreciate it if I'm not being pressed into voting for something." And this feels like teetering into just that again.
I'm sorry if this was a genuine question, but after two previous times where you tried to drum up engagement (either by asking commenters to vote, or by bargaining other changes when people weren't disagreeing at all) after no one voted or commented on it, this feels like another feeble attempt to get more votes, and I personally think this vote-bargaining thing is getting really annoying. You probably should've said and asked this "How'd you think the proposal looks now" thing a LOT sooner, and/or at the very least answer Hewer's question (by corroborating what I told him, for example). That way I could suggest what could be added BEFORE the 3-day deadline of being able to change the proposal has reached, AND would've drummed up engagement in a more natural way. NOW, it feels like you're asking people to vote, and someone had gotten blocked for doing just that. rend (talk) (edits) 11:59, August 1, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler I do not think I agree with this option. Even if the independent Final Fantasy Wiki is full of red links and is incomplete, there is still a possibility that the Super Mario Wiki can add the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki. GuntherBayBeee 19:50, August 7, 2024 (EDT)

You really should try to reply to things a bit sooner, instead of waiting out until the last day of a deadline. That oppose vote is nearly two weeks old. rend (talk) (edits) 04:37, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

By the by, aren't these recent edits jumping the gun a bit? The proposal hasn't even ended with a solid conclusion and you're already replacing Wikipedia links with independent Final Fantasy Wiki links by using the {{plain link}} template. rend (talk) (edits) 05:00, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Yes. I like to think that the interwiki link to the independent Final Fantasy Wiki would make more sense. GuntherBayBeee 10:01, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

That's not what I was saying. At all. What I was actually saying is that, with these edits I linked earlier, I'm concerned that you're possibly acting out on the proposal before it has even ended with a conclusion. Some would say that one would only add the Final Fantasy links to the page when it has ended in either of the two option's favor, correct? Given that it's about not only adding the interwiki link to the wiki, but also how to apply them on pages, right? That's literally why Options 1 and 2 are split like that: as it determines whether the interwiki links should replace the Fandom wiki links, or just be added alongside the Fandom Wiki links. And you practically just acted out on the latter, with the the {{plain link}} template . rend (talk) (edits) 10:15, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

The quality of a wiki should matter more than independence. The SEIWA Final Fantasy Wiki is very much incomplete. It doesn't have an article on Cloud's mother, while the FANDOM wiki does. SEIWA's article on Mako is a stub while the Wikia has a full article on that stuff. SeanWheeler (talk) 01:49, August 12, 2024 (EDT)

Well, do you have any recommendations before we can add SEIWA's Final Fantasy Wiki interwiki link? GuntherBayBeee 20:21, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

If you want the SEIWA Final Fantasy interwiki link so badly, I suggest you work on that wiki to make it good enough so that it could earn it. Clean up all the stubs. Clear the red links. If you can clear the red links, that can make it better than the FANDOM wiki. In that last comment, I was going to make a point about how SEIWA had nothing about Mimic while the FANDOM wiki had a disambiguation page, but that disambiguation page has two red links in it. For every red link, create a page. However, to avoid duplicate titles, some red links like Mako energy and Avalanche should be either relinked to the correct titles of Mako and AVALANCHE or made into redirects. Oh, and all the stubs have to be expanded to completion. If there's no more red links, no more stubs and the wiki page count is more than the FANDOM wiki, then we can try this proposal again. But right now, the FANDOM wiki would be the preferred Final Fantasy wiki. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

Even then, completing the Herculean task of clearing all the 5,460(!) red links (seriously, I had to gasp and stammer at that number) on the independent wiki, on top of the rather meager-in-comparison 790 articles it currently has will still have that wiki fall short compared to the 50,212 articles on the FANDOM wiki. Sure that wiki also has 1000 red links (probably much more, given that the FANDOM wiki cannot cache more than 1000 red links fsr), but still, 50,212 articles compared to the independent wiki's 790. I think it's better to convince the FANDOM wiki to move to the SEIWA wiki and ask to import articles... rend (talk) (edits) 21:14, August 14, 2024 (EDT)

Remove remaining uses of tabber

Remove 10-4
This one's probably a long time coming. Tabber is currently only approved for usage in two infoboxes, which is pretty confusing (to make matters worse, the original proposal allowing it for the minigame infobox seemed to only have Mario Party in mind). I've seen users implement these outside of the approved uses, which is a pretty understandable mistake. If you see a template used in one situation, it makes sense to use it in comparable situations, right? You'd have to go to the template page to find out that it's only for very specific scenarios. More importantly, further attempts to allow tabber have failed under heavy opposition, mainly because tabber requires JavaScript to work. If it's disabled or not supported by your device, it displays the content of every tab at once in an unseemly vertical stack.

Based on the general sentiment in the past two proposals and the inconsistent application on pretty arbitrary standards, I think it makes sense to just repeal the original two proposals and remove the remaining uses of tabber completely. Whether tabber is deleted or remains in a deprecated state will be up to the judgment of the staff.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: August 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per me.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - In any case, slideshow is preferable to tabber. Per.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Tabbers not functioning on all devices kills them for me.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Additionally, I personally find tabbers cumbersome to use as a reader and I am not a fan of how widely they have been integrated into our affiliate ZeldaWiki, where I feel they have substantially degraded the quality of the articles. I would prefer Mario Wiki not go down a similar path, and I think I would support the removal of tabs even if they did not require JavaScript.
5. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal and courtesy of users without JavaScript.
6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all.
7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
8. Mario (talk) Something that stuck with me since August 19, 2015: "Tabs are the devil". Even without the javascript issues there's likely fundamental useability issues; tabber I still think(?) is more gimmick than utility. I browse some wikis, I'm usually annoyed to try finding an image I want, only for it to be buried in tabs (ZeldaWiki is an example, the Keese article supplied is a maze of tabs and I actually find it difficult to just easily pinpoint how a Keese looks like in a particular game or across games; Battle Bat does not even provide all images in a gallery section, so I have to click on all these tabs just to see how these bats look like in different games; I'd rather just view all of them).
9. YoYo (talk) per all.
10. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Perhaps it is overkill to have tabber in every single circumstance, but using it to compare between different iterations of the same thing (like Mario Kart courses or Mario Party minigames) is convenient for quick visual comparison and does not clutter the infobox.
2. Hewer (talk) I think tabber is fine to use in the two cases we currently use it for, as it allows us to show all the race course/minigame iterations in the infobox neatly and without having to just pick one (I think it always looked weird how we used to prioritise older images for just these infoboxes, but tabber provides a handy solution to that problem). As for the JavaScript argument, to quote Camwoodstock in this discussion, "any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work".
3. Tails777 (talk) I can understand if tabbers are an issue, but I just agree more with the opposition here, especially with the usage for the Mario Kart tracks/Mario Party mini-games. Per Hewer.
4. DrippingYellow (talk) Not entirely confident in removing the tabbers altogether. As Camwoodstock pointed out, you'd be hard-pressed to find a device that doesn't support JavaScript these days. To be completely honest, the complaints from veteran users about tabbers being more visually confusing just comes off as them being used to the routine of scrolling down to the gallery to browse tiny previews of images. I certainly don't want this to end up like ZeldaWiki, what with the Artwork/Sprites/Models tabs containing sub-tabs, but I'm sure there are ways to get around this that could please both sides, without going full nuclear on tabbers (e.g. finding a way to have galleries contain images only when javascript isn't detected or, failing that, restrictions such as every tabber can only have up to X many images).
   Addendum: I didn't consider at first that galleries have the benefit of letting you look at more than one image at a time. While that is a definite disadvantage for using it for stuff with actual artwork, I feel like the screenshots of the minigames/race courses in galleries are generally shrunken down to the point of not being the most readable, so you still have to click on them individually.

Comments

Waluigi Time (talk), for clarification, what are the two instances where tabbers have been permitted? Do you have examples of other pages where tabber has been overimplemented? - Nintendo101 (talk)

Currently it's approved for the minigame infobox (the original proposal was only for Mario Party minigames, but it's crept over to WarioWare) and race course infobox. Aside from the WarioWare edge case, a couple of mistaken uses of it have been on the Wario Land series and Expert world in MvDK. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:31, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

Which mini-game/race course would get priority in the info boxes should tabbers be removed? Would it return to using the images from their original games or would the newest games get priority? I ask that mostly because the proposal regarding this question was aiming to decide that answer, but the tabber idea passed in general. So I'm questioning which image would get priority. Tails777 Talk to me!

I would prefer to take the safe route and revert back to the originals for now, and then a new proposal(s) can be made to deal with them afterwards if anyone wants to. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:05, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 Why drag other wikis into this? Why Zelda Wiki in particular? If you take a look, loads of NIWA wikis use tabber. To give a few examples, the Mario article on SmashWiki; the quotes and game pages on WiKirby, the The Forest of Hope on Pikipedia, Marth on Fire Emblem Wiki, Cerebus on the KHWiki. I'm sure there's more. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:42, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

This is tangential, but in a past life, ZeldaWiki was the primary NIWA wiki I contributed to, before they ever incorporated tabs, so I have more baseline familiarity with it than the other wikis, and I also personally believe it is the most egregious example of how tabs could be used. Many of the tabs within their infoboxes are completely empty, varyingly proportioned, or contain screencaps/assets best viewed at smaller resolutions. The tabs also obstruct visual material that otherwise could be readily viewed and compared all at once in a gallery if they did not use tabs, and I guess I prefer having that material more immediately available. I understand Zelda entries often adopt widely different artstyles from one another, but I think it would be healthier for their articles to pick one image curatorially for the infobox, and place the other ones in galleries at the bottom of the page. I do not bring up the use of tabs on that wiki to pick on their community; they are good and hardworking people. But it is immediately where my mind went when I started to see tabs incorporated into infoboxes on Super Mario Wiki, and I would rather not see something like that integrated here.

Their use of tabbers came from internal community discussions and proposals, so it does not really matter what I personally think - they should be the ones deciding how they organize their articles - but I do wish they would reconsider the benefits of incorporating tabs of t-posed models and empty files within their infoboxes. Fire Emblem Wiki and KHWiki are not using tabs to flip between varyingly proportioned images that push the text underneath them around; they are instead being used to provide different pieces of information and I think that looks quite nice.

I am honestly not a fan of the examples you have provided from Pikipedia or WiKirby either because of how they shift the underlying text (it makes it a little cumbersome to passively read, a problem shared with ZeldaWiki), but at least none of their tabs are empty. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:18, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

We're abstaining personally (while we still think tabbers have a use, we do fully acknowledge their use is contentious and it's a bit of a hot button issue where to even draw the line), but we would like to ask that, if this passes, to NOT delete the tabber template outright... Mostly to prevent situations where older page revisions in edit histories just become incomprehensible due to changes in template infrastructure. (Seriously, it's bad enough when infoboxes get renamed, and it would feel a bit silly in this case when one of the reasons for removing them is "they break things if Javascript isn't available"... ;P) ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 22:58, August 8, 2024 (EDT)

I see one potential good use for tabber, and that is not infoboxes, but rather for character stat tables on game pages... for instance, showing the information on entities for overbloated games like Mario Kart Tour so it can be communicated without severely increasing the vertical space the page takes up. That of course, would be its own discussion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, August 9, 2024 (EDT)

I know it's entirely subjective what I am about to say here, but I think that the use of tabbers, especially on the Mario Kart course articles, is just visually so unappealing, especially considering most images have inconsistent or low-res images. Most courses in MKDS, especially retro tracks, will also have images that have the hud, and a lot of tour courses don't even use in-game screenshots. It just is so yucky to look at, for a lack of better words. Only having the image of the original iteration of the course, and then having the remaining images throughout the article, is just an infinitely better way of doing it. I was against tabbers for this exact reason to begin with. - YoYo (Talk) 15:57, August 11, 2024 (EDT)

Is there a reason this wiki can't use Extension:Tabs? Apparently, it doesn't require JavaScript except on older versions of Internet Explorer. Dive Rocket Launcher 22:56, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Add the TabberNeue extension

canceled by proposer
Now that the proposal to remove every remaining use of tabber has passed, I've come up with a follow-up proposal stating that there would be a possibility to add the TabberNeue extension. This extension will allow the Super Mario Wiki to create better tabbers within a page after this proposal passes.

Take simple tabbers for example. These tabs from the TabberNeue extension are created with tabName=tabBody and separated by |-|. This allows any wikitext within the tabs to be used, including templates and images.

<tabber>
|-|Mario Kart 64=[[File:Kalimari Desert MK64.png|300px]]
|-|Mario Kart 7=[[File:KalimariDesertMK7.png|300px]]
Second tab content goes here.
|-|Mario Kart Tour=[[File:MKT Kalimari Desert Scene.jpg|300px]]
|-|Mario Kart 8 Deluxe=[[File:MK8-Course-N64 KalimariDesert.jpg|300px]]
</tabber>

Next off, nested tabbers. These tabbers must be written as parser functions. Rather than the <tabber/> tags, they are wrapped with {{#tag:tabber|}} and separated by {{!}}-{{!}}. When creating nested tabber, it is considered useful.

<tabber>
|-| WarioWare: Smooth Moves = [[File:WWSM Code Dependency.png|260px]]
|-| WarioWare Gold = [[File:CodeDependency WarioWareGold.png|260px]]
|-| WarioWare: Move It! =
{{#tag:tabber
| Level 1 = [[File:WWMICodeDependency.jpg|260px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Level 3 = [[File:WWMI Code Dependency Lv3.png|260px]]
}}
</tabber>

And last, but not least, the transclusion mode. Not only is the syntax for the transclusion mode different, but it is also more similar to <gallery> syntax. Transcluded tabs are created with pageName|tabName and are separated by a new line.

<tabbertransclude>
Gallery:Bowser artwork and scans|Artwork and scans
Gallery:Bowser sprites and models|Sprites and models
Gallery:Bowser screenshots|Screenshots
</tabbertransclude>

The TabberNeue extension would be a great idea for how contents are placed within better tabs. That way, once the proposal passes, the TabberNeue will be enabled in no time.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Date withdrawn: August 16, 2024

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

Though I support this, I'll need to remind that you need to wait at least 28 days before proposing this due to this still being tabber and following immediately after the previous proposal passed. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:38, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

Add the Thanks extension

Add the Thanks extension 10-1
The Thanks extension is a way to personally thank a contributor without sending them a message directly. It's a kind gesture to show that you appreciate certain edits from someone, such as if they add more content to an article you made or fix grammatical errors. This saves the effort of having to manually message your appreciation if you wanted to give a quick Thanks to the user, though this proposal in no way seeks to replace that; it provides another option for thanking a user.

However, a requirement to installing Thanks is the Echo extension, which is used by Wikipedia, MediaWiki, and many other major wikis. The Echo extension had embedded features of its own, and it could get annoying for some if it gives a message for every 100, 200, 500, or so milestone edits that someone makes (even though it is possible that some may want to keep track of their milestones). Point is, if the Thanks extension is allowed, be wary of changes that the Echo extension would bring. The echo notification also replaces the new message box with a new messages notification at the top right of the screen. Perhaps it is possible to disable some of the default features of Echo, but the point is that this proposal is mainly about allowing Thanks.

On a sidenote, if this passes, the courtesy policy will be updated to prohibit spamming the use of it for consecutive edits made by a user or someone who personally does not wish to have their edits thanked.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
2. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
3. Mario shroom (talk) As a Wikipedia editor, I support.
4. Ray Trace (talk) Greenlit by Steve, and I massively support this.
5. Sparks (talk) Yes! The element of kindness (AKA Fluttershy) in Mario Wiki form. I support! Per all.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) Wonderful idea.
7. YoYo (talk) sure, there's no harm in this
8. Mario (talk) Validation is always nice.
9. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I absolutely love to thank people for kindnesses, especially because so many people have helped me in the past! And this would make it so much easier. I totally support this, and who cares about the side effects-- all I want is to be able to spread kindness, no matter what the cost.
10. Dine2017 (talk) This would be a great way to get feedback for your edits. It would also bring the editing experience closer to Wikimedia wikis.

Oppose

1. SeanWheeler (talk) No thank you.

Comments

I've always wanted this for years now, but I feel this sort of thing requires at least confirming with Steve first. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:27, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario Maybe someone could ask him. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:39, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

@Mario I asked on his talk page, and the proposal is allowed. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:09, August 17, 2024 (EDT)

Allow more "History of" articles under two more conditions

Do not allow 0-8
This may be a small thing, but unlike the quotes, profiles, and even galleries, there is more restriction on which articles get to be split off into a History page. Please take note that proposal is not about amending the minimum number of bytes needed (150K) to split the History section of an article into its own page. It's about allowing more "History of" pages. The 150K guidelines already does not apply to splitting galleries, profiles, and quotes from the base article.

Should this proposal pass, more History pages would be allowed under the condition of the article either having a General information section with at least two subsections or the condition if there is a single section with a wikitable. This way, if a split were to occur, there's at least more information besides what is contained in the opening section. Luigi, Yoshi, Wario, Princess Peach, and other subjects with history pages all have something in common where their pages have well established General information sections, providing enough context about them, while the History page would serve as a comprehensive read on their individual appearances, which can be summarized on the main article. To me, it feels inconsistent that Wario and Bowser have their History pages split but not their respective partners, Waluigi and Bowser Jr., both of whom are recurring.

The reason I want to give exception if the section has a wikitable is because of the Barrel page, where the barrels section is tucked all the way at the bottom, below a long History section, so it cannot be seen immediately by readers, many of whom may not see the section otherwise.

If the article has been featured in the past (e.g. Chain Chomp), a different proposal would be required before splitting it, or some other democratic matter decided upon by the community (e.g. adding a talk template and overhauling the page in accordance to community input on the talk page).

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

#Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) These seem like very random metrics compared to the logical one of article size, especially since they're based on other sections of the article rather than the actual history section that's being split. History sections are split so that articles stay at reasonable sizes with reasonable loading times, not to aid presentation of the rest of the article. (Honestly I'd rather do less splitting of history sections since it scatters information a bit, but I understand it's a practicality issue to have such huge pages worsening loading times.) If someone who wants information on the subject doesn't look at the whole of the subject's article, that's not our problem - the information on a merged page is still conveyed well, and the "issue" of having to do some scrolling to find certain sections is solved by the contents list at the top of the article that lists the sections.
2. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) I'd honestly rather merge a lot of the split history pages back.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) per Nightwicked Bowser.
4. SeanWheeler (talk) These split history pages are longer than Waluigi's entire page. Waluigi doesn't need to split when his page isn't long enough.
5. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Firstly, Bowser Jr. does have his own history page and secondly, I still think those pages are pretty easy to scroll through and find the information you want. This is actually the first time I learned that the article size has risen from 100kb, to 150kb, but regardless, that length makes much sense, because the articles could go on like novels at that point and the reasons for splitting articles is to make the pages load less. I'm all for more articles having their history pages split, but this is not the correct way to do it.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all
7. Dine2017 (talk) Per all.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments

I'm a bit confused, what exactly is this proposal trying to change? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:49, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

I'll give an example of what's allowed if this proposal passes. For the first condition, Waluigi article has at least two sections under General information. With that, the ==History== section of Waluigi's article can be split into History of Waluigi. For the second condition, the Barrel page would split into History of barrels so that the "Types of barrels" (which qualifies as a subsection of "General information") is more accessible to the reader for its comprehensive wikitable. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:56, August 16, 2024 (EDT)

Require citations for names in other languages

Require citations for names in other languages 15-12
Recently, the issue of confirming names in other languages has been discussed on the wiki's Discord server. Put simply, there is a high likelihood that many of these names are fake or otherwise inaccurate, and as an English wiki, the majority of the userbase is unable to independently verify the accuracy of these names. As such, I believe it should be made mandatory for every name listed in the names in other languages sections to have a citation attached to it. Yes, this will be very, VERY difficult to do considering the sheer number of pages that will need to be gone through, but I think it is better to address this problem now rather than later. More and more games and media will release the longer we wait, only adding more to the workload.

Note that for these citations, using text / quotes is just as valid as including a link or image. Unsourced names will also not be removed, but rather have the [citation needed] notice added.

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: August 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Technetium (talk) As proposer. This would prevent fake names from being added. Even if a citation is not found, this proposal would let readers know to take foreign names with a grain of salt via the [citation needed] notice.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Misinformation is easy to get into a record and hard to remove. Best we avoid creating Brazilian aardvarks.
3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Strongly agree.
5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. I think the opposition is overlooking that a lot of false foreign names slip through because misguided editors try to machine translate. Without proper sourcing, it's very difficult to catch when they're added and how many of them are already on the wiki. It's just not feasible to expect readers to boot up a foreign copy because they're not that accessible - correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Switch is the first console where you can pick any translation across the board? If anything, maybe we could make an exception for names that have been verified in easily accessible translations. Also, if someone does verify it for themselves, how is anyone else supposed to know a name has been verified? Yes, solving this is going to be a lot of work, but it's already a problem and it's a problem that's only going to get worse the longer we do nothing about it.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
8. Drake Inferno (talk) Essentially agree with all other points here, but I also feel that a citation could probably in most cases outside of rare versions (which would be case-by-case) just be "where this comes from", rather than a fully formatted video/image/text citation. If a person Google Translates a name and adds it, that's one thing. But if the same person does that and then actually claims it came from the text of the game, that's actively lying, and also a bit of a barrier to entry encouraging people to do the work of verifying their info.
9. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. We're a wiki; we should be striving to have accurate information, and just because it's a lot of effort doesn't mean it's "bad" or not worth it. And, as Waluigi Time points out, if we don't do something about this now, it's only going to become an even larger problem in the future. Just because the best time to start obtaining proper citations for foreign names was years ago doesn't mean it's not worth it to start now--there isn't a time limit on this!
10. Tails777 (talk) Per Waluigi Time, Drake Inferno and Camwoodstock.
11. Mario (talk) There's a lot of times I wonder where the sourced names come from, and often times, foreign names are useful bits of information to rely on especially when there's shaky North American localization involved, such as Pale Piranha's case. A while back, there was a huge discussion in Talk:Mushroom World related to how we cover the scope of the article, and "Planeta de los Hongos" and "Kinoko no Sekai" were brought up a couple times as if they were legitimate, which added to the confusion. I queried there if there's a source for "Planeta de los Hongos" and we did get an answer and had those names removed. This proposal will help clear up and hopefully prevent future confusion in some of these discussions. It's also in the proposal's favor that we did find a lot of backward translated names in the same scope as "Planeta de los Hongos". I assume some names are relatively self evident, such as generic objects (banana) or Red Shell or Metal Mario, so they don't require a citation but there are plenty of enemy names where it's much better safe than sorry to indicate where these names were found.
12. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I feel like this is a tiny bit excessive, but it will help with preventing fake names from being put on the wiki, especially with foreign ones that are not Japanese (because Japanese names are relatively well-known for Mario characters, I think).
13. Jazama (talk) Per all
14. Shoey (talk) This seems like a no brainer Per all.
15. EvieMaybe (talk) as a native spanish speaker, i'd love to be able to verify if a spanish-language name in this wiki is legitimate without having to dig through other sources to find a name. per all, especially Nintendo101's comment

Oppose

1. Jdtendo (talk) Per my comments below.
2. Hewer (talk) Per Jdtendo, this feels excessive.
3. Apikachu68 (talk) Per my comments below. I don't think pages should be inundated with citations.
4. LinkTheLefty (talk) Holding English and foreign in-game names to different standards will lead to more issues than that solves; if the source comes from something rare like an iQue translation, then citation makes perfect sense, but for the most part, this is trivial to retrieve nowadays provided you have a nearby save file due to the rise of region-free system languages.
5. Koopa con Carne (talk) I understand the viewpoint of the proposal, but I believe its application would be way too broad and would surely result in a sizeable amount of redundance. On the one hand, yes, a lot of non-English names either originate from volatile sources (see List of LEGO Super Mario set names in other languages (A–C), which cites product pages on LEGO.com) or obscure sources (see the myriad of references to licensed guides) and require some explicit context to justify their place here. Even names that are used directly in a game may need citing if they're obtainable in incredibly specific scenarios within that game, such as the names of these background objects that appear only 2 weeks a year in a live service game, or information deriving from those iQue translations mentioned by LinkTheLefty. On the other hand, Jdtendo raises a good point that often a source is so ubiquitous that it can just as easily be deduced from reading the article. Normally, I don't think Mario, Peach, or Bowser, or even less popular subjects such as Parry, The InterNed, and Ratfael, require such citations, simply because their non-English names are obtainable in much the same way as their English counterparts--by following their respective games with a minimum to moderate amount of attention, the only difference being that you'd need to switch the game to another language setting or, at worst, seek a different localization for it. A case-by-case treatment is in order, but I disagree with turning this treatment into a sitewide requirement.
6. Arend (talk) I get the concern, but most of the other-language names come from the same in-game source as the English one. Sure, sometimes you get mistakes like someone assuming the Dutch name for "Crystal Star" is "Juweelster" like how the Crystal Stars are being called the "Juweelsterren" without realizing that the name "Crystal Stars" is more of an outlier compared to the other languages or that the game will tell with any of them the same "You Got a Crystal Star" message when collecting them and that their actual name is in the Crystal Stars submenu, but this should be verifiable for anyone who has a copy of the Switch version of The Thousand-Year Door considering any copy can be played in all of the available languages. That only another Dutch person such as myself cares enough to correct that mistake is not because of a lack of verifiable sources, but more of a lack of care of the wiki itself to verify it for themselves. Like Koopa con Carne said, this is more of a case-by-case basis rather than something that should be applied for literally every multilingual name documented on the wiki. Not only will it be such a hassle to not only add a "citation needed" tag to literally any non-English name that doesn't already have a source (or worse, removing them entirely which doesn't help the wiki in the slightest), but also scour through every other-lingual copy of every single Mario game and/or manual, take a screenshot or photo (good luck if you don't have a capture card or photo scanner) and upload it all to the wiki just to verify that yes, this name is legit – especially if it's not even necessary for the English names to go through all of that too, which is just a bit unfair IMO.
7. YoYo (talk) per arend
8. DandelionSprout (talk) As someone who've added quite a lot of language names for pages related to Princess Peach: Showtime! and some WarioWare games (e.g. Gold, Touched!, Mega), I must unfortunately say that it'd be nothing short of absolutely ridiculous to implement such a policy. For PPS, uploading 10-ish screenshots for each of approximately 65 pages would be unnecessary use of server hosting space (I am not going to upload 650 images just for the sake of PPS levels and characters!). And for Switch games in particular, it is pretty easy to check if names are accurate, now that many games do have their JP and Korean versions integrated into the Western game releases. The European versions of most DS and 3DS games can also crosscheck all Western languages' names.
9. Scrooge200 (talk) I also work with foreign names myself, a lot -- a lot of the time I datamine them directly from the game, these are in-game names that are easy to rip. But requiring a ton of screenshots or digging through videos to hope you find one that displays the text is a huge waste of time. You can't really assume every necessary thing will be there: for example, I've only been able to find one Dutch let's play of Paper Mario: Color Splash, and it doesn't show things like the soundtrack titles, not to mention it wasn't uploaded until two years after the game came out. It was also incredibly difficult to find a Portuguese playthrough. And for foreign playthroughs of more obscure games or ones with less coverage, it'd be even more time-consuming.
10. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
11. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Koopa con Carne and LTL in the comments.
12. DrippingYellow (talk) In case I haven't made it clear yet, I'm a little icky on this proposal. It would make references not just deferring to in-game text a bit of an annoyance to navigate, and the desired machine-translation-deterring benefit can easily be achieved by adding a template saying "if a name is not cited, it is used in-game" or something like that (for clarification, I was mainly referring to Waluigi Time's claim that people are putting Google Translate names in the infobox because they don't know that it's only official names).
    Addendum: Actually, now that I think about it, there is an even easier solution that still involves references: if the in-game references were all in their own ref group, and specifically separated into its own section from the other references somehow (though maybe that would break the numbering?), then that would address my main concerns. Until something like this gets adopted, I'm still opposing for now.

Comments

Goomther's Italian name is Goombolone. Source: that's his name in the Italian version of the game. Chef Soulfflé's Dutch name is Kok Eauvain. Source: that's his name in the Dutch version of the game. Destiny Del Vecchio's European French name is Allison Ledestin. Source: that's her name in the European French version of the movie. In the above cases where the name is found in only one piece of media, the source would be completely redundant because it's evident that the source is the localized version of the game or movie where the character appears; that's for the same reason that we don't require citations for English names in those situations. I feel that the scope of this proposal is way too broad and should be focused on subjects for which the source is not evident. Jdtendo^(T|C) 12:52, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

The thing is that since the majority of the wiki's userbase is English speaking, we don't have easy access to those pieces of media to double check. That's why I think having a link to say, a video showcasing the name from the piece of media is preferable, vs say the English version where users can more easily check for themselves. Technetium (talk) 13:05, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

Alright. How do I prove that Destiny Del Vecchio's European French name is Allison Ledestin? Do I need to upload a clip of the movie (and hope that it does not get copyright-claimed)? Say that I intend to add the French names of all characters in the upcoming Mario & Luigi game. Will I need to find a Let's Play that showcases every character (even the optional characters that most let's players won't even encounter) or make a screenshot for every single character, upload them, and painstakingly link each character name to the right screenshot? What about names added in batches from the internal game files? Shall we still provide a source for all of those? Jdtendo^(T|C) 13:33, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

You bring up good points that I lack good answers to. I am fully aware of how much of a pain this proposal would be, but I can't think of any better options to prevent misinformation. I will say that as I mentioned below, existing names would not be deleted, but would simply have [citation needed] added. It is possible these citations will never be added, but I feel readers deserve to know that while the name they are seeing could very well be accurate, it is not 100% confirmed, so they should take it with a grain of salt. As for names in internal files, see my response to the comment below (assuming you are talking about the same sort of thing). Technetium (talk) 14:07, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

@Jdtendo I would say, yes, absolutely. If you are adding a name of unclear origins, it 100% should be cited. If one is adding a valid name to the wiki, it is coming from somewhere anyways and citing that source is not an unreasonable expectation. If it is coming from a particular release of the game, then I think it is fine to cite the line of dialogue, scenario, or mission list like so: <ref>"Not bad! I guess I chose the right guy to be my archenemy." – Bowser during "Darkness on the Horizon" (12 Nov. 2007). Super Mario Galaxy by Nintendo EAD Tokyo (North American Localization). Nintendo of America. Retrieved 18 May 2023.</ref> This is already encouraged in policy, which states:

For the most part, you don't need to provide a reference for basic information taken directly from the games... However, if information is more obscure and its validity may be questioned, citing specific text found in the game (i.e. dialogue in an RPG), its manual or some other official guide book will help maintain the wiki's credibility.

Surely, non-English names that are difficult for the largely English-speaking userbase to verify can be described as "obscure and of questionable validity", especially since many foreign names are unsourced and are integrated by IP-addresses. These are very difficult to verify for anyone who is not adding it, and I do not agree that it is an unreasonable ask. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:54, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

If Option 1 of this proposal passes, integration like my Super Mario Galaxy example above is intuitively what I anticipated for non-English names that really do have in-game usage. I personally do not think providing videos or images is necessary, and I think internal file names can comfortably be used as a reference (like so: <ref>internal file names</ref>). - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:19, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

Some of the Dr. Mario World pages were taken from the datamine (examples: ice fan, Muddy Coin), because when the game's service was shut down, there really is no way to verify the different languages. And thus, I felt that the datamine has accurate information because it came directly from the game. How would those be sourced? (Also unrelated to this proposal, but I would like to add is that the translation sections for those terms are incomplete.) Winstein (talk) 12:57, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

I definitely think names taken from datamines should count as being sourced, but I'm not sure how to mark that as I am worried it would give ill-meaning editors a way to put blatantly fake names in and claim that they're correct from a datamine. I also just don't know much about datamining and if it is possible at all to have citations for those, so I'd be glad to hear anyone else's opinions on the matter. Technetium (talk) 14:07, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

I'm someone who mines names from files. They are easily sourceable, you have to source the filepath for the text data you extracted it from ie "\message\EU_Russian\menu.msbt". Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:30, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

If this proposal passes, will unsourced foreign names be removed outright or will ^{[citation needed]} be added to them? - Apikachu68 (talk) 1:23, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

[Citation needed] would be added, I think. Technetium (talk) 13:29, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

Alright, that is good to know. However, considering option 1 passes, 237 citations would need to be added to the List of Mario names in other languages page, and if the six citations already present are included, this would give the page a total of 243 citations, almost double the number of citations present on the List of Super Mario 64 glitches page. (126)
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apikachu68 (talk).

If I take an unqualified guess that 7,000 pages would be affected, with an average of 5 language names per page, it would make the wiki as a whole look strange at best, and very poorly worked on to outsider readers at worst, since possibly more than 30,000 "Citation needed" suffixes would've been added to the wiki. We'd almost overnight go from being a Super Mario franchise authority, to looking no more professional than random wikias. DandelionSprout (talk) 18:53, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

I dont think we need direct sources like videos or screenshots for every single name in a different language, but a simple "in-game" or "manual" tag would suffice, perhaps with a bit more specificity if its a particularly hard name to find in-game (i.e. "in-game, in Mushrise Park") or something like that. My main issue is that as it stands, made up names and names that are obviously real and found in-game are indistinguishable. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 20:25, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

I can go and add something like that as another voting option, since it is still early enough for me to edit the proposal. Technetium (talk) 20:30, August 18, 2024 (EDT)

Not sure these need to be separate options, current sourcing already allows for just using text when appropriate (e.g. an in-game quote or an excerpt from a strategy guide - the latter could actually get us in trouble if we did require image citations). -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:14, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I just decided to remove Option 2, as I was already getting confused between the two yesterday, and I was not aware of quotes still using the same reference syntax at the time of adding Option 2. Technetium (talk) 12:26, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

With the right game you can even go so far to source the file path of the file you can extract the name data from. Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:30, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time: The "how is anyone else supposed to know a name has been verified" argument applies to English names too. Expecting readers to have access to every game covered on the wiki is unreasonable regardless of language. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:16, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

The difference is this is an English wiki, so the majority of the readerbase is familiar with and has access to the English copy of the game. Even if you don't personally have a copy of a particular game, there's more users able to verify names and be able to catch something if there's an error. That's why I don't think the "we shouldn't treat English differently from other languages" argument holds water. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:41, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

I know there's the "let's not compare us to different wikis" mantra, but I realized later that this is why Zelda Wiki's other languages suddenly became a desolate wasteland for a while, and there wasn't even much benefit from what I can tell. If there are steps taken to resemble other wikis, like the semirecent cite template, why not go all the way or start with something more manageable? LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:54, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

I don't know if "it's difficult for an English userbase to confirm in-game foreign language names" is all that valid anyway, considering LPs exist on YouTube and similar sites for pretty much any language the games are actually released in anyway. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:22, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

That doesn't seem entirely reliable. Most LPs, in my experience, don't look at every piece of text in the game, so you have to track down a gameplay video, find the portion of the game you're looking for, and then hope they didn't skip over anything. Even in games that aren't text-heavy there's things like SM64 signs, Mario Party board events etc. that can easily be skipped over. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:41, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

For text hidden away that obscurely, we sometimes cite English ones as well, so it's still not all that different. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:43, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

As an opposer, even I directly acknowledged that some in-game stuff is obscure enough that you'd need to state where it comes from. Do it case-by-case, otherwise you end up with Mario's Japanese name suddenly requiring a citation, which... yeah, lmao. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:43, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

They don't. Trust me, they don't. A majority of Princess Peach: Showtime! languages do not have, and will pretty likely never have, full 100% LPs for them. Finding Simplified Chinese LPs for almost any game would also be a nightmare, since most people who use that writing style rely on Bilibili and similar sites, where things get deleted all the time.DandelionSprout (talk) 18:48, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

I apologize if this sounds dismissive or harsh, but the assertions that "this would take a lot of work to implement", "I think citations would clutter the page", and "readers can verify this on their own if they want" are not substantive and fail to address the core issues raised in the proposal. The Super Mario franchise is over forty years old, and the majority of the games lack in-game bestiaries or instruction booklets that catalog all of the subjects. So the majority of article subjects on our wiki were not introduced in a period of time where video game localization was carefully documented. Yet subjects spanning across decades of media have integrated names for a variety of languages and almost none of them are cited. For example, not a single non-English name for Octoomba is cited. Did these names come from the localized Super Mario Galaxy 2 scripts? Data-mined from Dr. Mario World? The encyclopedia? Guidebooks? Made-up? I have no idea. Nearly every single enemy and character with a "Names in other languages" section has this same exact problem. Fire Piranha Plant. Cooligan. Buster Beetle. Bob-omb Buddy. Spinecone. Morty Mole. Gooble. Heave-Ho. Some of these subjects have some of their names sourced, but none of them have all of them, and this includes subjects that have appeared once in the franchise in a pre-Switch era. Where did these come from? Why is the information not provided? A reader 100% should not be burdened with going to another source like a Let's Play Channel to try verify this information, because that is what we are suppose to be doing - providing accurate information that can be trusted. Research, citation, and curation are difficult and time-consuming. But they are an inherent part of a credible encyclopedic project regardless of field or subject matter. If we should reject this proposal because we feel it would be too much of a burden on us, then why even have this wiki if we are unwilling to do the leg work necessary to make it trustworthy? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:58, August 19, 2024 (EDT)

While not the worst argumentation I've heard, the only possible outcome of it for most pages would be to add <ref name=in-game>In-game name</ref> to sometimes more than 10 rows in the "Names in other languages" table. And (somewhat unfortunately) knowledge of using "name" in "ref" is considered very advanced stuff for newcomers to wiki editing. DandelionSprout (talk) 19:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

I've been able to test a bit now how this proposal, specifically your (Nintendo101) and (if I understood him correctly, which I may or may not have) Waluigi Time's approach, and much less drastic than how I understood Technecium's concepts, and I have concluded that the proposal does make sense for character names specifically, e.g. Dancer. Though during the same testing, I found the proposal to be mostly unnecessary for the names of levels, minigames, and very likely microgames; the games usually have easily accessible level lists, and my guess is that it's pretty hard for someone to fake a made-up level name from thin air. DandelionSprout (talk) 19:51, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Just to be clear, how would enforcing this work if the source is a translated game? Will it be how Zelda Wiki does it, including English names as well? For that I think it would be better to have a general note saying all names are taken from a game if no additional citations are used. SmokedChili (talk) 09:49, August 20, 2024 (EDT)

This. I feel like that would clear up some things so that the supporting side would have the machine-translation-deterring effect that they're wanting, without clogging the references section with repeated instances of "'Quote from a game.', (language) translation of (game), (release year)". DrippingYellow (talk) 18:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

If a subject has appeared in many forms of media, for example, Mario, how would the name be cited? - Apikachu68 (talk) 10:42, August 20, 2024 (EDT)

It's not like we need a comprehensive list of every time the name is used — one use in an official capacity is enough to establish a name as official. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:23, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

@DandelionSprout @Scrooge200 The proposal says that screenshots/videos aren't required and a text citation is fine. Also, for Scrooge200's point specifically, the difficulty for most users to verify this information is exactly why we should be sourcing them on-site. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:07, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

What would a text citation even need to be? Like, in Color Splash and The Origami King, an area's name shows up as soon as you walk into it -- why would we need to source obvious in-game text like that? Scrooge200 (talk) 20:20, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

It depends on the game and where the text even is, but just pulling an example we can recall off the top of our head, the English name for Yakuman DS just puts the text from Toadsworth's trophy in Brawl (the only English name for the game, yes, really) into a quote. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 21:22, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Going to repeat myself again: all text in games originate from a file. You can cite that if you can mine it: like my Russian example earlier, "Прыжок-полет" for Flutter Jump comes from the first entry of "\message\EU_Russian\menu.msbt" Ray Trace^(T|C) 19:05, August 25, 2024 (EDT)