MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/74

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

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

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

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

Support

1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Do nothing

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new parameters for the templates are as follows:

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

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

{{iw}}

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

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

Gravity Rush

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

Banjo-Kazooie

{{wp}}

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

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

Nintendo 3DS

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

WikiProject Video games

{{fandom}}

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

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

Incidental 6

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

Battle for Bikini Bottom

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

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

Support: Add the extra parameters

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

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

Oppose: Keep as is

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

Comments (wiki linking)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retool

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

Comments in other languages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

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

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venus flytraps

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

Pitcher plants

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

Sundews

• Munchlesia
• Seed Weed
• Thorn Weed
• Venus Guytrap

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

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)

Create the Venus flytraps category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Create the Pitcher plants category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

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

Create the Sundews category

Deadline: March 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments (Carnivorous plants)

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

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

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

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

As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Support: Let's-a go!

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: I tell you hwat.

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

Comments (Get the hint?)

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