MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/72

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

Add an abbreviation template to type out full game titles

Add template 8-0
This proposal is about creating a template that it makes it easier to type out full game titles. Although The Legend of Zelda games generally have longer titles (and Zelda Wiki even has templates for some of their shorter titled games, like Hyrule Warriors, here), there have still been cases in which some game titles are uncomfortably long, such as Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! or Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and while it may seem like not a big deal to some, it would be a small quality-of-life improvement if we could have a template where we input the abbreviation, and the output becomes the game title.

For example, {{a|M&LSS}} would result in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga (complete with italics formatting). Meanwhile, {{a|M&LSS|l}} to link to the game, outputting Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga, although depending on who creates the template, it could be vice versa, like it links by default and {{a|M&LSS|n}} would prevent a link.

Since Super Mario has several releases, it may get difficult maintaining with all the abbreviations, and there have been cases where two games have shared the same abbreviation. (e.g. SMS for both Mario Sunshine and Mario Strikers). In that case, either {{a|SMS|2002}} (with the year of release) or a custom abbreviation (e.g. {{a|SMShine}}) would be needed (personally I'd prefer the latter).

Consider we already have similar templates for Princess Peach and Princess Daisy (i.e. {{Peach}} and {{Daisy}}), and both of their full titles (with "Princess" included) is a lot shorter than the two game titles in the first paragraph.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see the harm in this, even if it would admittedly be fairly niche. The only real complaint we have is the lack of an additional parameter for changing the displayed text, so if we need to say something like "in the remake", we have to write that out the old-fashioned way.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) might make some link-heavy pages lighter!
4. Salmancer (talk) Words cannot express the relief that my fingers would feel if they never have to type out "Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey" again.
5. Tails777 (talk) Mario already took my example, but it still stands; the amount of times I've had to type out that title (or even the abbreviation for it) was incredibly annoying. Per all.
6. Scrooge200 (talk) Yes, these titles can be a pain to write out in full. Per all.
7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
8. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Camwoodstock Such a parameter can always be added to the template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:18, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Salmancer: Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games might be the other worst game title I've had to type out. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 00:59, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Damn it, that was gonna be my example! Tails777 Talk to me!15:34, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games

Do not put templates underneath names of planets and areas 14-1
The aims of this proposal is to repeal this one that passed earlier this year. I will reiterate my position here:

The planetary bodies in galaxies do not just "lack" publicly accessible names - they are straight up not supposed to have names. The Shogakukan guidebook for Mario Galaxy does not give planets name. The game does not give planets name. The instruction booklet does not give planets name. The only "source" that applies discrete names for planets are from the developers and we have no reason to think these were intended to be the planets. These galaxy articles are generally a bit outdated, and I think the mistake in the first place was suggesting that some of the planets have real names "except where otherwise noted." They largely do not. I think it would would healthier to recognize that they are just different sections of a greater whole, much like areas in courses for the earlier 3D games, and apply titles accordingly.

To elaborate on my perspective, I think using dev data to provide names for these planets is completely fine, and I understand the desire to do so. Citing the Prima Games guidebooks for potential names for these areas is fine. That is not what this proposal is about. Rather, integrating the templates themselves - be it for conjectural or dev data-derived names - underneath the individual headers for each planet, in my view, looks very poor, as you can see here for Yoshi Star Galaxy and Honeyhive Galaxy. They are detractingly eye-catching and break these articles without substantive benefit. I think having a nonintrusive note at the top or bottom of these articles - as was the case before the proposal I link to above passed - is perfectly sufficient and healthier for these articles.

I provide two options:

1. Support: Do not put conjectural and dev-data name templates beneath the names of individual planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games: This is a full repeal of the proposal I link to above.
2. Oppose: Change nothing

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: Do not put templates underneath the name's of planets and areas

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
2. 1468z (talk) Per proposal.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) The previous solution looked a lot nicer. I also agree with Nintendo101 that we should rethink how we approach planet names in general. They don't necessarily "need" names any more than specific portions of levels in other games do.
4. Jdtendo (talk) I still don't agree with the "planets are not supposed to have names" argument, but I do agree that having templates beneath every section heading is excessive.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi time. The overall assumption that the planets have names unless otherwise stated feels like the consequence of a decision made very, very early on into the wiki, that's just kind of gone unquestioned or unnoticed until very recently. This won't stop that particular case of WikiJank™ completely, but it's a step in the right direction.
6. Sparks (talk) Per all.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) if all the names are unofficial, then we only need to say it once. if there's an official name, we can just say "all names are unofficial unless specified" and specify in the one planet that has a name (is there any planets with names even???). having the template on each individual section is both ugly and inefficient
8. Mario (talk) Yeah, the setup before this was satisfactory. Per Evie, but I also agree with Waluigi Time that we probably don't need to require naming these parts of the level either.
9. Ray Trace (talk) I always thought assigning these objects meant to be part of the environment conjectural templates has always struck me as odd and I don't know why only Super Mario Galaxy gets singled out out of all games. We don't name the rooms the Mario Party minigames take place in.
10. Tails777 (talk) I was sincerely confused when I saw the templates put back on the various galaxy articles and questioned "Why? It was better beforehand." Per all.
11. Hooded Pitohui (talk) In the longer-term, WT and Nintendo101 bring up points which ought to be considered. In the shorter term, this would be a beneficial first step to de-cluttering these sections for better readability.
12. Ninja Squid (talk) Per all.
13. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101, Waluigi Time, and Porple's comment below.
14. MCD (talk) Per N101, WT and Porple below. I also agree our attitude on what counts as "conjectural" when it comes to naming planets needs a rethink, i.e. it's not conjecture to call the planet the player starts on the "starting planet" because that's just a factual description. (Also, why does Starting Planet just redirect to a random galaxy? lol)

Oppose: Keep the templates

1. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm opposing this proposal as currently slated to be implemented — as in, just removing Template:Conjecture and Template:Dev data from these sections and leaving it at that. These need to be marked, and I don't feel that an "unless otherwise noted" disclaimer is an elegant way to do that. However. There is a way of accomplishing this that I would be amenable to: replacing those templates with Template:Conjectural or a new dev data equivalent to it. This is the same way our glitch pages do it, for exactly the same reason you want to get rid of these templates on the galaxy pages. I think it makes perfect sense to use this convention here as well to solve this problem.

Comments on the planet template proposal

I agree that we don't need the repeated templates, and the whole naming situation of the planets is a bit odd. Rather than giving the planets capitalized "names" (e.g. "Starting Planet") and noting them as conjectural, they should just be described in sentence case, at which point it should be somewhat obvious that it's a description and not a "name". For example, section heading "Starting planet" and text "The starting planet has..." You could do a single {{conjecture|subsections=yes}} under the "Planets" heading if you really wanted to, but I think if we removed all the inappropriate capitalization then even that wouldn't be necessary. --Steve (talk) 20:11, December 19, 2024 (EST)

Broaden the scope of the {{rewrite}} template and its variations

Do not broaden scope 1-7
With the previous proposal having passed with being more specific as the most voted, I've come up with a proposal about the possibility to make the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates more specific. As you can see, these templates are missing some smaller text. As such, I am just wondering if there is a possibility to have the smaller text added to the {{rewrite}}, {{rewrite-expand}}, and {{rewrite-remove}} templates.

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

---

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

---

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

---

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information.{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

---

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

---

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s):{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): <reason(s)>.
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

---

That will be a perfect idea to make the {{rewrite}} template and its variations as more specific as the {{media missing}} and {{unreferenced}} templates. That way, we'll be able to add smaller text to the remaining notice templates in the future.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to December 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. Altendo (talk) As far as I can tell, the proposal that was linked added parameters that allowed what was supposed to be referenced to be referenced. This one simply adds a subtitle to the bottom of each template. "Be more specific" does not mean saying general information and helpful links, but rather exactly what needs to be done; in terms of that, the existing templates not only all already have parameters, but filling them out is enforced. As Nightwicked Bowser said, "Be more specific - Similar to this proposal, what exactly needs references must be specified in the template when putting it in the article. A parameter for this will still need to be added." This only adds a subtitle and does not make this "more specific". As for the changes, this is actually harmful in some way, as the (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) tag will be added to the subtitle, rather than the main body, which could make it more confusing in my opinion. Feel free to update this and add in what "more specific" actually means, or just change this to "add subtitles" and change the location of (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}}) to the main body, but until then, my vote is staying here.
2. Mario (talk) Best to keep things simple with these improvement templates.
3. Technetium (talk) Per Mario.
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Yeah, this just feels like change for the sake of change. Per everyone.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Mario. We should try and keep these maintenance templates as simple as possible.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.

Comments

Here's how I would fix some things:

First of all, the {{rewrite}} template currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten.

---

However, once the proposal passes, the {{rewrite}} template will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten'''{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article.

---

And another thing—the {{rewrite-expand}} template currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Reason:''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information.

---

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-expand}} will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' and '''expanded''' to include more information{{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{2}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by filling in the missing details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten and expanded to include more information for the following reasons:
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by filling in the missing details.

---

Lastly, the {{rewrite-remove}} currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have <u>{{{content|{{{1|content<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}</u> '''removed''' for the following reason(s): {{{reason|{{{2|???<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}}}}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s): ???

---

However, once this proposal passes, the {{rewrite-remove}} will read as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#9CF;border:1px solid #000">
It has been requested that this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be '''rewritten''' to have {{#if:{{{content|{{{1|}}}}}}|<u>{{{content|{{{1}}}}}}</u>|content}} '''removed''' {{#if:{{{reason|{{{2|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> for the following reasons:{{{reason|{{{2}}}}}}|.<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}{{#if:{{{date|{{{3|}}}}}}|<nowiki/> (tagged on {{{date|{{{3}}}}}})}}<br><small>Please review the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] and [[MarioWiki:Good writing|good writing standards]] and help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}} by removing the unnecessary details.</small>
</div>

It has been requested that this article be rewritten to have content removed for the following reason(s):
Please review the Manual of Style and good writing standards and help improve this article by removing the unnecessary details.

This should fix some things, and I also recommend you change the title or at least context of this proposal. If so, then I might change my vote. Altendo 19:58, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I fixed this problem for you. How does it look? GuntherBayBeee 09:40, December 10, 2024 (EST)

Create a template to use names consistently

canceled by proposer
This proposal is aiming to create a template called Template:T (short for "term"). It's similar in concept (thought not necessarily design) to Zelda Wiki's Term template, but to a lesser extent. Allow me to explain why I think such a template would benefit the site.

Let's take Princess Peach as an example. She has been known as Princess Toadstool to anglophones in games before Super Mario 64. Some people editing here, especially newcomers, may not immediately know that the Naming policy outlines that this website uses names depending on the subject's name within the media or supplementary material. We do not replace all instances of a name with the current one. But there's one game before Super Mario 64 where "Toadstool" is actually named Peach, Yoshi's Safari, so it could seem like a bit of a jump to read about "Toadstool" and then "Peach" for one paragraph, and then back to "Toadstool" again.

Some of the games call her Princess, like Super Mario Kart, which makes it more confusing. The source of History of Princess Peach acknowledges this and even has a editor notice explaining that "Princess" is her name in Super Mario Kart:

Princess<!--This is what the game titles her, so don't change it.--> is a playable character in ''[[Super Mario Kart]]''. When controlled by the CPU, Princess can use [[Poison Mushroom]]s to shrink the other drivers.

So how the term template would work is that it would insert one of the subject's common names: we'll use Peach in this example, followed by the game abbreviation to replace instances of "Princess" within the article. Basically, Template:T working in conjunction with Template:A. So with that, we'd add {{t|Peach|SMK}} in place of "Princess":

{{t|Peach|SMK}} is a playable character in ''[[Super Mario Kart]]''. When controlled by the CPU, {{t|Peach|SMK}} can use [[Poison Mushroom]]s to shrink the other drivers.

With how big the Super Mario franchise is, it can be difficult ensure accuracy with subject names all over the wiki. And it could arguably get more confusing with capitalized or lowercase names, like Super Mushroom is titled in The Super Mario Bros. Movie as red mushroom, in lowercase. It specifies that on the article, but if the name is used elsewhere, it may not be as obvious, so naming consistency can be even harder if we don't have an immediate reference of what "red mushroom" is (or how it's spelled) if we're to mention it on the Training Course article.

Subjects are renamed over time, like Banzai Bills used to be Bomber Bills, and newer or alternate names can be added to Template:T (or a list sub-template) over time. However, the template should be used within reason, so for example, we wouldn't add "Mario" to Template:T for most of his appearances because that's obviously his name used in those appearances. Meanwhile, subjects with naming discrepancies between appearances (e.g. Star, Starman, and Super Star) could allow for more flexibility on which name is input in Template:T, before the abbreviation. That would include Peach in Yoshi's Safari, so either {{t|Peach|YSafari}} (YSafari is stored as an abbreviation already) or {{t|Toadstool|YSafari}} would be acceptable. For Super Mario Bros. Super Show!, both {{t|Bowser|TSMBSS}} and {{t|King Koopa|TSMBSS}} would be acceptable to use.

It's difficult to know the fine line, and some further decisions or clarifications may have to be done along the way if this proposal passes. But ultimately, I think this will help editors along the way for subjects with naming discrepancies and not having to open tabs to refer to the article name to find the name used for that appearance.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Personally, we feel like this is made widely redundant by just... double-checking the names before writing them down. If a rookie editor messes up and calls Princess Peach "Princess Peach" in the article for a game where she was called Princess Toadstool, it's fairly easy to fix that. In addition, we fear this might cause an even more obnoxious issue of rookie editors instead leaving these templates in the article body, making editing the pages annoying until someone else manually replaces the term. We don't really see what the use is for a template that, by and large, is only really useful for the preview function, when at the end of the day, you could just refer to a game's article and quickly determine from there what name to use.
2. Hewer (talk) I don't feel like this would be particularly helpful to new users, if anything unnecessary templates like this could cause more confusion and feel unintuitive. This doesn't feel like solving the problem of having to remember which name to use so much as swapping it for a problem of having to remember how to use the template.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer — not to mention a problem of remembering which subjects have data in the template to begin with. All those further decisions and clarifications are going to have to be looked up anyway, defeating the point. And that's if the system is working as intended — to be blunt, the scope of these templates would have to be so large that I expect them to be poorly maintained.

Comments

@Camwoodstock I understand, but I do think it's convenient like when adding abbreviations. Is it "Klaptrap" or "KlapTrap" or "Klap Trap"? The template can be used to figure that part out and help with consistency, and if one sees the consistent output, they can fix the names used in Template:T accordingly. It won't be that hard to use, it may just take time getting used to, and it won't apply to the obvious like Mario in most of his appearances. I didn't say it'd be enforced, just like how Template:A isn't enforced (i.e. it's there for people who want to use it while editing, though I know someone who prefers not to use it, as a choice of personal preference). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, December 30, 2024 (EST)

Decide how to handle nameless subjects

canceled by proposer
It's been five days since the last proposal had passed, and I never opposed it. Something tells me that the areas in galaxies from the Super Mario Galaxy games are nameless, with the titles of subsections being informal descriptors unless otherwise noted. Likewise, take Fréquence Kong for example; this skit aired in France and not in any other regions. I humbly suggest that there's a possibility to decide how to handle nameless subjects with three options:

Option 1

Create the {{informal descriptor}} and {{descriptor}} templates.

Option 2

Repurpose the {{conjecture}}, {{another language}}, {{dev data}}, and {{derivation}} templates.

Option 3

Do nothing

Here's what happens when option 1 passes.

First off, the {{informal descriptor}} template. This template will read as follows:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#FFF7F7">
The {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|titles of the following subsections are '''''[[MarioWiki:Naming|informal descriptors]]''''' unless otherwise noted|title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is an '''''[[MarioWiki:Naming|informal descriptor]]'''''}}. {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|Each|The}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}}'s subject is nameless, but it has been given a fitting title by the editors.
</div>

The title of this article is an informal descriptor. The article's subject is nameless, but it has been given a fitting title by the editors.

Using {{informal descriptor|section=yes}} will result in the following:

The title of this section is an informal descriptor. The section's subject is nameless, but it has been given a fitting title by the editors.

Using {{informal descriptor|subsections=yes}} will result in the following:

The titles of the following subsections are informal descriptors unless otherwise noted. Each section's subject is nameless, but it has been given a fitting title by the editors.

Next off, the {{descriptor}} template. This template will read as follows:

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{hover|1={{{1}}}|2={{#if:{{{2|}}}|Informal descriptor for {{{2}}}|This name is an informal descriptor.}}}}|<sup style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[[[MarioWiki:Naming|''informal descriptor'']]]</sup>}}

^{[informal descriptor]}

Using {{descriptor|Starting planet}} will result in this:

Starting planet

Using {{descriptor|Starting planet|the planet}} will result in this:

Starting planet

Now we move onto what happens if option 2 passes. The source of the {{conjecture}} template will read as follows:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#FFF7F7">
The {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|titles of the following subsections are|title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is}} '''''[[MarioWiki:Conjectural names|conjectural]]'''''{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}|, but {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|they are|it is}} also {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<u>informal descriptors</u>|an <u>informal descriptor</u>}}}}{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}{{#if:{{{part|}}}|<nowiki/> for '''a part''' of its content|<nowiki/>; {{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}|{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|each|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}}'s subject is nameless|an official name for {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|each|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}}'s subject has not been found}}, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors}}.{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}||<nowiki/> If an [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|acceptable]] name is found{{#if:{{{part|}}}|<nowiki/> for the currently unnamed portion of content}}{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<nowiki/> for a given section}}, then {{#if:{{{part|}}}|it may need to be split into a new article|{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|that|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|changed|moved}} to the new title}}.
</div>

For example, using the informal_descriptor parameter on the {{conjecture}} template will result in this:

The title of this article is conjectural, but it is also an informal descriptor; the article's subject is nameless, so it has been given a fitting title by the editors.

The source for the {{another language}} template will read as follows:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#F5F5F5">
The {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|titles of the following subsections are|title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is}} official, but {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|they come|it comes}} from a{{#rmatch:{{{1}}}|^[AEIOU]|n}} '''{{{1|non-English}}} source'''{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}|, although {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|they are|it is}} also {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<u>informal descriptors</u>|an <u>informal descriptor</u>}}}}{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}.{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}||<nowiki/> If an [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|acceptable]] English name is found{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<nowiki/> for a given section}}, then {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|that|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|changed|moved}} to the new title.}}
</div>

For example, typing {{another language|French|informal_descriptor=yes}} will result in this:

The title of this article is official, but it comes from a French source, although it is also an informal descriptor.

The source of the {{dev data}} will read as follows:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#F5F5F5">
The {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|titles of the following subsections are|title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is}} from an official source, but {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|they are|it is}} based on {{#if:{{{1|}}}|'''{{{1}}}'''|'''development data''' such as an internal filename}}{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}|, although {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|they are|it is}} also {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<u>informal descriptors</u>|an <u>informal descriptor</u>}}}}{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}.{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}||<nowiki/> If an [[MarioWiki:Naming#Acceptable sources for naming|acceptable]] public name is found{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<nowiki/> for a given section}}, then {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|that|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|changed|moved}} to the new title.}}
</div>

For example, using the informal_descriptor parameter on the {{dev data}} template will result in this:

The title of this article is from an official source, but it is based on development data such as an internal filename, although it is also an informal descriptor.

The source of the {{derivation}} template will read as follows:

<div class="notice-template maintenance show" style="background:#FFF7F7">
The {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|titles of the following subsections are|title of this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} is}} {{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}|{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<u>informal descriptors</u>|an <u>informal descriptor</u>}}|<u>unofficial</u>}} and {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|have|has}} been '''''[[MarioWiki:Naming#Derived names|derived]]''''' by {{{1|combining English names based on established naming schemes, non-English names, and/or development data}}}{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|, unless otherwise noted}}.{{#if:{{{informal_descriptor|}}}||<nowiki/> If an official English name is found{{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|<nowiki/> for a given section}} that differs from the current name, then {{#if:{{{subsections|}}}|that|the}} {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|section|article}} should be {{#if:{{{section|{{{subsections|}}}}}}|changed|moved}} to the new title.}}
</div>

For example, using the informal_descriptor parameter on the {{derivation}} template will result in this:

The title of this article is an informal descriptor and has been derived by combining English names based on established naming schemes, non-English names, and/or development data.

It's important to know that informal descriptors are what we know, and it's true that we will decide how to handle them once this proposal passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: January 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Create the templates

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice

Option 2: Repurpose the title notices

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice

Option 3: Do nothing

1. Ahemtoday (talk) Having a special name and template for informal descriptors is counterproductive because it makes them look more like names, not less. If we're going with the idea that the planets do not have proper names and we are simply describing them, that has to be accomplished through the way we write the articles and not through notice boxes. I bring up the planets specifically because I... don't really think there's any other situation on this wiki where this has ever been an issue. The only other example you bring up is Frequence Kong, and I do not see how that is an informal descriptor when it is just the French title.
2. Arend (talk) Honestly, this whole proposal is a bit confusing. First, do we really need to introduce the term "informal descriptor"? Aren't conjectural article titles already informal descriptors? "Informal" means "unofficial", after all, while "conjectural" means "speculative", which already practically means it's unofficial. If so, why do we need this, and if not, what IS an "informal descriptor", then? Second, regardless of choosing Option 1 or 2, if this is basically a way to put a notice template under the Galaxy planet names, isn't this basically a repeal of a repeal but using a different term that may or may not mean the same thing as "conjectural"? Third, the proposed wording for the affected templates for Option 2 sound a bit odd: "The title of this article is conjectural, but it is also an informal descriptor" is weird because, as I already stated, a conjectural title may already be an informal descriptor, because of the "informal" = "unofficial" = "speculative" = "conjectural" thing I stated earlier; "The title of this article is official, but it comes from a French source, although it is also an informal descriptor" could potentially be oxymoronic because nearly all titles with the {{another language}} template already use the official title untranslated, therefor being impossible to be informal a.k.a. unofficial, and when they are unofficially translated, they may be more fit to use {{derivation}} anyway; and "The title of this article is from an official source, but it is based on development data such as an internal filename, although it is also an informal descriptor" is either oxymoronic or synonymous depending on if the title is literally taken from an official filename, or derived from one. Either way, the inclusion of these templates already implies an informal English descriptor so it's really confusing why words like "but" or "although" are chosen when "and" or "therefore" may fit better. Fourth, why is Option B to repurpose the {{conjecture}}, {{another language}}, {{dev data}}, and {{derivation}} templates, when all that's being changed is that an option is being added that clarifies that the article titles are "informal descriptors"? "Repurpose" means that the templates are to be adapted for an entirely different purpose, yet from what I can tell, all these templates retain their original purpose if Option 2 wins. All in all (tl;dr), I honestly don't think these changes are needed since "informal" already means "unofficial" which we have plenty of templates for, and that this proposal is a bit confusing.
3. Hewer (talk) There's no such thing as "nameless" article subjects, they're either officially named or conjecturally named. (The planets from Galaxy are different as they aren't article subjects - one of the points from that passed proposal was that they are just parts of a level, not really individual subjects in their own right.) I have no idea what the distinction is between "conjectural" and "informal descriptor", the proposal doesn't really explain (in fact, it implies that even official names can be "informal descriptors", whatever that means, if they're from another language, even though that's Template:Another language's job). This is a pointless template for a pointless distinction. There's also the fact that this proposal seems to be another attempt to stuff the galaxy articles with redundant notice templates, which was just repealed for a reason.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this idea is technocratic. Not every "type" of moniker benefits from having a template. As stated by others, informal descriptors are not names. While assume this is incidental, this proposal sort of undermines the point of that Super Mario Galaxy proposal that passed recently: the issue wasn't the type of templates. The issue was that the templates were unattractive and detracted from those articles without substantive benefit. Simply replacing those templates with new one simply recreates the problem.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101; the issue with the Galaxy articles wasn't just the templates being a misnomer, it was the fact that they were being used under pretenses that probably weren't accurate in the first place (namely, the idea that the majority of planets have official names, which does not seem to be the case) and were, for lack of a better term, an incredibly intrusive eyesore. The best way to resolve that would likely involve a policy shift, not re-introducing a different form of those same templates.

Comments (informal descriptor / descriptor)

As the guy behind the derived names proposal, I would like to note that derived names by design cannot be informal. They are gathered by comparing proper names from the source language or source code, if you will against related proper names in English. This has been relevant for the Kyodai na Hoppin, whose official Japanese name is informal, translating roughly to "Hoppycat that is giant", and has been left in Japanese as a result.--PopitTart (talk) 16:10, December 30, 2024 (EST)

@GuntherBayBeee Forgive me if this is off-topic, but I've noticed that a lot of your proposals are about either introducing new (notice) templates to replace old ones (even when it's not needed), or changing old (notice) templates to include new features (even if they work fine without those) or to change its purpose (again, even if they already work fine the way they are): Is there a reason why you want to change the wiki's structure of its (notice) templates so much? Is it to mimic Wikipedia's style more, is it to distance ourselves from Wikipedia or other Wikis, is it something else? Because to me, several of your (notice) template proposals seem unnecessary; no offense. rend (talk) (edits) 16:13, December 30, 2024 (EST)

Decide what to do with Template:Move infobox

Keep Move Infobox 7-0-0
A while ago (November 4th, specifically), I created Template:Move infobox. After all, we had templates for essentially all the Browse tabs on the wiki sidebar, except for moves. There WERE templates about specific types of moves, such as Template:M&L attack infobox, but no general template in the same vein as items, characters, species, games, locations, etc.

I discussed it on the Discord briefly, nobody said no, and a bit of feedback later about how it should look and what it should have, I created it. It has since been applied to exactly four pages at the time of writing, half of which I was the one to apply it to. In hindsight, this could've used with a proposal instead of me just making it, so here's a belated one.

Should we keep Template:Move infobox around? If we do keep it, is it good as is, or does it need changes?

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: January 1st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Keep Move infobox, as is

1. Sparks (talk) I can see this template working really well for moves that aren't in every Mario game, like Spin. This has lots of potential!
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not--having a dedicated Moves infobox could come in handy, especially if we get any more Mario RPGs in the wake of the weird little renaissance period we've been getting with the back-to-back-to-back SMRPG remake, TTYD remake, and release of Brothership. Per proposal.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
5. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
6. Salmancer (talk) It would bring more attention to our move pages. I'm down for that.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.

Move infobox Comments

Considering the nature of the attack infoboxes, wouldn't it be weird to have moves all in purple but a Mario & Luigi attack use yellow and green and a Paper Mario attack use white and green? Should there be variants of the Move infobox to match the color schemes of existing templates? If an article is covering multiple related moves, how will the infobox work? (ex. Handstand, Cap Throw, Roll, Slide Kick... there's more of these than I thought). What happens when a move is referenced in somewhat less "move-y" ways? Okay, that last one is kinda strange, but basically I mean "dashing" in Super Mario Run is just a fancy animation, Mario & Luigi Dream Team has an animation where Giant Luigi crouches (with posing and skidding clearly meant to be a platformer callback), to slide under an attack. Do these instances get incorporated into the infobox? Continuing the train of thought, what about sports games? Yoshi can Flutter Jump as his special action on Mario & Sonic games. Does that count as a method of input for a Flutter Jump? Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

that's a lot of very interesting questions!

• i went with purple to set it apart from the already taken light red (game), green and white (character), blue (level), pink (location), grey (item) and navy/grey (species) infoboxes. changing the color could be a good idea.
• as for sorting which moves "count" or not, we have to decide these things for other types of subject too, after all, and they get infoboxes. it's a valid concern, though! eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 15:09, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Set Vector-2010 to the default wiki skin

do not set 1-8
This proposal is about setting the 2010 Vector as the default wiki skin (screenshot here) for desktop users, with the focus being on people who are new to wikis in particular, while obviously keeping the existing MonoBook skin as an option. What made me think to create this proposal is when I made a Talk:Main Page proposal about the to-do list tasks and how they are more accessible than clicking the "Wiki maintenance" on the sidebar, I had to uncomfortably squint to find "Wiki maintenance" on the wiki sidebar. But Vector-2010 has the sidebar links slightly larger and a bit more spaced out. With the existing interface, there could be some who may struggle to find options listed on the sidebar.

While we're clearly different from Wikipedia (that's why I'm not Vector-2022, since it'd be too much of a departure and likely uncomfortable for several), I do want to refer to this page, which summarizes why Wikipedia transitioned to it. Though it is vague, they cite accessibility as the reason, which I think this wiki has been taking steps toward doing.

I'll cite my reasons for preferring Vector and applying this to possible people who are visiting a wiki for the first time. The text is larger, which is especially important for larger screen monitors, some of the lesser used tabs are collapsible on the sidebar, summarizing the most commonly used options, and the user links at the top right are also more noticeable and less close to the body of the article where the content is read.

Though it could take time getting used to the Edit button being on the right (not to mention the search button), the button is at least larger, making it more usable on even lower quality screen monitors, and I like how it's separate from the Page and discussion options, meaning that options that involve viewing articles are on the left while options that involve editing or changing the page in some form are on the right.

If this proposal passes and others don't like the change, they can always return to the MonoBook option in their preferences.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, this vote is largely a matter of preference--we just don't like Vector that much--but we can't think of any real reason to switch to Vector 2010 as the default over the current Monobook beyond the mentioned text spacing; while that is a nice boon, we personally find the weird gradient buttons for the various tabs up top a little grating looking, and we're a fan of the more compact design that Monobook provides--though, this is likely a byproduct of our personal preference for more neatly packed web design. And uh, the less said about the other two options (Vector 2022, and. Timeless. Which is the most dated theme possible, namely to mid-2010s mobile web design.), the better. If you like Vector 2010, that's great, and we're fine with that! Heck, if anyone likes Vector 2022 or Timeless, that's cool too, and more power to them! Variety is the spice of life, after all. But switching it to the default is something that should not be taken lightly, and the reasons for a switch in this proposal feel a little too loosey-goosey for us, we're sorry.
2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how MonoBook looks a little more than Vector. It is what I am comfortable with. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
4. Drago (talk) Per Nintendo101. I actually prefer the smaller text of Monobook since you can see more of the page at once. I also want to point out that although logged-in users like us can change the skin in preferences, we'd still be forcing the change on logged-out users.
5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Drago.
6. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Drago. I just don't see any reason to make this change.
7. Altendo (talk) I'm saying this as a Vector-2010 skin user, and I'll say that people have their preferences. I live Vector-2010 because that is how Wikipedia at least used to look before they switched to Vector (2022); On Wikipedia, Vector was renamed to Vector legacy (2010), while Vector 2022 is named Vector (2022). Although I do prefer Vector-2010, I know a lot of people that prefer Monobook, and even if not, this can be changed in the preferences. No need to change the default skin. I get that IPs can't change their appearance, but aside from that, users can, and what they see doesn't have to be default on the wiki. Everyone can change what they specifically see.
8. Sparks (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Camwoodstock That is true that it's a major change. It's based mainly upon impression from newcomers from them seeing a more prominent edit tab, slightly larger text size, and other minor details like tab names that are easier to read (including a collapsible feature for the lesser used tab). The skin change was based on old Wikipedia research at the time (like how WikiLove was a result of their research). I have no strong feelings whether this passes or not. Although it's vague, since there's no way to tell the statistics (and the wiki's already successful at the moment), I still have a feeling it could help some, but to each their own. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:32, December 18, 2024 (EST)

We feel like if anybody would be capable of providing any statistics on skin usage, it'd be Porple, but even then, we don't actually know if that's one of the things he tracks, and it feels a little silly to pester him over this of all things... ;p ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:55, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm okay with opposition, but in case of misunderstanding, this proposal isn't about personal preferences so much as what I believe to be a more ergonomic interface to a wider audience. I know we're not Wikipedia, but there's also the consideration that they've used the Vector skin longer than they had for MonoBook. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:45, December 19, 2024 (EST)

If it's what "you believe", then it ultimately (and probably unavoidably) is about personal preferences. Anyway, another consideration is the fact that people often prefer what they're used to. I feel like how long this wiki has used its skin is more relevant than how long Wikipedia has. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:39, December 19, 2024 (EST)

@Hewer I suppose I'm overthinking the ergonomic interface. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:19, December 20, 2024 (EST)

Merge various sports location pages into their base articles

canceled by proposer
Recently, a proposal had passed allowing various locations to be split from their base pages for taking up too much room, like how Toad Town will have Toad Town (Paper Mario), since there's lots more game-specific information to cover. On the contrary, there are these lesser Super Mario titles that have their location split despite them usually consisting of just a single paragraph that could easily be stated within the base article. I'll explain further:

For this proposal I'll be concerning the sports games such as Mario Tennis, Hoops, and Sports Mix. Since golf has several holes, it may be better covering that in a different proposal. This proposal will not concern any of the Mario Kart courses, either. If this proposal passes, the locations within this scope will be merged back into their base pages.

These are, after all, the same location, just in different and smaller contexts. Excluding gimmicks, there is a lack of interactivity with the environment itself, so there are no enemies to fight, no items to collect. It's just the setting of locations where a sport takes place.

Okay so let's take Bowser's Castle (Mario Tennis Open) as an example. Only a single paragraph that could easily fit into the Bowser's Castle page. The only thing that would be lost is the infobox, but that's not needed to specify every individual tennis court in Mario Tennis Open, for this example. The only other parameters besides the game location is the ball speed and bounce strength, both of which can be stated in a single sentence. The Mario Tennis Open navbox already fulfills that role.

I'll take another example: Bowser Castle (baseball stadium). This one has a single paragraph for both Mario Superstar Baseball and Mario Super Sluggers. Again, both can be mentioned on the Bowser's Castle page, and if there's a need for accessibility to either game section, we could make it a disambiguation, if the community wants. The Japanese name is slightly different from Bowser's Castle but is still meant to be a descriptor for Bowser's Castle itself.

If you look at Luigi's Mansion (Mario Hoops 3-on-3), it's ridiculously short, and the gimmicks involving the ghosts are the only real distinctive feature that involves the environment of the mansion during gameplay.

Keep in mind this proposal will also concern short articles on names that are different to anglophones, such as Luigi's Mansion Court, but not to the original Japanese versions. Stages like Delfino Plaza Court have a different name, even in Japanese, so keeping that out of the scope of this proposal and perhaps for a separate one.

Also consider that the disambiguation pages for Luigi's Mansion (disambiguation) would be more cleared up with the benefit of these pages being merged so one can find actual different subjects that are named "Luigi's Mansion," not a backdrop location in a single-appearance context.

The following pages will be merged into the following if this proposal passes:

• Bowser's Castle (Mario Tennis Open), Bowser Castle (baseball stadium), Bowser's Castle (Mario Sports Mix), and Bowser's Castle (Mario Hoops 3-on-3) into Bowser's Castle
• Peach's Castle (Dribble Race course) and Peach's Castle (court) into Peach's Castle
• Luigi's Mansion Court, Luigi's Mansion (Mario Hoops 3-on-3), Luigi's Mansion (baseball stadium), and Luigi's Mansion (Mario Sports Mix) into Luigi's Mansion (location)

Again, Mario Kart is not under the scope of this proposal, so there won't be discussion over like merging Daisy Cruiser (baseball stadium) into GCN Daisy Cruiser.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Merge various Super Smash Bros. stages into their base pages

canceled by proposer
Accompanying my above proposal is a proposal to merge various Super Smash Bros. stage pages into their base articles. Besides the Song list, the pages are short enough that I think they can be integrated into the base article. Basically, the same arguments into my above proposal of merging sports locations apply here, though I will provide some SSB-specific reasons to the articles below (including the ones NOT covered by this proposal). It doesn't have as much gameplay distinction as the role-playing games, for example, which are being split for having a wide variety of features, such as items, enemies, and NPCs, so those needed more forms of accessibility. Though this isn't the main point to the proposal, I still want to say that the featured articles for Super Smash Bros. content are already on SmashWiki, and some may benefit from more prominence being given to the stage pages on their wiki.

To start, I'll give the example of 75 m (stage) and 75m. They're the exact same thing, just in the context of a Super Smash Bros. stage. This would allow the SmashWiki link to point to 75m and better convey to the reader that 75m is featured in the context of a Super Smash Bros. stage overall.

Peach's Castle isn't part of this proposal since it takes place away far above the actual castle, which is just a background graphic. For consistency and separate discussion, I'll leave out Princess Peach's Castle (Super Smash Bros. Melee) as well. Gamer (stage) will also not be covered since the base page is a minigame mode. Kongo Falls has retroactively received different naming, in English, Japanese, and other languages, so that won't be part of this proposal either. The Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee Mushroom Kingdom stages won't be covered, since their Japanese names are different and they don't give clear representation of Mushroom Kingdom as a whole; this also goes for Jungle Hijinxs (stage), which will not be covered by this proposal. I'd say Mario Bros. (stage), but there doesn't appear to be article on the corresponding location, from what it looks. Jungle Japes (stage) won't be merged to Jungle Japes since the origin is not considered by SSB to be DK64, despite the same names.

Stages like 3D Land and Yoshi's Story (stage) represent the overall theme of the game, and not a location from the game, so those will also not be within the scope of this proposal. Super Happy Tree (stage) is a gray area since it's an area with the Super Happy Tree in the background but not in any interactable capacity.

The following pages will be merged into the following if this proposal passes:

• 75 m (stage) and 75m
• Luigi's Mansion (stage) into Luigi's Mansion (location)
• Delfino Plaza (stage) into Delfino Plaza
• Kongo Jungle (Super Smash Bros.) into Kongo Jungle
• New Donk City Hall (stage) into New Donk City Hall
• Rainbow Cruise into Rainbow Ride (both take place in the same location and Rainbow Cruise has the same Japanese name)
• Rumble Falls (stage) into Rumble Falls
• Yoshi's Island (Super Smash Bros. Melee) and Yoshi's Island (Super Smash Bros. Brawl) into Yoshi's Island (location)

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

1. Axii (talk) These stages fundamentally have a different function and purpose from the stage they were based on (and it would be inconsistent to leave out the stages that are near identical to their base material).
2. Mario (talk) All these exceptions granted in the proposal create an unnecessarily complex tangled web and make me believe the right call is to leave these split. I view these stages the same vein how other spinoffs grant separate iterations of the same location, which we typically split. I believe we split several RPG locations already, or at least there is an ongoing proposal that gathered a solid consensus, due the large information these locations tend to have, too. You should consider the hypothetical argument of merging the other Luigi's Mansions and whatnot, which I believe is not a solid case. See how those pages are split at Luigi's Mansion (disambiguation).