MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{User|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used.
#The voting period begins 24 hours after the proposal is posted (rounding up or down to the next or previous full hour, respectively, is allowed). Proposers are allowed to support their proposal immediately, but all other users may only edit the Comments section during that initial 24 hours. Each proposal ends at the end of the day one week after voting start. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added on Monday, August 1, 2011, at 22:22 GMT, the voting starts at 22:22, 22:00 or 23:00 on Tuesday, August 2, and the deadline is one week later on Tuesday, August 9, at 23:59 GMT.
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it. Agreeing with or seconding a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted.
#Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the Comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may '''not''' remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an [[MarioWiki:Administrators|admin]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There should not be proposals about creating articles on an underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administration]].
#If the admins deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
<h3 style="color:black">Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format</h3>
This is an example of what your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what issue this Proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the Wiki handles that issue]</nowiki>
<nowiki>'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Voting start''': [insert a voting start time here, f.e. "January 1, 2010, 14:00". Voting start times are 24 hours after the time at which the proposal was posted, as described in Rule 2 above.]<br></nowiki><br>
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the voting start, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>
<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
__TOC__<!--
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
<br>
-->
<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
:''For a list of all settled Talk Page Proposals, see [[:Category:Settled Talk Page Proposals|here]].''
<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages affected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. There is no 24 hour delay between the posting of a talk page proposal and the commencement of voting, so no "Voting Start" line is needed. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, voting starts immediately and ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
#Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
===List of Talk Page Proposals===
*Merge [[Adventure Tours]] with [[Mario %26 Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games]] ([[Talk:Adventure Tours|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Co-Star Mode]] to [[Super Mario Galaxy]] and [[Super Mario Galaxy 2]] ([[Talk:Co-Star Mode|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Multi-Man Brawl]] to [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Multi-Man Brawl|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary]] with [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]] ([[Talk:Adventure Mode: The Subspace Emissary|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 28, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Lemon Drop]] with [[Salvo the Slime]] ([[Talk:Lemon Drop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Red Spike Buzzy]] with [[Spike Top]]. ([[Talk:Spike Top|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Double Dash!!]] to [[Rocket Start]] ([[Talk:Double Dash!!|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 29, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Top]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spiny|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Spike Blop]] with [[Spiny]] ([[Talk:Spike Blop|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split then Merge Voice Cast and Music Staff, from [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], into the staff  sub-article ([[Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Merge|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 1, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Kraid]] with [[Brinstar Depths]] ([[Talk:Kraid|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Pale Piranha]] from [[Piranha Plant]] and merge [[Piranha Plant (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]] with [[Piranha Plant]] ([[Talk:Pale Piranha|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': May 10, 2011, 23:59 (GMT)
==New Features==
==Removals==
==Removals==
===Less Merging and Unmerge some merged Articles===
''None at the moment.''


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


===Rules===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
*Do not merge or Propose to merge non-stub articles.Especially [[Enemies]]
*Un-merge Previously merged non-stub articles such as [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Pale Piranha]]
*The 1st rule do not apply to Administrators
I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Podoboo]]
deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble. I propose that there should be less suggestions of merging stuff, especially with good articles. Just because something looks similar or the "japanese names are the same" doesnt mean that one of the articles should be ruined.
(If merging prevents '''stubs''',then it is OK)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 27, 2011, 14:00 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': May 4, 2011, 23:59 GMT  


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}Per My Proposal
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Holyromanemperortatan}} Per Proposal. Side note: if this will help the wiki by not having important info removed then sure.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per my comment. I don't see what this proposal is based off of, except one example where, if my memory serves, there was a good reason for merging.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} We already have a system for this it's called the talk page proposal
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} Per my comment.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Zero777}} You're taking away the common user's free speech and replacing it with a communism-esque replacement with this proposal. Also, it states in your proposal ''" I think most of the time, Merging Hurts the Wiki. For Example, Merging [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Podoboo]] deleted most of the information on Lava Bubble."'' So what do you think you should do, A) Report this to a staff in their talk page or chat OR B) Start editing the freaking article!! Don't just sit around and complain that some info was taken out of the article. Also I'm getting the feeling that you assumed what "stub" means.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Merging is not harmful if it's done right; perhaps mistakes ''are'' made sometimes, but they can be fixed with subsequent edits or new TPPs if re-splitting them is necessary. Merging is a case by case process: general statements like "merging hurts the wiki" or assumptions like non-stubs all deserve to stay is going completely against how the wiki is run; sometimes, larger articles just need to be merged - it's not based on size, but on content. Also, there is no good reason for limiting merge proposals to admins only: everyone should always be able to make suggestions and TPPs.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per Walkazo. *sniffle* Oh my, that was a beautiful speech. I loved it.;~;
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{user|Xzelion}} Per Walkazo!
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - You cannot subdue suggestions, intended for the wiki's improvement, through a proposal. I won't stand for this.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} - Leave it! Per Walkazo! I love this speech, it's so beautiful! I'm going to cry. (Crying in tears)
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per my comments below.


====Comments====
====Comments====
first things first which articles are to be un-merged is that up to you or who is that going to be decided by also your starting time is wrong and so is your end time 
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
We can't put a limit on how many things can be merged. If something needs to be merged, we have to merge it. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Plus isnt that why we have talk pages to determine whether or not we need an article {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
From what I understand, you want to make sure merging is a last resort because the articles we're merging are good? We merge articles for various reasons. Some of those reasons could be considered invalid today, but you can't put a limit on merging. Suppose someone makes lavish articles for all the trophies in the Super Smash Bros. series. If this proposal succeded, we wouldn't be able to merge them because it would merge too much and the articles are too good to merge, which, if you didn't realize yet, are not good reasons. {{User|Reversinator}}
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
 
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
First of all, this proposal is vague. You do not specify which types of articles you want merged; instead, you make some vague reference to an article that is "good enough."
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
 
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
Second, you don't mention what type of limit is being enforced, only that one needs to be.
 
Third, sometimes merging is necessary. It's important to look at all the evidence and make a rational decision based off all the evidence.
 
Fourth, what articles are you planning on un-merging?
 
All in all, I see no reason whatsoever to support this, or to even have it proposed... {{User|Bop1996}}
 
@bop1996 I plan on having articles such as [[Lava Bubble]] and [[Pale Piranha]] unmerged.Also,the [[Badge]] page needs to be broken up by game,or by badge.
I think Stubs still need to be merged though.
 
@Reversinator I think good articles should remain independent.but stubs should be merged together. {{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}
 
@Yoshiyoshiyoshi What constitutes a good article? As for Badges, a single comprehensive article is, in my opinion, more beneficial than a series of short ones. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
 
And you still haven't explained who get's to decide what articles get to be un-merged or why we need to change the system when we have talk pages for this
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
@Yoshiyoshiyoshi Question what doesnt apply to Admins and another Question why not just make talk page proposals about this
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
@goombasshoe Only Administrators get to make merging TTPs,but anyone can vote on them.And most of the Non-Stub articles that were previously merged get un-merged
{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}
 
 
Then make a TPP if you want that. The badge page works very well with the current situation, no need to mess it up. If you think stubs need to be merged, then look at the power shot proposal below, in the comments. I.e. Marioguy's comment. Also, you still are using the ambiguous term "good article." {{User|Bop1996}}
 
and who gets to decide what get unmerged also why should admins be the only people to be able to make merging proposals
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
This whole proposal is based on your opinion that merging is always bad. Basically, you are just trying to impose ''your'' will on the whole wiki. Also, I wholeheartedly agree with GS15. Just because some people are admins does not mean that they are the only people who can make good decisions regarding splitting and merging.{{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
All of the Non-Stub Articles that were merged get un-merged.And I think Admins should only get to make Merging TTPs because it would make less unnecesary merging{{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}
 
@yoshiwalker Merging isnt always bad.I think that Meging things that dont need to be merged is though{{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}
 
If a proposal was made for an unnecessary merge, it would be opposed. As a reply to your second comment, you said yourself that "Merging hurts the wiki". {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
 
well i meant stuff like the Lava Bubbe thing.Read the talk on Lava bubble to know what i mean {{user|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}
 
all i see is that 13 people said yes and 5 said no which makes me believe they should be merged
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
 
In japan,all magikoopas are called kamek.Does this mean kamek should be merged with magikoopa?i think not
 
'''@Holyromanemperortatan:''' That will actually hurt the wiki. {{User|Zero777}}
 
@Zero777  yeah prolly since it will cause confusion as to what articles should be merged and which ones shouldnt
{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}


What are you trying to say?! This proposal is way to vauge. {{User|Superfiremario}}
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
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 [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|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 [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|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)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


===Remove Voting Start Rule===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
This rule was meant to encourage discussion. It wants to prevent people from voting so much that the proposal is already decided. However, I do not see how this can majorly impact proposals. I think all it does is create a major annoyance for most users, since most people overlook this rule and we have to remove the vote and say, "VOTING STARTS AT BLAH BLAH". Even I overlook this rule, and I don't bother to pay attention if a voting user broke this rule or what. Besides, we get a WEEK of discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion only.
 
All this rule, I think it does, is to make voting more complicated, and it pretty much accomplished that, since so many people break it.
 
While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided".
 
Besides, no other proposal gets this rule; not the featured articles and not the Talk Page Proposals, so I see no reason we need this.
 
I propose to remove this rule because it makes everything unnecessarily complicated, it is useless for those who aren't online every day, it is impractical for those who are online every day, and it is not present in all types of proposals.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
'''Voting start''': April 21, 18:22 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': April 28 23:59 GMT.


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} Let's delete this useless, unnecessary, and somewhat complicated rule that doesn't even apply to all proposals! I hope you guys agree on me on this.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} YES YES YES! Esptaily since I don't go by GMT, I never know when to start. IT STUPID
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all and my comment.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Per proposal
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all!
#{{User|Zero777}} Per comments, especially mine.
#{{User|SWFlash}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} I don't go by GMT. I go by Easern Standard Time. (EST). I think this is the best proposal eva!
#{{User|Phoenix}} Yes! Yes! Yes! 1000x yes! I was actually going to make a proposal about this myself, but since you beat me to it, I'm all for it! :D
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Gah! I hate having to wait to vote! Per LunaticGreenMalleo!:D
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; I myself have seen several proposals actually ignore this rule, and I agree with the fact that this policy complicates the voting process.
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Per Super Mario Bros.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} The idea behind the rule was supposedly to prevent a proposal from being swayed by a "flood" of votes in one direction, but from what I've seen, the rule simply moves the problem from the voting sections to the comments. It doesn't fix anything and add a new irritant, so yeah, get rid of it.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} I never really liked this rule, anyways. Per all.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The delay needlessly complicates things with no real benefit to show for it.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I completely forgot about this proposal. >_> Ironically, I would have supported it much earlier if I had been allowed to do it at the time I made that comment below. You see where I'm getting with this.
#{{User|Count Bonsula}} Per all.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Je regrette, mais c'est necessaire. Per my comments below.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per what ever he said up there and down there
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Mario4Ever in the comments and myself. The only answer I saw to my objections was one from BLOF that I chalk down to a matter of disagreement. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|yoshiyoshiyoshi}}Per Mario4ever
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


====Comments====
====Comments====
It's somewhat amusing how I want to support this proposal right now. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)


LGM, I had this exact idea to start this proposal too. Now I'm going to support it. The idea of it at first sounds great, but in reality, it does not help anything at all but create a nuisance. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


I'm really pulled on both sides of this proposal. I want to oppose because it gives time for some users to accept the fact this is for good and let it sink in to their minds. It will also give time to the proposer to make any error corrections and alterations to the proposal. Also, yes it is true people aren't online every day, but they'll be online eventually, if they don't, then they miss to vote on a proposal..... oh well. But I am questioned on why isn't this applied to FA or TPP; well I guess because the proposal for that was meant only for the proposals and nobody bothered to extend the rule to FA and TPP's. BUT here's my thought on supporting this: the proposal lasts for a week, there will be enough time for anybody to counter anybody's vote and for users to change their minds. It was made to give time to the proposer to check for errors, but the rules say that the proposer has three days to make alterations and error checks on the proposal, so I guess it is unnecessary, I'm going to support. {{User|Zero777}}
what about Donkey Kong (1981)? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:@Zero777 - But if you think it's unnecessary, why would you oppose...? {{User|Phoenix}} 17:45, 20 April 2011 (EDT)
:That would work for ''Donkey Kong'', but the original ''Mario Bros.'' and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)
::Fix'd {{User|Zero777}}


''While it leaves out one day for (possible) discussion only, I believe it is impractical. People aren't online every day, so once they log in after 24-hour break, the voting already started and we are back at the same problem: a proposal already "decided"''. How does allowing voting to take place immediately after the proposal is posted rectify this problem? What difference does it make whether or not there is a 24-hour delay between the proposal's posting and voting start time if there are people who aren't online constantly and are unable to vote immediately anyway? While I'm thinking of it, what difference does it make when someone votes if the proposal is on the page for a week? Surely, no one is busy to the extent that spending five minutes reading a proposal and typing <nowiki>{{User|Username}}</nowiki> in the appropriate section strains his or her schedule. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
===Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes===
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.


Yes, and also I think the rule of Voting Start should be backfired. Nice job, LeftyGreenMario buddy!
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.
{{User|Superfiremario}}


Hmmm, as for why we don't do this on TPPs and FA nominations, I happened to see an explanation for that. The TPPs and FA nominations are more out of the way and don't usually get jumped on as soon as they are proposed (although this may vary due to how many people are online when the action is proposed). Also, just because removing the vote is an annoyance doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, unless it gets really out of hand sometime in the future. I prefer the voting delay because, even if no one is there to read the comments, I'd rather comment on a proposal when the voting period hasn't started yet, and have that be more likely to influence the debate. Take, for instance, the DK series boss level split, I wasn't there when the proposal was proposed, and yet I was able to comment on the situation before the voting period started. I don't find it inconvenient either, but that may just be me. </long-winded ramble> {{User|Bop1996}}
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.
:I've been here before this rule got initiated and the voting start rule makes no difference whatsoever in opinions first made about the proposal. It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. Besides, I'm not the only one who dislikes this rule and having a voting start only for this, no matter how major it is, seems inconsistent along with other proposal-like stuff. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}


:Mario4Ever: Look, we're better off without it. It doesn't fix the problem, but the rule is useless for people that are not online every day and it punishes those that are online everyday. It started out with good intentions, but nowadays, I find it more of a hassle than a help. One week is enough for discussion, so I don't see why we need to reserve one day for discussion. Besides, the comments people make during the one-day delay is sometimes just, "Good idea! I will support this proposal!" or something like that. Really, we're better off without it. Besides, it complicates the process. By allowing users to vote after a proposal is created means that we do not have to check if they are within voting start. Voting start period is annoying for me, and no matter how much we remind them, users STILL break the rule. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
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?
::I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it. I think the one-day discussion is useful for allowing users to wrap their heads around the proposal, so to speak, enabling their votes to be based upon their reasoning and not on what the majority thinks. Users who come to these proposals and see a large number of support votes or oppose votes may be discouraged from voting because their opinions may do nothing to affect the results (though this is not always the case, as I was the sole opposer of {{User|Booderdash}}'s TPP to merge Ashley and Red), or they may pick whichever side has more votes, giving no thought to the proposal's potential benefit/harm to the wiki. The rule would be easier to follow if it were implemented on TPPs and FAs, but I realize that it is more difficult to get that approved than to get this removed.
::'''BabyLuigiOnFire''': ''It's still better to vote immediately because you can also express your opinion in your vote. And people can then discuss it in the comments and then they can either turn the tide or leave it as it is. '' Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
::: The delay is unnecessary, though. I don't see why we ''need'' this. It already proved to be more of a hassle than a help. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}


Besides, when I am ready to vote, 20 people already voted after voting start. This rule doesn't help me or the wiki greatly in my opinion. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
:I understand that, but removing the rule doesn't really do anything to fix that. Most people aren't ready to vote immediately after a proposal is posted, and regardless of whether the rule is in place or not, people are going to swarm the support and oppose sections once allowed, though I feel as if removing the rule would only decrease the amount of time in which this happens. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::Again, I'm not intending to fix this problem. The voting start, I believe, creates more problems than remedies them. I'm not in the wiki every day, and when I log in, I see a proposal that is already voted. This rule assumes that ''every'' user is logged in every day, but for a big deal of us, this is not the case. The rule wants to encourage discussion (I saw the proposal for this), but it doesn't really help the problem. I have not seen a major change after this rule was initiated, and ever since, I am getting more and more irritated by the problems it creates instead of fixes. I am now cracking from frustration this rule gives me (and possibly other users), and this is how I proposed this.{{User|LeftyGreenMario}}


"''Does having a delay cause users to develop retrograde amnesia or something? Why can't users do this once the voting start period begins?''" No, but I am not in the wiki everyday. There might be days where I revolve around the wiki the entire day, and some days where I am not there at all. There is no way of knowing when someone is going to propose something new. And I'm the impatient type and I like to vote to get things over with. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
:I'm not here on a daily basis, either, but (and not to be rude) I usually just check the recent changes (depending on how long I've been gone, I'll check the last 50 or the last 500) to see if there is a new proposal. The only time the voting start thing is an issue for me is when a proposal is posted in which I have a great deal of interest, though this is rare. I understand where you're coming from, though. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


I made the mistake of voting too early twice now, once on a proposal I made and once now on this proposal. I think its really annoying so I'm supporting this proposal.{{User|Tails777}}
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
:Oh, but you can vote in your own proposal whenever you want. The rule stated that. Anyway, feel my frustration :( {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
#{{User|Hewer}} I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} 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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} 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 ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|SMBTLL]]'' or ''[[Mario & Wario]]''.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.


:''I do have to admit that the voting start period is irritating on occasion, but to me, that's not reason enough to dispose of it.'' Of course that's not reason enough, Mario4Ever! I have other reasons to delete this rule too! Sort of late reply, but please read my proposal more carefully! {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
::I am going to barge in here; I still have no opinion on this, but that would be because I am evaluating the situation in my head using my logic. If I were using your proposal's logic to decide my opinion, I would be opposing as every point in your proposal is flawed.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} 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.


::Your first point, that the rule is too complicated, is the only coherent point there. There's not much to say in opposition to it, taking into consideration that the complexity of a rule is an opinionated factor of a decision, is that the workload placed on a user with inadequate knowledge of the rules and guidelines for proposals is very minimal - if you don't know how the rule works, the people who do know how will fix your mistakes for you. This means that, while for some this rule may be complicated (me, I understand it perfectly), the others who do understand it can fix mistakes made.
====Option 4: Do nothing====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”


::Your second point is referring to a minority of the general population of users who actually vote on proposals. As this point is pointing out disadvantages only for those users who are not online every day, which a large amount are, the point is moot. ADDITIONALLY I'd like to point out that it doesn't take more than one user to find a flaw with a proposal and point it out in the comments because after all, everyone (or I should hope everyone) is reading the comments section before voting.
====Comments====
 
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::Finally your last point, which I find rather amusing. Your point, reworded, is "this rule is not present in other forms of proposals, and therefore it should not be present in this one" - you know, the FA process involves creating a subpage for every article - maybe we should get rid of that, because that's not part of the proposals process. Or maybe we should invoke a one-week duedate on all FAs; that'll match them up with proposals! Now, what I'm trying to point out here is not that I can make a mockery of a situation, but that the rules for all of our different proposals are ''different''. In Featured Articles, it can only pass if the score is 5-0, with proposals the score can pass by any margin greater than three. There are tons of different circumstances that take place which invalidate this statement even further.
 
::So now, going back to my point of you really having only one point, your only point here is that the rule is too complicated; a point which I put up a strong argument against - this proposal's basis is not very sturdy and could crumble at any time. I'm not gonna vote now but if I don't see a more intelligent reason, I may vote later on.
 
::'''tl;dr:''' Your proposal really only does have one point, that it is too complicated - being too complicated is a very weak point as multiple users ''do'' get it and those users can fix the mistakes of the users who don't. So really this proposal has <u>one, weak, point</u> supporting it. I don't find that to be adequate and I hope those reading this comment don't either. {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
:Look, why are you assuming I do not know this rule? I KNOW how it works, many people KNOW how this works, and I don't make proposals too often However, I am becoming increasingly disenchanted with this rule. Rules were created to prevent chaos and stuff like that, but I do not know how this rule helps proposals in any way possible. This rule was meant to encourage discussion, but for some reason it's only discussion here. You are making a bad analogy here. Maybe I didn't get my point straight, but at least I don't understand why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule. They are different, but they still do not get some form of delay. Maybe people access it less often? I didn't see any reason for this when Talk Page Proposals were created. Maybe they should get this rule too? I fix people's mistakes frequently, due to their breaking the rule, and I wish that I don't have to do this. Same thing with supporters in FA nominations, but at least the rule sort of "removes" fan votes.
 
:You overlooked my point how I say, "It is useless and it proved to be more of a hassle than a help." I found this rule to be useless too, plus all my points. If it is really useful, it should be be at least present in Talk Page Proposals in some shape and form. Again, I KNOW the rule, and just because I know how it works doesn't mean I have to like it. ''Just because it is complicated doesn't mean I don't know how to do it''. I said that it makes the voting process more complicated, but you just dismiss this as, "Oh, but most of us know how to do it!". And complexity can be an objective thing. The more rules, the more complex, the more sophisticated. Now, most of our rules ARE necessary, so we don't have flame wars and undesirable stuff like that. However, when we can be a bit simpler, I suggest that we go simpler, so more people understand, more people don't break it, and it is less work for us.
 
:I don't even understand your argument of my second point. I said that people who are online every day get a delay and those who aren't will be in the same situation of 20 users already voting.
 
:And you are making a mockery using bad analogy. How nice of you. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
This is a GREAT idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted. It's POINTLESS!!!!!!! On the forst day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it! {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
:Rephrased: "This is a great idea, because when I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke a rule and voted. It's pointless! On the first day, over 9000 people aren't gonna vote on it!"
 
:Rephrased with all insubstantial/unreasoned parts removed: "When I made a proposal, I had to look up when to start (I don't use GMT) then I broke the rule and voted."
 
:Rephrased with a different context: "When I made a proposal, I actually had to read the rules to know how to do it. Then I accidentally voted on a proposal before voting start!"
 
:I would like to point out the last rephrase; when making a proposal you should be totally informed on everything, read the rules even if you do know how to do everything. And you accidentally voting before is not a crime; someone removed it and we went on with our days. Hardly worth all of the pain and suffering we will have if we pass an invalid proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::OMG I didn't see this! I'll respond now.
 
::I never assumed you don't know the rule, I never said you don't, I said people don't know how the rule works. This rule helps proposals by calling out the hidden flaws in proposals; multiple times people have been gung-ho about a proposal before realizing that it won't really help the wiki, just because you haven't seen these occasions does not mean they don't happen. And I don't recall making an analogy in the first paragraph, the only analogy I can find is a vague one; my references to the FA processes in the third paragraph.
 
::Secondly, I don't know why Talk Page Proposals don't get this rule, maybe we should go add that rule to talk page proposals. Maybe it's because TPPs get two weeks discussion, maybe it's because they're considered "less notable", I don't know, but that shouldn't be a reason to take out the rules in this thing; as I mentioned, the two things are different, we can't compare one with the other.


::I never overlooked any of your points; usefulness is not a set amount, you saying useless (and you saying it's more of a hassle than a help) is your opinion, and should not reflect any facts. And that was exactly how I dismissed your point; most of us know how to do it (though I don't recall using the word most) - the ones who do know can fix it; and if you're too tired to fix it yourself, leave it for someone else who's not too tired.
: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... [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)


::Finally when you say that when we have a rule that's not helping, we can make everything easier, yet you also admit that most rules are there for a reason - those aren't technically contradicting points, but they sure are close. Insert my point about uselessness being an opinion and not a fact and then that really doesn't make sense. Can we establish, for the length of this proposal, that, while the use may not be apparent to you, this rule ''does have a use?'' Or do you think that the rule has no use at all and could never help anything?
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)


::To clarify my argument to your second point. I am saying that while there may be a few users who don't come on daily, there are some users who are. And those users will find the flaws and the flaws will be there, in the comments section, the next day when the users who don't come on daily come on.
: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. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)


::Finally, I see no mockery and no analogy in my comments and I think you're just feeling sentiments that are not there. {{User|Marioguy1}}
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? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)


:::@ Marioguy1 I knew the rules of proposals, I just didn't know the rules of GMT. Good day to you all {{User|Luigi is OSAM}}
:I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per [[Template:Languages/doc|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. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)


::::Ugh, I hate arguing with people. I am sorry, but I am a very sensitive person. Analogies are comparisons, and I believe you are using a bad analogy. You think that because voting start is not in other proposals, so it shouldn't be in other proposals; BUT if that is the case, should we make proposals similar to FA's? Sorry if I'm not getting my point straight (I have a lot of trouble with this). Anyway, I'm not merely stating that just because Talk Page Proposals don't have this rule, so this rule should be taking out. It's either both have this rule in some shape or neither or else something seems strange and inconsistent. I think neither is the better choice.
::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). [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)


::::: I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying that the more rules we have, the more complex the process is, but most of them are necessary. If we have unnecessary rules, that just adds to the complexity, and if we can go simple, then let's go for it. I don't see any nearly-contradicting points there. And I believe voting start is useless, and it proved itself to be useless and annoying for most people (or so it seems). I groan in frustration every time someone breaks the rule or if I want to vote. Subjective it may be, but I never saw how this rule impacted proposals majorly.
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)? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)


::::: Besides, proposals are not irreversible. If we get a proposal that passes, but we despise it later on, we can make another one. Well, I'm not intending to refer to this rule, but again, this rule doesn't want a glut of users voting on a proposal so it might show undesirable results, but hey, let's just make another one and see how the results go! So why we have this rule? I don't know. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
: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? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)


'''@Kaptian K. Rool:''' What the heck are you trying to say?? {{User|Zero777}}
::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. [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)


'''@Kaptain K. Rool:''' Are you sure you understand what's being proposed? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
: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 "[[wiktionary:welcher|welcher]]" in ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions]]'', "[[wiktionary:bugger|bugger]]" in ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]'' and "[[wiktionary:bummer#Noun 3|bummer]]" in ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|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. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 19:56, February 14, 2025 (EST)
:It's no problem, just think of this as a discussion; we are discussing the best course of action. And what I am trying to point out is that talk page proposals and proposals have different rules, for example, Talk Page Proposals take two weeks to complete. Maybe the one week extension to the deadline makes the voting start rule meaningless? Either way, the rules of proposals and talk page proposals are not the same, so we cannot accurately compare them to eachother. The same goes for proposals and Featured Articles.


:What I am trying to point out with the "contradictory" point, is that saying this rule is useless is an opinion; some people see use for it, some people don't. I'm sure people have reason to see both ways, but the fact the remains that it is one person's word against another's as to whether the rule is useless or not.
===Include the show's title in home media releases of various ''Mario'' cartoons where it seems to be intended===
{{Early notice|February 24}}
Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.


:And I realize that you could always make a proposal to fix the mistake that was made, I just finished doing that with [[Talk:Gnat Attack|Gnat Attack]] and yoshiyoshiyoshi is doing it now with [[Talk:Pale Piranha|Pale Piranha]], but the process will always take over a month to complete; which is a long amount of time for something that could have been corrected with only one day extra in voting time. {{User|Marioguy1}}
''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World (television series)|Super Mario World]]'' all have [[List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! home media releases|home]] [[List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 home media releases|media]] [[List of Super Mario World (television series) home media releases|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?
[[File:The Bird The Bird front VHS cover.jpg|right|100px]] I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title ''{{fake link|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)|''The Bird! The Bird!'' (VHS)]] which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' have it like this. So why are these different?


==Changes==
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.


===Merge the special shots of Mario Power Tennis (Gamecube) into one article===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
This situation is just like the Super Strikes from Mario Smash Football. All the power shots don't need their own articles, they just creat stubs.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Tails777}}<br>
'''Voting Start''': April 16, 2011, 22:30 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>April 23, 2011</s> '''Extended''': April 30, 2011, 23:59 GMT<br>


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Tails777}} Per me.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!''
#{{User|SWFlash}} <s>First!</s> Per proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country: The Legend of the Crystal Coconut#Omit "Donkey Kong Country" from the titles of home media releases of the show|a prior proposal]] on doing the inverse.
#{{User|Zero777}} They are not stubs, but per my reason in the Super Strike Merge proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} For consistency.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all and myself! If the Super Strikes are merged, so does this!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the proposal Arend mentioned; this seems to be how the official releases are titled, so we should follow suit.
#{{User|Joeypmario}}Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} 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.
#{{User|Doopliss101}} Per all
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. This just makes sense for consistency.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per comments.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}} Comparing differences between two Power Shots gives a bigger difference than comparing two Super Strikes/Mega Strikes to each other. So for example, [[Koopa Troopa]]'s [[Water Bomb]] is '''always''' a drop shot and it slows the opponent down, while [[Koopa Paratroopa]]'s [[Energy Ball]] is '''always''' a lob shot and it spins the opponent around. Besides, there are 14 characters in [[Mario Power Tennis (Nintendo GameCube)|Mario Power Tennis]], and each character has '''both''' an offensive power shot and a defensive power shot. That would merge 28 shots into one article. The difference between [[Super Strike]]s and [[Mega Strike]]s are just aesthetic, they're no different to each other besides the way they look. This is why they were merged.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all
#{{User|Nicke8}} Per all.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} Per all.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per the user with the ridiculously long username.
#{{User|Luigi is OSAM}} Per DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per DK and DK vs B and BJ
#{{User|Kaptain K. Rool}} - Because.... theat clutters the articles together and makes it look bad.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.
====Comments====
====Comments====
The dates were all wrong. Voting start is a day after the proposal was made, which means it starts on the 16th, not the 15th; you also forgot to convert the time from EST to GMT (or incorrectly converted from some other time zone). And finally, mainspace proposals only go for one week, so this ends on the 23rd, not the 29th. How to format these dates and times is clearly explained in Rule 2: I encourage everyone to read it before making proposals. - {{User|Walkazo}}
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 [[Talk:The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video|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''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)


I hate when I have to say this, but '''a stub is not a short article'''. A stub is an article that, regardless of length, lacks information. If a short article does have all its information, it is not a stub. Get it right, people. {{User|Reversinator}}
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
:I seriously have to get a hammer and pound that sentence into people's heads >_>
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|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.


:A long time ago, we thought that all stubs were bad. We decided to merge all stubs into bigger articles; thinking that it would be great and we'd have no stubs. You know what resulted? Stuff like [[Gnat Attack#Watinga|this]]. Seriously, a boss of a game is merged into the game that it appears in! If the Shadow Queen article was a stub, would we merge that into PM:TTYD? I mean, honestly, sometimes stubs can be tolerated, but if you go overboard and constantly think "stubs = death" then you are bound to make [[Gnat Attack|mistakes]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
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.


::Well sorry, I just don't understand these things, I didn't know what stub means and I only say it on small articles/short sections of articles so I assumed they were small articles. {{User|Tails777}}
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: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


I don't find this to be useful. If this proposal passes, what will happen to [[Bowser#Fire Breath|Fire Breath]]? It appears in Smash Bros. as well. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}
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]].


@DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.: If Fire Breath appears in Smash Bros Brawl, it would be in Bowser's article. All characters special attacks are on their own articles. {{User|Tails777}}
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.


@Tails777 Fire Breath has it's [[Fire Breath|own article]]. Besides, every Power Shot is different enough. {{User|DK and Diddy Kong vs Bowser and Bowser Jr.}}
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.


===Merge all of [[Wario|Wario's]] Transformations Into one Article===
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.
This is similar to King Koopa's alter egos. I'm not talking about [[Tiny Wario]] and those transformations from the ''[[Wario Land]]'' series. I'm talking about transformations from ''[[Wario: Master of Disguise]]'' such as [[Thief Wario]] and [[Sparky Wario]]. Like the page, [[King Koopa's alter egos]], I think we should make a page called "Wario's Transformations" or just merge them to [[Wario]], or keep them. Three options I'll make. <br>


'''Proposer''': {{User|DKPetey99}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
'''Voting Start''': April 29, 2011 18:01 GMT<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2011 23:59 GMT


====Merge to Wario's Transformations====
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====
#{{User|DKPetey99}} I think it will be better to make one article instead of the 8 disguises he has.


====Merge to Wario====
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] 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.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.


====Keep it the Same====
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


====Comments====
====Comments====
The reason I proposed to merge King Koopa's alter egos was because it was literally just King Koopa in a costume. This costume didn't grant him any special powers or anything even similar to that, so they got merged. These forms, on the other have, all have distinct powers, like [[Fire Mario]], [[Metal Mario (form)|Metal Mario]], or [[Ice Mario]]. Also like those forms, these powers are obtained by obtaining a specific item. Yes, you can choose that power from anywhere after getting the item, but that doesn't make them any different than the other powers. Also, can you give a reason as to why you want them merged? Simply that they are similar to the alter egos of King Koopa, which is not true as I explained, is not a substantial reason. Bottom line, they should be kept separate. {{User|Reversinator}}
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. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk: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]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
===Blocked Users' Votes===
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.
Ach, headache. A headache is whatever I get when there is something on the wiki that does not fall under any policies. In this case, that thing would be the votes pertaining to blocked users. In the past, I have seen blocked users with their votes removed for being blocked, they have kept their votes there, I've even seen several times where the procedure was changed depending on the length of the block. I'm here to set something in stone about blocked users; specifically, how their votes are treated.


Now I have several options that I would consider accurate so let me explain them all:
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.


#All blocked user's votes are removed; no matter the length of the block.
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
#All permanently blocked user's votes are removed, but if a user's block expires before the end of the proposal, their vote remains.
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> 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.<br>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.</blockquote>
#All permanently blocked user's votes are removed, but if a user's block expires <u>two or more days before</u> the end of the proposal, then their vote remains.


All three options have their pros and cons; the first option will simplify things greatly, but it will unfairly treat users who are blocked for (hypothetically) one day. The second option will fairly treat everyone, isn't too complicated, but if a user is unblocked an hour before the proposal ends, will they really have time to change their vote (if they want to change it)?
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#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.


Finally the third point covers all possible problems and fairly treats all users, but it is very complicated. It depends what kind of balance we want.
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.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'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:
'''Voting Start:''' 28 April, 2011 (22:06 GMT)<br>
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
'''Deadline:''' May 5, 2011 (23:59 GMT)
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


====Option 1====
<references/>


====Option 2====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I think this option represents an accurate balance between the other two; and the chance of the blocked user being blocked until right before a proposal passes AND THEN wanting to change their vote are very minimal.
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option 3====
====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====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


====Do Nothing====
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} 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.


====Comments====
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
If anybody has any suggestions for options 4 and 5, I'd be glad to add them in any time in the next three days. {{User|Marioguy1}}
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!


:I respect what you're proposing here, but what I think you would need to do is to to set procedures in stone depending on the length of the block, and then go from there, if you know what I mean. So, for instance:
====Don't make a standard====


*24 hour block = Vote is not removed.
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
*24 hour block - 1 week block = Vote is not removed ''unless'' block expires after proposal ends.
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production 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? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
*1 week block and higher = Vote is removed.
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|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. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
*Infinite block = Vote is always removed under any circumstances (unless for some reason the user's block expires while the proposal is still active, but again, this would have to be in accordance with the "24 hour block - 1 week block" policy).
::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. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


This isn't a perfect procedure by any means, but food for thought at any rate, right? {{User|Phoenix}} 18:28, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
::But if we have a TPP which just begun and then a voter is blocked for one week, one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed. That seems like a big waste of time; my way, his vote won't be removed unless his block is obviously going to exceed the ending of the proposal. {{User|Marioguy1}}
''None at the moment.''
 
:::"...one week later the TPP will only be half-done and his vote will have been removed." Well, yes, but I said that in the case of a block lasting for 1 week, the vote is not removed unless the block expires ''after'' the proposal ends. Since the block, in this case at least, will expire within the time limit of the proposal (TPP), then it should be fine, because by the time the proposal ends, the user will be unblocked, and will regain their credability as a legitimate voter... {{User|Phoenix}} 18:51, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
 
We should also take other circumstances into consideration, such as the reason for the user's block. For example, if the user was banned for sockpuppeting or vandalism, his/her vote will probably be removed, but if the user was banned for editing a page multiple times, his/her vote probably won't be removed. {{User|ThirdMarioBro}}
 
:Well, okay, but if we do that, then are we going to take those factors into consideration in conjunction with the length of the block, or independent of the block length...? {{User|Phoenix}} 19:02, 27 April 2011 (EDT)
:@Phoenix: So what you're saying is that a user who's block is over one week long yet still expires during the voting period would have to re-add their vote? Wouldn't that just be redundant?
 
:@ThirdMarioBro: Not really, a block is a block, if  user is blocked for three weeks for sockpuppeting then their vote is invalid; they have no ability to change the vote or remove it. The same goes for a block of the same length but for editing multiple times (which is not a blockable offense). {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
I really believe that the first option should be chosen because I'm the kind of person who expects people to follow the rules or else they'll have to face the consequences, since staff unofficially and officially warn users of their actions on not to do them, they get the consequence of not following directions. {{User|Zero777}}
:Actually Zero, you have a point there...I just might change my vote to that...if a user did something wrong, anything worthy of a block, why should we care about making things convenient for them? {{User|Marioguy1}}
 
I have a suggestion; instead of doing anything above, we could wait until the ''end'' of the proposal. Then, we could check each user to see whether they are blocked and remove blocked users' votes then. {{User|Mariomario64}}
 
What about blocked user's proposals? Will they be deleted or kept? {{user|SWFlash}}
:Deleted. Rule 10 states that the proposer must take action as soon as their proposal passes: they can't do that if they're blocked. They also can't participate in the discussions and address users' concerns during the proposal, which is not good. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::What about 24-hour ban? {{user|SWFlash}}

Latest revision as of 10:26, February 23, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 23rd, 16:27 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  3. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  10. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  13. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  14. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  15. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  17. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  18. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its own two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then "Oppose" wins for that option by default. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Comments

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

Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using {{Italic title}}, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do not serve a utility purpose, such as the various "users that know a given language" categories.
As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be that hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]" instead of just "[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "[[Category:" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)

even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use Template:Italic title in the category pages. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)

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

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 Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)

what about Donkey Kong (1981)? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.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

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)

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

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 24 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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?

Front cover for "The Bird! The Bird!" VHS

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

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

Oppose

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. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)

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

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 1 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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

Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section

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) Mario from the opening cutscene of Mario Party 6 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.

Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)

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. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)

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

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[1]:18
  • another instance[1]:20
  1. ^ a b Smith, John (1985). Super Mario Bros. Official Guide. McPublisher Publishing ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 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.

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!

Don't make a standard

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)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4752505"