MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Support: now it can close early again)
 
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>
==Removals==
#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. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and [[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guideline]] proposals ''must'' include a link to the draft page.
''None at the moment.''
#Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for Writing Guidelines and Talk Page Proposals, which run for two weeks. ('''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 one week later on Monday, August 8, 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]].
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#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.
#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.
#Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
#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.
#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|administrator]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that cancelled proposals must also be archived.
#If the administrators 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.
#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]].
#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>
==Changes==
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]".
===Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.===
-----
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like [[Cape Mario|swinging a cape]], [[Flying Squirrel Mario|jumping in the air]], or even a slew of [[Link|Link’s moves]]! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding [[Tail whip]])
<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>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT.]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if [[Builder Mario]] had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if [[Mole Yoshi]] had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the [[Super Pickax]] had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
-----
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
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.
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])


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".
I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared to base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.


__TOC__<!--
Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would [[Mega Yoshi]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Even though one needs to know how to Tail Swipe to beat all Mega Yoshi areas? Would [[Penguin Mario]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? Which is main unique thing about it, given Ice Balls are from [[Ice Mario]] and good swimming is from [[Frog Mario]]? If we gave the field form of [[Luiginoid Formation#Ball|Luiginary Ball]] a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer? Again, something necessary to complete the ball's tutorial area?


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how [[Dash]] handles the [[Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4431004&oldid=4421941 Relevant Edit]) and the [[Spin Dash]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4435629&oldid=4431024 Relevant Edit]). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.


This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on [[Spin Jump]], Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on [[Swim]], Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on [[Roll]], and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely [[Fireball]], [[Ice Ball]], [[Hammer]], and [[Bubble]]. Builder Boxes are [[Crate]]s, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with [[Superball Mario]] years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. [[Yoshi]]'s [[Swallow]], [[Egg Throw]], et al, [[Baby DK]]'s [[DK Dash Attack]], [[Diddy Kong]]'s [[Diddy Attack]] and [[Barrel Jet]], and [[Rambi]]'s [[Super move|Supercharge]] and [[Charge (Donkey Kong Country series)|Charge]] are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. [[SMB2 Mario]] is bizarre, but [[Crouching High Jump|charge jump]] is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' proper, and the article doesn’t have a ''Super Mario Maker 2'' section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.


Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut [[Fly]], an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a [[User:Salmancer/List of methods of flight|userpage]], based on the existing [[List of power-ups]]. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article. As the various contexts of Fly are not the same kind of action to begin with, the article will become {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}. This broadens the scope to fit all of the components. (Note how "flight" is not a proper noun).


<br>
[[Tail whip]] was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into [[Raccoon Mario]] for 2D games and [[Tanooki Mario]] for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect.  While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of [[White Raccoon Mario]] and [[White Tanooki Mario]] to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. [[Tail]]s are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to [[Cape]], which used to compile the yellow capes of [[Cape Mario]] and [[Superstar Mario]] into a listicle before this [[Talk:Cape#Clean up this article to include only information in the Super Smash Bros. series|proposal]] reduced it to only the Smash Bros. attack.)
-->


<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
Oh yeah and I guess [[Strike of Intuition]] is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to [[Detective Peach]]. Given everything else, it gets merged too.
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]].''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<h3 style="color:black">How To</h3>
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list with the name {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}====
#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.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.
#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. ('''All times GMT.''')
#*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it 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 moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is====
*Split Flying Question Block from [[Question Block]] ([[Talk:Question Block|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 15, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Move [[Waluigi Pinball]] to {{fakelink|Waluigi Pinball (Course)}} ([[Talk:Waluigi Pinball|Discuss]])  '''Deadline''': July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split [[Giant Banana]] from [[Banana]] ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': <s>July 3, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>July 10, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> July 17, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Dry Dry Desert (course)]] with [[Dry Dry Desert]] ([[Talk:Dry Dry Desert|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 18, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Split the Spike Pillar section of [[Pillar]] from it. ([[Talk:Pillar|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 19, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Mention unofficial [[SMA4]] level names in articles to help minimise confusion ([[Talk:Super_Mario_Advance_4_e-Cards|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': 22 July 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Move [[Expresso II]] to {{fakelink|Expresso the Ostrich (Donkey Kong Country 2)}} ([[Talk:Expresso II|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Power Gauge]] with [[Health Meter]] ([[Talk:Power Gauge#Merge Power Gauge with Health Meter|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' July 25, 2011, 23:59 GMT


==Writing Guidelines==
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list with the name {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}====
===MLA Format===
All articles should be written with the most updated version of MLA Format. This will help in the eternal preservation of ''always citing your sources.''
 
'''Proposer:'''{{User|Plumber}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' July 23, 2011, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Plumber}}For clarity
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; From the sounds of this, what Plumber is doing is suggesting we change our quotations and citations to a well-known, credible standard. I don't know why we shouldn't upgrade to a more credible standard, so I'll offer my support to this proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Per proposal.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Regulating our reference formatting is a good idea, but I feel like it would be better to go about this by drafting a policy page with our own structure (based on MLA, but tailored to our specific needs) and ''then'' making a proposal. A vague, one-sentence statement (with a one-sentence justification) is far to little to go on, especially when hundreds of pages will be effected by the unspecified changes.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per Walkazo
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; MLA format shouldn't be directly used on a website like this, in my opinion. Also, per Walkazo.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Walkazo has a good idea.


====Debate====
====Oppose: Status quo====
What is MLA? {{User|Xzelion}}
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, <s>so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate [[Mariowiki:Once and only once]]</s> {{color|purple|EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find}}. Furthermore, we do not merge ''character''-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-''Mario'' characters in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series) - for instance, look at [[Scuttle]] and [[Flutter Jump]] - so why should we do so with forms?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.


:Modern Language Association. {{User|Phoenix}}
====Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)====
::See [http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ here], Xzelion. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


:::Okay, that is seriously freaky, I was just gonna link to that... :O {{User|Phoenix}}
Question; would this merge [[Fireball Punch]], and would this failing result in re-instating [[Talk:Dangan Mario|Dangan Mario]]? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


Won't this be a massive overhaul of practically every single article on the wiki? {{User|Dr Javelin}}
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Once_and_only_once&diff=4723954&oldid=4372233 retired]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::<s>I CAN READ YOUR MIND, PHOENIX!</s> I've never found a better source on MLA, so I figured that if I didn't link to it, someone inevitably would. @Dr Javelin: That depends on what exactly needs changing. On that note, Plumber, would you mind clarifying exactly what you propose to do? {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Thanks, wish I'd known that before. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


:@Mario4Ever - Yeah, my last two college English teachers practically forced us to use that when typing our assignments, so, needless to say, that was the first thing that popped into my head... {{User|Phoenix}}
Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the [[Luigi Cap]]. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..
<blockquote>After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies. </blockquote> - [[Penguin Mario]]
The system works! It's repeated for [[White Raccoon Mario]] in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for [[Power Squirrel Mario]] to [[Flying Squirrel Mario]], with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


It won't be a massive overhaul of the article on the wiki besides making source clarifications more useful. Wikis adhere to a rough version of MLA anyhow. The effects of this proposal are to be minor. {{User|Plumber}}
"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:How minor? {{User|Xzelion}}
::Basically this only changes citations and ''maybe'' quotations (like where the periods go and stuff, not the actual templates). Also standardizes the English to American English, but that's already done on the wiki as a whole. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Standardizing the English doesn't make sense if the article is already written in British English (or vice-versa). As this is an international wiki, both variations are allowed, and changing one to the other is actually a warnable offense. It sort of operates on a first-come, first-served basis. {{User|Mario4Ever}}


I agree with Mario4Ever. We made a proposal to stablish that British English can be used here. {{user|Coincollector}}
Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until ''Super Mario 3D Land'', despite it being usable by that form in ''Super Mario Bros. 3''? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine. <blockquote>In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, '''in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves''', making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' section.
:<blockquote>However, the form's mechanics are different from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing {{button|3ds|X}} or {{button|3ds|Y}}) and glide (now done by holding {{button|3ds|A}} or {{button|3ds|B}}, as with [[Cape Mario|Caped Mario]], rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario 3D Land'' section.
:Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the ''3D Land'' text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat ''3D Land'', is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the [[Tanooki Mario]] page on Super Mario Wiki!"
:::In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on [[Tail whip]] to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::::I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is ''Mario Kart'' Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in ''Mario Kart Tour'' with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a ''Mario Kart'' series "sentence long section with a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::::IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


Well MLA includes Canada, so I suppose we could grandfather Britain into it. But that's distracting from the main point, which is primarily that of quotation and citation, which so desperately need essential reforms. {{User|Plumber}}
===On the leading "Princess" for Peach/Daisy/Rosalina, and/or lackthereof===
Brace yourselves--this is gonna be a long one.


May you please elaborate on that, because I'm still not sure what you trying to do. {{User|Zero777}}
In July of last year, jan Misali created a proposal to [[Talk:Princess Daisy#Move to "Daisy"|remove the leading "Princess" from the article name for "Princess Daisy"]]. This failed 15-18, as people were interested in a proposal to move Peach alongside this. In November of last year, jan Misali created a follow-up proposal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"|do exactly this]], which failed again; among other concerns regarding redirects, most of the support was split between moving both Peach and Daisy to their Princess-less counterparts, and just moving Daisy, leaving the opposition in the lead. Guess third time's the charm.
::I don't really understand what is going to happen. Could you show us some examples? {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
:::Hello Plumber, are you there? May you please answer our questions? {{User|Zero777}}
Just Google MLA Standards sonny ;) {{User|Plumber}} 01:25, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
::::All that does is inform people what MLA is; it does nothing to explain exactly what you plan to do according to its standards (there's quite a lot of info, as you can see when clicking on the above link of mine). {{User|Mario4Ever}}


==New Features==
The question is simple; do we remove "Princess" from the names of the [[Princess Peach]] and [[Princess Daisy]] articles? Time and time again, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|we've removed or truncated]] [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|full names or particles]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|to more common names]]. However, for whatever reason, the "Princess" particles for Peach and Daisy stick, despite Nintendo being very hit-or-miss about how required these are, ''especially'' for Daisy, whose "Princess, despite never doing anything royal outside of her debut" status has been acknowledged, officially, multiple times.
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
To recap the cases in favor of these renames for people that didn't read those first two proposals, the case for Daisy in particular is very strong, so we'll start with her. Simply put, Nintendo so rarely calls her by the name of "Princess Daisy" that it's starting to become a surprise when they ''do'' call her that in things like [[:File:Hot Wheels Princess Daisy Character Car Packaging.png|HotWheels character cars]]. To re-iterate a point made in jan Misali's original proposal, the count of times where Daisy is overtly referred to as "Princess Daisy" outside of manuals or other such paratexts can be counted on two hands, and even then, only barely; once in ''[[Super Mario Bros. Print World]]'' (which also erroneously calls Peach "Daisy" at one point), [[Mario Superstar Baseball|the two]] [[Mario Super Sluggers|baseball games]] and ''[[Fortune Street]]'' interchange "Daisy" and "Princess Daisy" in dialogue but all UI uses just "Daisy", ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' being in a similar boat but with in-game descriptions for [[Super Mario Run#Remix 10|Remix 10]] instead of dialogue, and ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]'', where Palutena calls her that. In every other case, including her own debut game, she is generally called "Daisy".
===Reform MarioWiki:Proposals===
As two old users, we jointly feel that the decision-making system pre-MarioWiki:Proposals was superior to the current system. The current system of MarioWiki:Proposals is based upon popularity contests. The previous system involved discussion on the Community Portal and Talk:Main page. This new proposal would restore any potential problems to be discussed on Talk:Main page, not with "support" and "oppose" columns, but genuine ”bona fide” arguments and discussion. When consensus has been reached, the fate of the "proposal" will be decided. This was the way the system worked before the infamous and perfidious troll {{User|A Link to the Past}} tricked {{User|Porplemontage}} and {{User|Wayoshi}} into creating the proposals (only after his disastrous MarioWiki:Peer Review scheme had failed; Proposals were made largely as a concession to his whining). If this measure passes, it shall go into force July 17, 2011, although any Proposals that still need to expire will be left to expire at their natural time.


EDIT: MarioWiki:Proposals will still serve as the main place for talk page proposals. Many thanks to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} for bringing that up.
For Daisy, there is also the strange asterisk that is her [[Princess Daisy (film character)|film equivalent]], but given the context of the plot of the film itself--that Daisy is unaware of her own royal status for the bulk of the film, and is simply referred to as just "Daisy" for most of it, we personally think it's fair to move her to "Daisy (film character) and add a Full Name parameter to clarify her "Princess Daisy" title she has towards the end. That being said, [[:File:SMBFilmCard11.jpg|even her own official trading card just calls her Daisy]], and apparently the "Princess Daisy" title only gets dropped on the back of "Sad Goodbyes", which we lack an image for.


'''Proposers:''' {{User|Xzelion}}, {{User|Plumber}}, and {{User|Master Crash}}<br>
The case for Princess Peach is less strong, partially thanks to the release of ''[[Princess Peach: Showtime!]]'', a game in 2024 that makes rather overt use of "Princess Peach"; however, it is worth noting that Nintendo still does play rather fast-and-loose with the "Princess" particle for her as well. Most spinoffs will truncate the "Princess" off of her name, as far back as ''[[Mario Kart 64]]'' and even after the release of ''Showtime'', later that same year, ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'' also [[:File:SMPJCSSUnlocked.jpg|truncated the "Princess" off of Peach's name]]. While we acknowledge it's odd to laser in on exactly one game, ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' just calls her "Peach", and that is one of the best-selling games in the entire Mario franchise.
'''Deadline:''' July 16, 2011, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
We've seen various arguments against these, and aside from "personal preference for preferring particles", which we obviously can't argue with (at least, not without looking silly), we can't say we understand the majority of them:
#{{User|Xzelion}} &mdash; Per Plumber.
*Concerns were risen about removing royalty particles from other article names, such as [[Princess Shokora]] or [[Princess Shroob]] or [[King Bob-omb]] or [[Prince Mush]] (never mind that in his case, it's a stage name and not royalty). In those cases, the characters have ''never'' been referred to without their particles that we could find unless [[You're the Bob-omb|there was already an older name in the first place]], such as "Big Bob-omb" for "King Bob-omb" (it's possible there's remote dialogue or an obscure Manga appearance we don't have on-record, but we're doubtful). These would retain their particles, as per our [[MarioWiki:Naming|Naming policies]] determining that the most common English name is what is used, and in these cases, the particle is included almost 100% of the time. In contrast, Nintendo has been fairly interchangeable with Peach and Daisy's "princess" particles, and in Daisy's case, her particle has only become increasingly rarer as time goes on. If instances were located where the aforementioned characters lacked their particles short of the Big/King Bob-omb example, that would be something worth acknowledging, but in their cases, the particles being excluded is overwhelmingly the exception, not the norm.
#{{User|Plumber}} &mdash; Per Xzelion ;) See how that's all one needs to get a vote? I think this case is justified since we wrote the proposal, but you know what I mean.
*Concerns have been risen about the [[Peach]] and [[Daisy]] article titles potentially referring to generic subjects; however, as of writing this proposal, both "Peach" and "Daisy" directly lead to their corresponding princesses anyways by means of redirects. Other subjects are instead given a "For <nowiki><x>, see <y></nowiki>" in the Princess' articles introductions. These redirects are already present as-is, and these changes wouldn't change how a search lands.
#{{User|Master Crash}} &mdash; Per all
*For internet traffic, given Peach and Daisy already lead to these articles, we still fail to see how this would impact much, unless we intentionally chose to not leave a redirect after a move; it should go without saying that, if we were to make a move of this magnitude, we would absolutely be leaving a redirect.
#{{user|SWFlash}} I have to agree with this proposal. Supporting the proposal without describing why does one thinks it should be so is just bumps it and, sometimes, the wiki may end up to be in even worser situation than it was before the proposal. The good proposals may be unresolved just because one have said the good option to sage the proposal and everyone're just agreeing with him/her. But, of course, some users may be not creative enough to think about their options and they just want the proposal to be settled, but, I think, it's their problems.
*On a meta level, for the "would prefer one, but not the other" angle that was part of the reason the second proposal failed, we have since introduced a poll format to more adequately determine more nuanced situations like this, without risking support being split between two groups and being out-numbered overall.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} I love this proposal! This is my favorite time to per all for this one! Seriously, that is my favorite kind! So... PER EVERYONE!!!
*While this was not mentioned in the original proposals to our awareness, we do acknowledge that some people may be concerned about the costs of labor of changing a bunch of links; however, not only could this trivially be an automated rename, something our proprietor already does fairly regularly with template names, even if this were somehow unworkable, we already have ample tools to manually perform such a change built into MediaWiki itself. We are well-aware of what this wiki's userbase can do when it comes to making these mass-changes, and we think we have a very capable userbase when it comes to deploying a change like this, either automatically or by hand.
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per all does seem to be used a lot. Mostly it's used for friendship. I was actually goanna make this proposal myself, but I didn't think people would approve of my idea. Per all
#{{User|ThirdMarioBro}} Per DKPetey99. I am getting tired of people just "going with the flow" and labeling their vote as "per all".
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all, especially Dr Javelin & SWFlash. :)
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Making decisions through intelligent discussion, rather by a simple vote count restricted by time limits, seems much more understandable. Per the proposers.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} This makes sense. I think some people put "per all" in their votes, but they don't really understand what they are voting for.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per proposal and everyone else's comments. In my opinion, this is a much better way to decide on proposals.


====Oppose====
There are also two characters we think are worth acknowledging, one brought up by jan Misali when we shared this proposal's draft with them, and one we noticed ourselves. For jan Misali's part, there's [[Bowser]], or rather, King Bowser... Or rather, how in-frequently Bowser is known as "King Bowser". It's to the point where mentions of "King Koopa" as he appears in the ''DiC'' cartoons severely outnumber the amount of times Bowser is actually called "King Bowser" outright. This is exceedingly non-contentious, and while a [[King Bowser]] redirect has existed since 2006, we can't tell when the last time "King Bowser" was overtly used in dialogue. All we can really say is, having played ''[[Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser]]'' recently, it's not in that, with Bowser usually just being referred to as, well, Bowser, with the occasional uses of "Lord" or other offbeat honorifics instead of "King".
#{{User|Walkazo}} - What worked in the old days doesn't necessarily translate to how things work now: the community and its dynamics have changed a lot over the years. There are a lot more users now, meaning discussions could potentially be dragged on forever: that's the advantage of deadlines (and the Clear Majority rule makes sure things that aren't settled by the deadline don't just pass). Popularity-based voting is bad, but it's not necessarily the driving force between "per"s, and if someone says everything that needs to be said, it is completely fine for others to per them. Even if all the people on the one side have something to add to the argument, ultimately, if more people agree with one person's idea (which they "per"), that idea should be used. To quote ''Star Trek'', the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Besides, debates already happen in proposals, and proposals can be changed and replaced if better courses of action are identified. While free-flowing discussion might make this a ''little'' more natural-feeling, the lack of rules and structure could easily backfire, and will certainly be harder to archive. And who's to say popularity won't still be a factor in discussions: paraphrasing is just as easy as "per"ing.
#{{User|Zero777}} Oh the reform proposal is to debate until a decision is reached whenever (not by a deadline). Walkazo is right, that will drag on longer then the Starting Planet Proposal, per. And since were proposals popularity contests?
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - I pretty much agree with Walkazo on this one, but I'd like to go into something in conjunction with what she said towards the end of her comment. A lot of the supporters here seem to support solely to get rid of "Per" votes. However, those who do should stop and think about this for a moment. Specifically: How is this proposed system going to do anything about that? Counting arguments instead of heads? Is that going to fix it? Not at all. It is very, ''very'' easy to take an argument and rephrase it in a way that makes it appear like an entirely new argument. This older system will be just as exploitable than the one we are currently using. "Per" votes will not be eliminated by this change; they will just resurface in a different form. And then we will have to deal with those.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - I'm changing my vote. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It's more like a democracy, which it should be when making decisions like this. Also I agree with Zero that if we had to have full consensus then it would take forever to make a decision. Also, per Edofenrir.
#{{User|twentytwofiftyseven}} Hahaha. Ironically, one guy like NARCE could filibuster the proposed system forever. Per all.
#{{User|Supremo78}} - Simply, the argument can still continue in the proposal still having the phrase "Per all". All it is is agreeing, which is what commonly people use. While I realize some people may just put it there just to vote with their friends, is this proposal really going to change that? A continuing argument is like court, which is not what we do here. Making decisions should be simpler than "court". However, some people who want to agree aren't just voting with their friends, may not have something to say, but: I agree (what Per is). People will never know which one the user is trying to do, so just leave it alone all together. Also, like Walkazo said, proposals may go so long, it may be over 2 times of that that the proposal {{User|Phoenix}} did (No Starting Planet Left Behind!) will last over 2 months. That's just not a good way to reach consensus.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} I'm not convinced an argument-only system would be that preferrable. One thing endemic to e-arguments is that they are frequently "won" not by the actual merits of the position presented, but rather by sheer repetition, as one or more participants repeat their stances ad-nauseum up until the other side gets bored or tired (and I was going to use the example of our friend ALinkToThePast/NARCE, but 2257 beat me to it). Of course the matters can be ultimately decided by the administrators - but then that kind of defeat the point of changing the system. I won't deny the current system is sometimes victim of the Popularity Contest/Sheep mentality phenomenom, but strong arguments ''can'' and often ''do'' change the tides of adebate, and I think the proposal as they are now have worked reasonably well. Also, per everything Walkazo said.
#{{User|Phoenix}} There is nothing whatsoever drastically wrong with the system we use currently, and I very highly doubt that the proposed system will make anything any better than it is now, even if it happened to work out well in the past. If I could see it improving the overall decision making process, I would support, but I honestly cannot see it turning into anything less than a travesty. As it is, I seriously doubt that the majority of users are so lazy or shortsighted that they would ignore the important issues at hand and only per the arguments of their friends or per arguments without fully realizing what it is that they are doing. Does that have the potential to happen? Possibly. Does that mean that the entire system is ineffective and detrimental? I don't think so.
#{{User|Hypnotoad}} As much as I'd like to avoid a simple "per" reasoning, pretty much everything I can think about has been said, so per all.
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} per Walkazo after reading her comments i find the proposal system to be just as good if not better than the old system.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Even though the "per" reasoning can be annoying at times, it is even more annoying and redundant to restate the exact points that have already been said. So in general, per all.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} I agree with the opposers. Also, there are too many users to settle proposals in the way they used to be settled. The arguments would become extremely long and last forever. The current way makes everything more organized, and it helps you tell who is on what side more easily. Some people may vote on a side just because their friend is voting there, but they are outnumbered by the number of users who vote on the side they are sure is best.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Even though I'm still on hiatus, I think that this is such an important issue that I needed to vote anyway. I don't want to argue about what may or may not have happened in the past with User A or User B. That being said, the current system works quite well as it is imho, and the new system wouldn't work better as per everyone above, so per all.
#{{User|Young Master Luma}} The system currently used is much simpler than the one proposed, which (in my opinion) attracts more people to vote. On a wiki with so many users, it would be mildly chaotic to let all the users argue about something just to often come to a quite ambiguous conclusion.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - The "”bona fide” arguments and discussion" is the "comments" section of the proposals. Support and oppose columns are much more organised and simple than just cluttered argument. It's easier to find out the end result, too. If we reform this page, how will we know when a proposal has passed? Who will check, and when? And would there be debate even after the end result? If most of the supporters are voting to get rid of the "Per" system, it's quite ironic they're doing it themselves. Per all, especially Walkazo and Edofenrir.
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} "Per" all (Horrible pun).
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Although I joined in 2007, I assume that that event you mentioned took place before I jooined, for in the two weeks I was active after joining, I voted in some proposals that seem to have the same basic formula as the ones today (One of my main memories of late 2007 MW is Stumpers' tirades on the Proposals page). I have no idea then of the changes you propose, so I shall agree with all these good arguments.


====Debate====
However, to us, the ''real'' smoking gun for why a move like this would not only make sense, but be perfectly fine for the wiki, has been sitting right underneath our noses the entire time. [[Rosalina]], or should we say Princess Rosalina? Rosalina has been called a Princess from sources dating as far back as 2010 and as recently as 2023. She's commonly colloquially known as a Princess by fans. Heck, [[Princess Rosalina]] is, as of writing this proposal, a valid redirect to her article, and her infobox states her full name is "Princess Rosalina". However, her article has sat at the title of "Rosalina" since its inception back in 2007, with the Princess redirect only being made in 2014. Rosalina is a Featured Article, so her page naturally receives a ''lot'' of traffic and scrutiny, but nobody seems to have questioned if it would be worth moving her article to "Princess Rosalina" to match the other two princesses; and while one could argue that Rosalina is "not much of a princess", that naturally begets the response that neither is Daisy, who keeps the particle anyways. There's not really any reason we can think of why Daisy should keep her particle if Rosalina hasn't ''ever'' held one and it's seemingly never been questioned, and from there, we could understand removing the particle from Peach's name for parity's sake. (Even still, if you really wanted to, we've provided an option to, in addition for what to do to the "Princess" particles in Peach & Daisy's names, if we should add one to Rosalina's name, or keep it absent. We don't really intend to include something like this for "King Bowser" as, while "Princess Rosalina" at least has a plurality number of cases we could find of that name being used, we could literally only find one "King Bowser", in [[Nintendo Comics System]].)
This proposal include removing the TPP proposal system and if it does are all the TPP proposals that expire after the deadline of this proposal cancelled {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:The Talk Page Proposals are not affected by the system, so they'll still be here. No worries.{{User|Plumber}} 01:56, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
:::What about any proposals proposed before this proposal ends but that expire after the dead line are they cancelled to {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
Wait what do the peer reviews have to do with proposals i though those were for the FA process {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}


What happens if it's a huge proposal with plenty of people with good arguments on both sides? So far, it seems to me that this will create stalemates that eventually stop the wiki from making decisions because of red tape. See the "No starting planet left behind" proposal in the Archives. I do agree that many proposals end up as popularity contests, but at least things happen. {{User|Dr Javelin}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}
:Well i think what would happen is they would debate until one side wins cause even now a proposal can only be extended so many times until it fails. And i'm sorry if this doesn't answer your question or is wrong cause i wasn't around during the day and age when they used the talk main page {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}


Huge proposals actually become smaller because less people are willing to actually write a detailed opinion compared to doing "Per X." Back in the day, ''things got done and stayed done.'' If the arguments are good on both sides, generally the sysops step in to referee, which is not the ideal situation, but it's the general solution. They already referee the Proposals enough as it is. {{User|Plumber}}
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Peach?====
:It still seems like it might take longer than the current proposal system. And what happens if the sysops have differing opinions? I am in no way supporting the current proposal system, but as far as I can tell, things still happen. Articles get merged, split, edited, and changed, all according to the proposals. I agree that people should be required to give detailed arguments for or against proposals, but people shouldn't have to wait for a consensus. A time limit might still be needed to make sure that things still happen. {{User|Dr Javelin}}
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
In the past, consensus was always able to occur, moreso today with the Sysop Boards.
CC: Basically, that's how it was done before. However such things would be done at [[Talk:Main Page]] like they were  because we have agreed the Proposals is too formulaic to be conductive. Strict deadlines are often too short or too long to be effective as well. If anyone needs more information, Xzelion will be happy to oblige, although I know you, CC, of all people are familiar with the old system :) {{User|Plumber}}


I'm not exactly familiar with the old proposal system, mostly because I never attended many proposals during my earlier wiki days. {{User|M&SG}}
;Yes Princess (status quo)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and ''certainly'' more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
#{{User|Rykitu}} [[Princess Toadstool's Castle Run|All]] [[Super Princess Peach|5]] [[Parasol Fall|Princess]] [[Peach's Puzzle|Peach]] [[Princess Peach: Showtime!|games]] have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her <strike>full</strike> ''proper'' name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
#{{User|Sdman213}} per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} I still stand by Daisy being referred to as her shortened name, but I feel this can be a case where consistency doesn't really need to be a necessity: Princess Peach is still a very commonly used name for Peach herself and while just referring to her as Peach is as common, the full name is still used much more often when compared to Daisy and especially compared to Rosalina.


'''@DKPetey99 and ThirdMarioBro''': Well, if that is truly the case, then pretty much nothing we can do will be able to stop that because by this system, they could just "agree" with their friend. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
;No Princess
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an [[Princess Peach: Showtime!|entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name]], we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Abolish the monarchy.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like [[Fox]], [[Sonic]], etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per all
#{{User|PopitTart}} I was initially hesitant because of the existence of ''Princess Peach Showtime'', but I was quickly swayed by looking at [https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/princess-peach-showtime-switch/ the game's online store page], which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
#{{User|Arend}} Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" ''without'' an uppercase P.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} per all


I have a question for the proposers: will this effect the proposals box on the Main Page? If so, how do you plan to adapt the Main Page for this change? {{User|Super Mario Bros.}}
<s>{{User|Mushroom Head}} The people who type “Princess Peach” into the search bar are nerds.</s>


So how will the old system work? You didn't necessarily elaborate on that. {{User|Zero777}}
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Daisy?====
{{Early notice|option=yes|March 26, 2025}}
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Hmm. I'm switching back to neutral because of the good opposition arguments, and I'll stay that way unless someone can clearly define the pros and cons of each system in an unbiased manner. {{User|Dr Javelin}}
;Yes Princess (status quo)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in ''Super Mario Land'', the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'', and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Pseudo}} Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


2257: NARCE could filibuster the proposed system because at that time executive power was concentrated in Wayoshi and (the aloof) Steve. He just needed to wear down one person. Now this is not the case. Also, the "per alls" are not the central issue here, but the voting patterns themselves. Already a few people have defected from my side to the other side. This just proves my point that the Proposals system leads to "vote trends" where the influence of well-known people convinces unsures to go to that side. This proposal was going to pass for sure until Walkazo made things more exciting. If Walkazo had remained silent, then there is a greater likelihood someone such as Zero or Yoshiwaker would not have their votes / voted for my side. The fact that Xzelion and I and Crash (all-well known people, and all in favor of this measure) backed it was to illustrate the flaws of this system as well. Did I already mention how Son of Suns eloquently confused everyone into destroying something they had just backed in a previous Proposal days earlier? Ever since then, I have been at odds with our current system of Proposals; people who liked Son of Suns voted for him because he was popular or because he wrote all fancy-like and whatever it was, it sounded smart or something. I would go on, but I haven't slept in two days, so I'm a bit worn out. The old version in action can be seen in older Talk:Main page archives, where problems were discussed and solved. {{User|Plumber}} 00:02, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
;No Princess
:The funny part is that Son of Suns got ''just'' as peeved whenever I threw spanners in ''his'' proposals. But on a serious note, demonizing a retired user who did much more good than harm to the wiki isn't a very fair argument, especially when half of his battles were waged in the ''comments'' sections of the proposals anyway: cutting out the voting part wouldn't have stopped him. Straightforward issues are votes, but anything more in-depth already turns into a debate; the voting part is just so we can keep track of who's winning the argument. Fan votes happen, but it's unreasonable to act like every person's change of heart here is because of a reputation showdown - you can't know that for sure, and assumptions do not make for good arguments. The origins of the system is also a moot point: it has worked just fine for four years (during which the community has changed its face multiple times over); since we've added the Clear Majority and emergency Admin Veto rules, I can't recall any cases where I felt a proposal passed that shouldn't have, and before those rules were made, I can think of only one. Even if you can dredge up a few other mistakes, there will still be hundreds more that came to a just outcome. And really, had this been a discussion, it would have become just as "exciting" before long: an idea is <s>proposed</s> suggested, people like it, but then someone points out some flaws and more people join in (maybe because the first person is well-known, maybe because simply having someone else cast the first stone makes it easier to speak up, or maybe because they simply happened to get there after the first person). The only difference is that maybe we would have less people involved in between the major point-makers, but I don't think that's actually a desirable thing at all: the few people who actually get involved with intimidating, time-consuming discussions aren't necessarily representative of the community as a whole. - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in ''[[Mario Party 9]]'', Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as ''[[Super Mario Land]]'' itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-''Land'' is practically a defining trait of hers.
::Demonizing? Harsh words. That particular proposal was a very lengthy description with little comments at all IIRC. The only people who I think would be less involved would be people who don't care at all and are just voting for their friend or the cool kid or something. Most of the community doesn't care about every little single issue, or else everyone would always vote on every proposal unless they were unable to due to RL concerns. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per last times.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Since I'm supportive of "Princess" being removed from Peach's article title, the same would apply to Daisy, who has made fewer appearances, including with the "Princess" title.
#{{user|Cadrega86}} Per all three past proposals.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Hi, She's Daisy!
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.<br>Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of [[Larry]] as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, '''with visibility nigh intact'''. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} per all


I had to dismiss my vote since I rushed in my decision to retrieve the old proposal's way without looking the drawbacks clearly. I'll stay neutral but I'll go with any absolute conclusion. By the way, would Proplemontage agree to change this proposal for another regarding to these decisions if succeeded? I guess he might have the last word. {{user|Coincollector}}
<s>{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.</s>
:What do you mean? That seems unclear. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)


'''@Plumber''': The "vote trends" you are talking about could very well occur in the proposed system anyways. Somebody could make a good enough argument to convince somebody to change their mind about something. Also, it doesn't matter ''who'' makes an argument that could convince others to take their side. If I had made the exact same argument as Walkazo before she did, I doubt that any less people would have opposed this. Also, that argument is similar to the one in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Make_a_Rule_for_Changing_Votes|this proposal]], I find the logic flawed in that it is based off of something that cannot be proven. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Rosalina?====
:Cannot be proven? Have you looked at the archives of Talk:Main page? There's old evidence there. Reasonable debate unfettered by random votes by people who don't care. {{User|Plumber}} 01:24, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
{{Early notice|option=yes|March 26, 2025}}
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT


I wasn't a user back when the old system was going on. In fact, I wasn't even active until March but I joined on Jan 9 2011. So, i'm not voting.
;Yes Princess
{{User|Superfiremario}}


I would also like to point out that the "per" problems were "solved" by an old Proposal to abolish "per X" as a reason. IIRC, another Proposal brought it back. That's just a good example of the fickleness of the Proposals system. {{User|Plumber}} 01:29, 11 July 2011 (EDT)
;No Princess (status quo)
:New comments are actually supposed to go on the bottom, not imbedded between other comments, since that can really muddle things up. Specific comments can be addressed using "@X:" or "'''X:'''", or something like that. Anyway, '''in response to your response to my comment''', I stand by my choice of words, and I wasn't actually talking about any of Son of Suns' proposals in particular. (Although, having gone through the archives, I found that six of his proposals were straightforward votes (half of those were straightforward yes/no decisions, however, so there was nothing that ''could'' be debated), whereas two passed proposals involved lengthy discussions and three others failed after lengthy discussions.) Yes, everybody doesn't care about everything, but it's not reasonable to say that everyone who will vote but not discuss something doesn't care ''at all''. Someone could easily care about an issue to some extent, but not want to get involved in a free-for-all debate on behalf of it, or they might feel that all their points have already been added to the discussion and worry that people won't appreciate them cutting in just to say "I agree with X". On the other hand, perhaps people ''would'' do that, en masse, in which case we're back to a vote, only it'll be a lot messier than proposals and their running tallies. Plus, people could always flock to their friends' aid in discussions just as easily as in proposals, in which case, again, we'd have gained nothing from the change. '''In response to your comment to Yoshiwaker''', just because it worked back then doesn't mean it'll work now, when the community has grown and changed so much over the years. Besides, while there ''were'' lots of good discussions back then, users still resorted to votes on three occasions ([[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_5#Locking_the_Move_Feature_OR_Adding_More_Sysops|1]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_7#Un-_or_Fan-_MarioWiki|2]], [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_8#Humans|3]]) before the proposal system was brought into existence (first spoken of [[MarioWiki:Main_Page_Talk_Archive_10#.22Sudden.22_Change_--_Oligarchy.3F_Rash_movement.3F_I_feel_I_am_to_blame.|on Archive 10]], although obviously you can't get the full story from that section alone), which is rather interesting. And finally, '''regarding your last comment''', I checked the archives and all I found was a ''failed'' attempt to remove "per" votes ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_2#Pers.2C_I_agrees...|here]]), and similarly, both times they were were brought up on the talk pages ([[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#.22Per.22|here]] and [[MarioWiki_talk:Proposals#Per_votes|here]]), they were left alone. - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. We hope we've made it apparent that we think adding the particle to Rosalina's article is very silly indeed, especially decades after the fact, when Rosalina has obtained a featured article without the particle, and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy.
#{{User|Hewer}} She's barely ever called that.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Queen it up.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Unlike the other two, there is no substantial media that refers to Rosalina as "Princess Rosalina." It is presented only in larger descriptive material on Rosalina, and even then, only occassionally.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} If anything, cases where Princess Rosalina is used are the clear outlier.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - She's clearly a queen, just sometimes lumped as one of "the princesses" for convenience.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. It's unclear if Rosalina is even really a princess in the first place.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think I ever recall it being used.
#{{user|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Princess of ''what'', by the way? Princess of space? Can you ''be'' the princess of space?
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} princess of [[:File:TAoSMO_Rosalina_Concept_Art.jpg|acoustic rock]], obviously.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. Her backstory implies she was one, and she carries the appearance of one, but it is certainly not one of her defining characteristics.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} She's straight-up never referred to this way except in supplementary material like websites, not even the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' manual calls her Princess Rosalina. This is pretty clear cut to me.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} In Chapter 7 of [[Rosalina's Story]], there is a castle in the background that is implied to be Rosalina's house. Quote Rosalina, "I want to go back to my house by the hill!" The only visible "house" by the hill is the castle. So it's likely that she was born to royalty on her home planet. That said, Daisy has no princess particle, so Rosalina shouldn't either just going off precedence.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. Unlike Princess Peach or Princess Daisy, Rosalina is almost never referred to as a Princess.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} per all


===Remove Logos from Infobox Titles===
<s>{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.</s>
Quite a few games have logos instead of plain text for their infobox titles, but seeing as the game boxart also contains the logo and is located directly beneath the title, all this really does is show us the exact same graphic twice. This is redundant, and it looks sloppy, especially when the logos are transparent and the background colour interferes with the words. It's also inconsistent, since most games just use good ol' fashioned text. Compare [[Mario Kart DS]] with [[Mario Kart: Double Dash!!]] - there's no question as to which one looks more professional, and by extension, which style we should use. Other games using the superfluous title-logos include [[Super Mario Sunshine]], [[Super Mario Galaxy]], all three [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games]] titles, [[Mario Party 8]], [[Mario Kart Wii]] and both [[Super Smash Bros. Melee]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Brawl]], among others. Then you have the occasional ''character'' page with a title-logo, which is completely unnecessary. The only time it makes sense to have logos is for series pages, since a single boxart isn't adequately representative of ''all'' the games involved. Some example of this logo usage are [[Super Smash Bros. (series)]], [[Mario Party (series)]], and [[Mario Kart (series)]] (compare with [[Mario Kart DS]]), but even then, the logos are being used as the infobox ''images'', not the titles. And, while the consoles don't really the logos in their images, the transparency issue is still a problem, and the inconsistency with other types of pages is also undesirable, so it'd be better of the logos were simply used elsewhere.


In short, I propose we remove all instances where the logos are being used for the infobox titles. The logos can be put into the galleries (or incorporated into the body text, as is the case with the character and console pages), so nothing is being lost. Series pages with logos being used as their images will not be affected.
====Comments (Princess Particle Party!)====
Should be of note that Palutena's Guidance [https://youtu.be/Ls0qNcpAn1E?t=53 is not the ''only'' part in Ultimate] in which Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" (obviously this also applies to Peach). {{User:Arend/sig}} 14:23, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in ''Smash Bros.'' games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
::King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by [[List of drivers in Mario Kart Tour|Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)]]). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:::{{@|Hewer}} I was referring to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made ''Mario Kart Tour'', a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In ''Melee'', for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the [[:File:CharacterSelect-SSBMelee.png|selection screen]]. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
::::I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's ''more'' reason for us to move it? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:::{{@|Hewer}} In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally ''Peach-hime'', ''Daimaō Koopa'' and ''Dedede-daiō'', respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, [https://shmuplations.com/starfoxadventures/ one interview] where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying ''Star Fox''{{'}}s Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
How is Rosalina a queen, exactly? I don't think that's ever been stated anywhere, and Peach is still Princess even though she explicitly rules the Mushroom Kingdom, so Rosalina ruling something wouldn't make her Queen necessarily. Speaking of, even if she's not technically ruling anything now, she's still a princess by birth (backstory and Baby Rosalina's design), and I don't think titles become null and void like that / "oh it's been (blank) years I guess I'm not a princess anymore". [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:03, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline:''' July 12, 2011, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
@Pseudo: In what way is Princess Daisy "the main name that she is known by"? It certainly isn't officially, and in my experience it isn't even the more used name by fans either. And since Nintendo101 didn't really answer this question: why does a name being the "full name" mean it should automatically take priority? It didn't with [[Talk:Conker#Rename to Conker|Conker the Squirrel]], [[Talk:Bobbery#Changing Admiral Bobbery to just Bobbery|Admiral Bobbery]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|Sonic the Hedgehog]], [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|Professor Elvin Gadd]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Move animal names from the Donkey Kong Country series to just their normal names|Rambi the Rhino]], [[Colored Pencils|Colored Pencils, The Missile Maestro]], [[Talk:Baby DK#Move to Baby DK|Baby Donkey Kong]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|Wendy O. Koopa]], [[Talk:Grodus#Move to Grodus|Sir Grodus]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names|Glad Red Paratroopa]], [[Talk:TEC#Move to TEC|TEC-XX]], and indeed, Princess Rosalina. So why is Princess Daisy different? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:57, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Using text instead of logos is neater, simpler, clearer, more concise and less redundant, and it will make all the game pages consistent.
:I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. ''Super Princess Peach'' enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are ''technically'' conjectural.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Phoenix}} Couldn't have said it better myself. I support this 100%.
::Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Lindsay151}} Per proposal.
:I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per Proposal
::In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: [https://mario.nintendo.com/characters/ this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/mario/ this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/characters/ this] ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Games/Characters-hub/Super-Mario-Hub/Characters-2493286.html this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of [[Spiny Shell (blue)|Blue Shell]] if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Zero777}} I found those incredibly hideous, per Walkazo.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - I always wondered where it came the tendency to put the game logo in the game infoboxes. Per proposer.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} I'm going to agree with Walkazo on this one. We don't need logos on infoboxes, we already have some in the gallery section. Take ''[[Mario Kart Wii]]'' for example. The logo is on the article and the gallery for the game. If we lose it, then it can only be seen in the gallery page for that game. So, per Walkazo!
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all on this case.
#{{User|Supremo78}} That's why I removed the SM64DS logo from its page. Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|Baconator}} They looked clunky and unprofessional. Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Super Luigi! Number one!}} Per.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The logos are already shown on the boxart. Plus, it's inconsistent on how some infoboxes have logos in their titles, while others don't.


====Oppose====
For reference, here's how Play Nintendo (a division of Nintendo's American website) handles the names of Peach and Daisy.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} I don't see anything wrong with keeping the logo.
*On the [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/ "Friends"] page, the former is "Princess Peach", while the latter is "Daisy".
#{{User|Superfiremario}}  Transparent ones are fine, but I'm afraid to agree for untransparent logos.
*A [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/puzzles/jigsaw-puzzle-princess-peach-daisy-rosalina/ puzzle activity] featuring both characters renders the former as "Princess Peach", while the latter as "Daisy".
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per the two above.
*Similarly, coloring activities that feature the former ([https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/mushroom-kingdom-princess-peach-paint-activity/], [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/princess-peach-paint-by-numbers-spring-2023/], [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/paint-by-number-princess-peach-activity/]) render her name as "Princess Peach". Compare Daisy's [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/daisy-paint-by-numbers-online-activity/ own coloring activity], where she is rendered as simply "Daisy".
#{{User|Plumber}} Why must art be destroyed in the name of conformity?
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/valentines-day-mushroom-kingdom-trivia-quiz/ In this quiz], at question 2 you'll notice the "Daisy" answer; question 4 invokes "Princess Peach".
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/mushroom-kingdom-role-model-poll/ A poll] uses the shortforms of both ("Peach" and "Daisy").


====Comments====
Now, for a change of pace:
@ Walkazo: Could you include the removal of Logos of the consoles? Just as you said that color interferes with the design of the logos, this problem can also be seen in the [[Wii U]]'s page and the [[Wii]]. The [[GameCube]] takes a step further: How do you read a symbol of a game console in the infobox? {{user|Coincollector}}
*Daisy is displayed as "Princess Daisy" on [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/princess-daisy/ her own profile], which doubles as the hub of Daisy-related stuff on that site.
:Well, this proposal is already about removing ''all'' logo-titles, but I agree that adding consoles to the explicit list of what shouldn't have them is a good idea; thanks for pointing it out! - {{User|Walkazo}}
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/mushroom-kingdom-character-trivia-quiz/ Another pop quiz] uses "Princess Peach" and... "'''Princess''' Daisy".
Actually, removing the logos are okay, but maybe they should be moved to the subject's gallery. There may be some chance that we want these plain logos. - {{User|Akfamilyhome}}
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/mushroom-kingdom-character-hang-out-poll/ This poll], likewise.
:I think you missed a couple lines of the proposal: I ''am'' suggesting that they be moved to the galleries (and they can even be incorporated into the body text, in some cases). They're not being removed from the articles, just from the infoboxes. - {{User|Walkazo}}
@Coincollector: Sorry. {{user|SWFlash}}


If this proposal passes, are we going to remove the logos on games that haven't been released? {{User|Tails777}}
Note that the pages linked above are not tied to any particular product, but rather the Mario series in general. Most were nevertheless published during the Switch generation, and I strived to highlight as much cross-reference material as I could find from both Daisy's profile on the site, and the [https://play.nintendo.com/search/?s=daisy search results for "daisy"] (which aren't all that different for "[https://play.nintendo.com/search/?s=princess+daisy princess daisy]"). It appears that activities which promote specific games overwhelmingly invoke characters using the same name they use in those games. In other words, "Peach" for Peach, and "Daisy" for Daisy, as expected. Some examples: [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/super-mario-bros-wonder-character-poll/][https://play.nintendo.com/printables/crafts/super-mario-party-jamboree-printable-party-hats/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/super-mario-online-trivia/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/personality-quizzes/who-is-your-super-mario-party-jamboree-buddy/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/personality-quizzes/mario-golf-super-rush-personality-quiz/]. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:17, March 20, 2025 (EDT), edited 17:00, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:I don't see why we wouldn't. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
::Yes, we'd remove the logos from the infobox titles, but if there's no other artwork available, the logo would be used as the infobox ''image'', like the series pages. So, pages like [[Super Mario 3D]], [[Paper Mario (Nintendo 3DS)]] and [[Luigi's Mansion 2]] would be unaffected, while [[Mario Kart 3D]]'s title-logo would be converted into the image, and [[Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games]]'s logo would be removed from the infobox altogether (it's already on the gallery page). - {{User|Walkazo}}


'''@Plumber:''' We are not getting rid of them, one, the artwork of the title is already in the boxart, and two, they are most likely already located at the gallery. {{User|Zero777}}
{{@|Camwoodstock}} ''"[...] and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy."''<br>I don't think that's true. Daisy has been called the princess of Sarasaland as late as ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''. Rosalina, on the other hand, I cannot recall her ever being referred to as a princess of anything. Or royalty at all, for that matter. People presumed she was "Princess Rosalina" or "Princess Rosetta" in the early years before Mario Galaxy released purely because she has that "Princess Peach"-esque look, but canonically, she's been referred to as the protector of the cosmos, the keeper of the Comet Observatory, and the mother of the Lumas; none of which are titles of royalty. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:40, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:I agree, but the proposal is specifically about whether the characters' articles should be called "Princess Peach/Daisy/Rosalina", not whether they are canonically princesses. Let's stay on-topic. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:53, March 20, 2025 (EDT)


Since some articles don't have logo's in the infobox titles and some do, I wouldn't mind if we remove the logo's from the info box titles. It looks more professional that way. However, we should realize a game logo is one important image of the game. Logo's are used for commercials on TV or advertisements in newspaper. Websites of the game also show the logo big. The logo is also on the box and even in the game itself. I think we should find a more efficient place for the game logo on the article. A game logo is MAYBE even more important then the boxart. {{User|Arend}}


==Changes==
I shared this in private, but I was encouraged to relay this here. I principally feel a dogmatic adherence to consistency for the sake of consistency or policy for the sake of policy can lead to bad decisions. The actions proposed should stand on their own merits, and I feel like this proposal has not really made that case, or at least not to me. Regardless of how folks personally feel, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy are still regularly used in official capacities. In the headers of booklets, encyclopedias, and on the backs of merchandise. Even within in-game dialogue, especially for Peach. They are part of the general parlance and lexicon of people who play these games and are familiar with these characters. However, some folks in opposition seem to be acting like these names are inherently invalid or as archaic as the name "Princess Toadstool" or "King Koopa." If they aren't legitimately retired by the publisher and are interchangeable with "Peach" and "Daisy" in a way "Professor Elvin Gadd" or even "Princess Rosalina" never were for their characters, then why is it detrimental that they're the default names of their respective articles? What is the substantive harm? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:52, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
:That first bit about consistency also works as an argument for why Peach and Daisy don't necessarily need to be "consistent" with each other regarding whether they use the long names. Anyway, I believe that "Daisy" being the preferred official name over "Princess Daisy" is incredibly clear, and the fact that a name is sometimes used in certain cherry-picked instances doesn't override the most common and prominent usages. Everything you say about the current names being used in official sources and being familiar to fans applies just as well if not better to the names this proposal seeks to change to. You're right that the current names are used more than something like "Professor Elvin Gadd", but it's not like that has to be the cutoff point (and as I said earlier, you could certainly make an argument that Princess Daisy has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|which you even supported shortening]]). Keeping it the way it is does not cause "substantive harm", exactly, but I don't remember anyone ever arguing that it does - the benefit of the move is to be more accurate to the overwhelming majority of official sources. And I do not understand your characterisation of this as "policy for the sake of policy", it's for the sake of accuracy to the source material, which the wiki is always striving for.<br>Here's a hypothetical to consider: if it happened that the wiki's article on Daisy had always used the name "Daisy" (and assuming everything else about the situation was unchanged), do you think you'd be pushing for a move to "Princess Daisy"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 23:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
::Potentially, yes. I would. Because I think Princess Daisy is more inherently clarifying as the article title and it is exercised in modern contexts that I think are more directly parallel to how one would title articles in referential material like ours. I think there are sometimes different goals and incentives for character selection screens and the like. For example, at the end of ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' Peach is simply called "Princess," but if this site only covered SMB2, I would argue our article name for her should be "Princess Toadstool" despite it not being the name in-game.
::My view in the previous proposal on this, as well as the one concerning the Koopalings, has evolved over time. I think "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" are better, more intuitive, and more clarifying article titles (especially for the former, though I do admittedly still prefer the parallel between Peach and Daisy. That's a bit less important though). In my experience, most people who engage with Nintendo games and ''Mario'' do not know these characters simply as "Peach" and "Daisy." So when you have these more clarifying names exercised in the modern era - in instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc. - alongside the more familial "Peach" and "Daisy," what benefit does changing those names bring us? Because if anything it could create instances of navigating the site to find articles on these characters more difficult for some visitors by making their roles more opaque, at least peripherally. So I don't see any gain from this tradeoff, or an improvement of accuracy. I see it as trading a slightly more clarifying, valid, and exercised name for one that is equally valid but less clarifying. The only real benefit is that it can make piping links easier in the body texts of articles for editors, but I am personally more than willing to sacrifice editorial convenience to clarify things for readers when the option is there. I help maintain this site for them primarily, and it is for similar reasons why I did not simply title [[Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda|this article]] "''The Legend of Zelda''." - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:35, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
:::Admittedly, this response is based on personal life experience, but we've had basically the opposite happen to us; sure, people generally get it when you say "Princess Peach", but tend to raise eyebrows at "Princess Daisy" over just calling her Daisy. Calling Rosalina by "Princess Rosalina" is then promptly seen as an ''extreme'' over-correction if it's explained to them. Having quick-fire asked both friends and family about this, "Daisy" came up every time over "Princess Daisy", sans one instance of someone mistaking her for Rosalina and one giving an obvious joke answer, and in the former case, even ''then'' they omitted "Princess". Admittedly, there is probably a very large bias among family members at play as we have a dog expressly named Daisy, and our sample size here is incredibly small as this was very spur of the moment, late at night.<br>Even still, the total lack of ''any'' "Princess" particles at all here definitely reflects a very different lived experience, so while we definitely can't speak for everyone--it would be extremely silly of us to try to assert that your peers don't include "Princess" just because ours don't, that's absurd!--we can definitely vouch that, in our corner of the world, the "Princess" particle tends to be omitted. Make of this what one may, we just thought we'd share our own experiences here. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 00:28, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
:::"Princess Daisy" is the name used much less by fans in my experience too. If there actually are fans who primarily use "Princess Daisy" (ignoring for a moment the fact that I don't think that matters), I do think it's at least plausible that the wiki's usage of the name is part of the reason. Also, why is "clarification" such a big deal anyway? People who know about the Mario franchise would expect an article called "Daisy" to be about the major recurring character called that, I don't see any real potential for confusion. We shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy to appeal to some hypothetical minority who wouldn't understand what the page was about if we removed the word "Princess" from the title (and who for some reason can't just glance at the start of the article for two seconds to immediately find out). Also, this list you keep giving of "instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc." - what exactly is this referring to? In your vote you listed Super Mario Land (so old that Peach was still Toadstool), the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (seriously?), and "licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy" (which have never taken priority over the video games in any case I'm aware of, and which often use the shortened name anyway). I'm not a big fan of ignoring the naming policy's guidance to cherry-pick sources that use the name we'd rather have. The usage of shortened "Daisy" is not limited to character select screens as you keep implying - for instance, see the links I provided in an earlier comment, which show that most official websites use the names "Princess Peach" and "Daisy". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:11, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
::::I do not agree that "Daisy" is a more accurate article title than "Princess Daisy." I think they are equally as valid, same with "Princess Peach" and "Peach," but again, I admittedly feel more strongly for her than Daisy. As others have mentioned, she even had a game published last year that referred to her as "Princess Peach" in the ''title''. It would be disingenuous to say "Daisy" is not used more often than "Princess Daisy," but the latter ''is'' used, whether it is in contexts you personally think should be considered valid or not. This was part of what I was saying with people treating these names as outdated and erroneous as "Princess Toadstool." These names are exercised in the modern era. So I do not think we are sacrificing accuracy by retaining the names we have. But we are sacrificing clarification, which is something I care about in maintaining reference material aimed for the public to read. This isn't a site just to be edited. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:55, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
:::For what it's worth, Nintendo101's messages here more or less match my opinion on this subject entirely. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 09:14, March 22, 2025 (EDT)


===Artwork Transparency Issues===
===Merge the "did not reach consensus" and "tied" proposal outcomes on the archives===
During the past set of months, I've been noticing that a good number of JPEG artworks were being replaced by PNG artworks with transparent backgrounds. However, a lot of those images look quite ugly when they're viewed in backgrounds that aren't colored white.  I've mentioned this dilemma at the admins boards, and some of the Sysops there do agree with my statement. I propose that any artworks with ugly-looking transparency has to lose the transparency. After all, we shouldn't be modifying the artworks by any means; if the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs; if the PNG artworks don't have anything transparent, upload them that way.
{{Early notice|March 27, 2025}}
This came up in the comments at the tail end of my poll proposal archive proposal. A grand total of four proposals have "tied" and are therefore represented by brown. Notably, nobody decided [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73#Create_a_template_to_direct_the_user_to_a_game_section_on_the_corresponding_List_of_profiles_and_statistics_page|'''this''' proposal]] would be brown even though, by any reasonable definition of "tie", it is one. I take this as a sign that this distinction isn't really... suiting the reality of the proposal page. After all, what makes a tie so different that it needs its own color, when it's just a particular arrangement that a failure of consensus can land on?


Update: To understand what's going on, please look [[User:M&SG/proposal|here]] for examples of good transparency and bad transparency.
By the way, one color has to win out in the merge, and my view is: '''it will be brown'''. This is going to sound hugely pedantic, but I don't think white is good for a proposal archive color, at least not one with this meaning. Outside of the new dark mode, it looks like it doesn't ''have'' a background. That makes it look like some state inherently separate from the others, or like some kind of blank state with no meaning, or like it's related to what gray means. This isn't any of those; it's a pretty normal fate for a proposal to meet. Brown is more in line with the look of the others, and it looking close to "no quorum" better conveys its similar meaning. (Arguably you could merge in "no quorum", too. I'm not here to make that argument <s>but if I was, we should obviously use orange</s>.) Therefore, I say we're merging them to brown.


'''Proposer''': {{User|M&SG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>June 30, 2011 23:59 GMT</s> <s>July 7, 2011, 23:59 GMT</s> July 14, 2011, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|M&SG}} - Per my proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Supremo78}} - As I hear a lot, we strive to make this wiki better and better, and if images that don't make the wiki look well, it brings down the wiki's quality. Sometimes it's just better to leave small things alone to make bigger things better.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per all!
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshiwaker}} - I recall some images, such as the Black Mage artwork, looking better without transparency. Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; as it stands, both "ties" and "failed to reach consensus" are in this weird spot where it's unclear which of the two you're meant to even use outside of, y'know, ''if the vote count literally ties'', which isn't a particularly helpful distinction as far as the archive is concerned.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Adding transparency ruins the image. Per proposal.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{user|SWFlash}} ''"If the artworks are JPEGs, upload them as JPEGs."'' PNG. Even if not transparent, always upload PNG.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} What is even the difference between these two outcomes anyway?
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per proposer. Actually I don't see the necessity to converse JPEG files into PNG: there is no real difference in a picture when converting a JPEG into PNG, and the transparency thing is more of an excuse to say that the PNG is better than JPEG, never noticing the size of the picture wich is a lot heavier in PNG files. This is one of the various causes that retouching official artworks really bothers me. That and the user's less knowledge about a in-game model and a (very bad) cropped screenshot.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Rise Up Above It}} Per all.
<s>{{User|Mushroom Head}} A tie is so mathematically so damn improbable it is absurd it still is separate from no consensus.</s>
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} Per all i don't like the way transparent images look anyways
#{{User|Dr Javelin}} As far as I can tell, transparency doesn't need to be added and makes many images look terrible. Per all.
#{{User|Magikrazy51}} Per UhHuhAlrightDaisy who tried to rid the Black Mage artwork of transparency (sorry Ultramario, but <s>our princess is in another castle</s> transparency isn't always better). Also per everyone else who supports this proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} Okay, I get this now. Your saying you want ''bad'' transparency removed, right? I support now. If you didn't see [[User:M&SG/proposal|this]] you should.
#{{User|Gigaremo}} Per all. If transparency makes some images look bad, then it should be removed on those images.
#{{User|Xzelion}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|MarioMaster15}} Per all.
#{{User|Goomblob}} The wiki needs of good and striking images.
#{{User|Boowhoplaysgames}} Per all, and, who the hayfidget thought of making transparency for the Mario Sports Mix anyway? the shadows of them make one '''''know''''' that they shouldn't make transparency. leaving white in for thee shadows to be shown is just goofy, and puts this wiki [to me] to shame.[“why, why must this wiki have good info with bad quality?”]
#{{User|Shadow34}} &ndash; Per all!
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} What we're proposing is that we delete images of bad quality, not remove it all together! Most of the opposers misunderstood this proposal. And I completely agree with this proposal. If it looks crappy, it's better if it's not transparent.
#{{User|Petergriffin555}}Per all.
#{{User|Plumber}} &mdash; The artwork should be uploaded in the way it originally was uploaded.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} &ndash; Gonna say what I can pretty much sum up to be the case here for many opposers. "It is not about making all PNG's into JPG's, but actually have good PNG's!!!!"
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; We should not alter official artwork in any way. Per proposal.
#{{User|Cleanup Guy}} - Per all..


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|UltraMario3000}} I disagree with this proposal as PNGs are usually better then JPGs and the conversion from JPG to PNG is rather good because the images that I did in that way always looked more clear quality-wise.
#{{User|Zero777}} Per UM3000 and comment below. Just let users have the freedom to do whatever they want with the image as long it will look good on and make the article better in quality.
#{{User|SKmarioman}} Per UltraMario3000.
#{{User|YoshiGo99}} Per all.
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all. JPGs (JPEGs) are a little crappy compared to PNGs.
#{{User|Mario Bros.!}} Per UltrMario3000,
#{{User|DKPetey99}} Per UM3000.
#{{User|Mariomario64}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Smasher 101}} Per UltraMario
#{{User|New Super Mario}} Per UM
#{{User|Hypnotoad}} Per all, and as someone who works with these images, I find PNG images easier to use, and maintain a better quality post-process.
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per all.<br><s>#{{User|Arend}} What the heck, you want to get rid of all the transparent PNGs because they ''get a checkered background when you're viewing them in their file page''? That's ridiculous. Per all.</s>
#{{User|Mario Fan 123}} Per all and Arend. This community is sort of annoying sometimes, when they make dumb proposals 'because transparent images look ugly'. Come on, transparent PNGs are way better than plain white background JPGs! And some of the JPG images come with a background, so that's annoying too.
#{{User|MrConcreteDonkey}} - Per all, especially Arend.
#{{User|Not Bugsy}} Per all, and also, PNGs are good for saving space and keeping quality. You can compress them fine without losing quality, but if you compress JPGs, you get artifacts which lower image clarity.
#{{User|Yoshidude99}} Per all.
#{{User|Kingbowser99}} Per all.
#{{User|Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum}} I'm neutral. JPG is horrendous, while PNG is amazing. JPG does not work with transparency, so... I'm just doing it here to make it tied on votes.
#{{User|Super Luigi! Number one!}} JPEGs are for photographs and realistic images. PNGs are for line art, text-heavy images, and images with few colors.Btw, We can "correct" the bad images, making it completly tranparent.
#{{User|EctoBiologist}} I was joking. and yes I oppose this. >>


====Comments====
====Comments====
Recently I've been working with PNG sprite images with white backgrounds that are unnecessary and removing them and reuploading it. I haven't done anything with JPEGs. That's ok, right? {{User|Bowser's luma}}
there's something to be said about the fact that the proposals are color-coded in the first place (which is VERY inaccessible to colorblind folks, people using screenreaders, and people who do not remember each color-outcome connection by heart), but that's for another proposal. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:09, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:I think the proposal is saying that we should stop making non-transparent images transparent because if you put them behind a background that is a color other than white, you can still see some of the white around the picture. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:Agreed, having some kind of symbology or just writing out the outcome in the proposal listing alongside the current color schemes would be a big improvement. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 10:12, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::I don't understand the difference between a JPEG a PNG or transparency all i ever see are pictures {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:There's a reason we've thus far yet to even think about touching proposal colors for darkmode; among other reasons, like "who has ever used wikitable wario?", we're kinda hoping a more sophisticated thing comes along for the colorblind on the off-chance we can actually incorporate that thing somehow. Symbols in particular sounds very nice. <s>also the idea of having to darkmode white ''and'' gray is a Nightmare Scenario so here's hoping this can rectify that one!</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:54, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:::JPEG and PNG are popular image file formats. PNGs are more easily modifiable than JPEGs in a software such as Fireworks or Photoshop. Most images have backgrounds (generally white), and people can use software to remove them (an image without a background is considered transparent). It can be useful at times, but it is not always done perfectly. Usually, the software will remove most of a background using a tool, leaving the user to remove the rest manually, sometimes pixel-by-pixel depending on the quality wanted. The problem is that it can be a tedious process depending on the size of the image and the quantity of background to be removed, so some of it is likely to remain either unnoticed or unattended. On a white background (or one colored identically to the image background), there's no problem, but other backgrounds reveal these unnoticed or unattended portions and make the image, and by extension, the wiki, look unprofessional. {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:Wasn't a feature recently added where you can scroll over the result and it states what it means? Or does this not work on screenreaders? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:58, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:::::I'm really confused on this still. Can you give a few examples to really clear this up? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::that feels like more of a bandaid fix. i think a better solution would rework how [[Template:Proposal archive]] looks to present the data in a cleaner way. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 12:49, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::::::This image [[File:TrSuper mushroom.jpg|100px]] has a background (all of the space surrounding the trophy), while this image [[File:MarioNSMBWii.PNG|100px]] is transparent (all transparent images have that checkered "background" you see when clicking on it). {{User|Mario4Ever}}
:maybe we could use some symbols like triangles or squares. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 08:10, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
UM: No, the proposer is talking about the bad quality transparent images, not all of the transparent images. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}


I can see where some people are going by replacing JPEG artworks with PNG artworks.  However, if the PNG artworks do not have a transparent background, you should upload them just like that.  If a PNG artwork has transparency already when you download it, odds are, it'll probably look good on any kind of background.  If that truly is the case, that kind of artwork image can be uploaded; Ex.: [[File:MASATLOG_Tails.png|100x100px]]; when I found that image, it already had an Alpha Layer, and it looked good on a black background.  Basically, by normal standards, quality > transparency, and transparency should only be implemented if it looks good. - {{User|M&SG}}
===Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title===
:I have noticed that some users don't know how to keep the quality when changing it to a transparent image. When they upload the image it is smaller than the JPEG file was and so some users who know how to keep the quality and have it transparent have to fix the image. Also JPEG files has little dots that are hard to see that surround the image and they blend in with the white. We don't want to see that because it makes the image look like it has bad quality and that is probably why we make images transparent. - {{User|YoshiGo99}}
To be as clear as possible, '''this proposal will not affect any article titles.''' It is specifically about article content. With that out of the way...
::Regardless, if the original artwork doesn't have transparency, do not alter it. At times, adding transparency to artwork will make it look much worse, due to the pixelated edges that can be seen. I learned that the hard way when I modified some ''Mario Super Sluggers'' artworks. - {{User|M&SG}}


'''@UltraMario3000:''' He's not saying that we shouldn't convert from JPG to PNG, but that if someone does that, they shouldn't make it transparent. {{User|Yoshiwaker}}
So [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Citing the Super Mario Encyclopedia|this classic proposal]] passed to ban any citations of the English version of the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]. Then [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjects|this later proposal]] passed to allow the book to be cited, but only for subjects with no other official English names. I think this makes sense and doesn't need changing as far as article titles go, but the problem is that it creates an awkward inconsistency where only articles whose titles come from the book are allowed to acknowledge it. For example, [[Pipe Fist]] can use the encyclopedia as a citation for the name, but [[Winged Strollin' Stu]] can't even mention the existence of the "Soarin' Stu" name.


'''@Yoshiwaker:''' I don't see what's wrong with making it transparent though.:/--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
There are a few reasons why I think it would make sense for wiki articles to be allowed to mention weird names from the encyclopedia:
:Take an image and put it behind a black background. You'll see. {{User|Xzelion}}
*It's official information, so it makes sense to document it if we want to be informative and comprehensive. An all-or-nothing system where the names have to be either the title of the article or not mentioned at all feels unintuitive.
::I don't get what you're trying to say Xze.--{{User|UltraMario3000}}
*There seem to be some cases where this is already done. For example, the [[Yellow ledge]] article mentions Encyclopedia's "Ladyfinger Lift" name, with a citation and everything, despite it not being the title.
:::Look [[User:Xzelion/test|here]]. {{User|Xzelion}}
*The information is also already covered on the wiki on the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] page itself, which has a nice list detailing all the stuff the book got wrong or took from the wiki. If we're covering it anyway, I don't see why we shouldn't also put this relevant information on the pages about each individual subject.
*The wiki normally is allowed to mention official names even if it thinks they're wrong. For example, the [[Cleft]] page makes it clear that the "Moon Cleft" name from Super Paper Mario is a translation mistake, but it still mentions it anyway. And there are other cases similar to Encyclopedia where we do this kind of thing: the [[Polterpiranha]] page isn't called "Ghost", yet it still explains that "Ghost" is the name used for them in Smash games. The [[Nipper Dandelion]] page even explains the situation of how its name was a fan name before it was an official name.
*Although the aforementioned [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjects|proposal]] that allowed the Encyclopedia to be cited was intended to have it as a special case with the absolute lowest priority on the [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policy]]'s list of sources, that has since been overridden by [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source|another proposal]] that introduced website filenames as an even lower-priority naming source, and the naming policy explicitly ''encourages'' mentioning those weird alternate names. So if we're allowed to mention names that are less trustworthy than Encyclopedia's, why shouldn't we mention Encyclopedia's names too?


We should upload all artworks as PNG, because when JPG pictures are rescaled (&#91;[File:Example.jpg|''200px'']]), the they become very artifacted. {{user|SWFlash}}
If this proposal passes, articles will be allowed to mention alternate names from the Encyclopedia even if they are not being used as the title. For example, [[Comet Luma]]'s article could start with something like:
:Most artworks that can be found on gaming websites are JPEGs however. Besides, you shouldn't replace an HQ JPEG image with a low quality PNG image. {{User|M&SG}}
<blockquote>
'''Comet Luma''', referred to as '''Lumacomète''' in the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'',<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> is a unique [[Luma]] found in ...
</blockquote>


@Goomba's Shoe15: This proposal only applies to bad quality transparency artworks.  Artworks such as the one that Xzelion showed would not be affected, since those artworks already had transparency implemented before being uploaded; artworks that already have transparency usually tend to look good on any background color. {{User|M&SG}}
Or, if we want to make it more clear that we think the name is wrong, maybe even:
:I know that {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
<blockquote>
'''Comet Luma''', erroneously referred to by its French name '''Lumacomète''' in the English ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'',<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> is a unique [[Luma]] found in ...
</blockquote>


@M&SG Did I say anything about quantity? Also, PNG is lossless, if you didn't notice it. {{user|SWFlash}}
Or maybe we could exclude the name from the intro and mention it later in the article, perhaps in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/74#Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section|"Naming" section]], similar to what [[Nipper Dandelion]] and [[Yellow ledge]] are already doing. Perhaps that could even give us more room to explain where the name came from like the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] article does.
:I didn't say quantity.  Also, I didn't say that you shouldn't replace JPEG artworks with PNG artworks. You can still do that, but if the PNG artworks have no transparency, don't make them transparent. {{User|M&SG}}
<blockquote>
;[[Comet Luma#Naming|Naming]]
Comet Luma is one of the few characters in ''Super Mario Galaxy'' to not have a published official name for English releases of the game, nor in any official paratext for ''Super Mario Galaxy'' like the instruction booklet or [[Prima Games]] guidebook. In dialogue, [[Rosalina]] refers to it as "the Luma who knows about such things [about Prankster Comets]" and [[Polari]] does not mention its name in the English localization. The English translation of the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' erroneously refers to it by its French name "Lumacomète",<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> which was used as the title of its article on the Super Mario Wiki fan website from 2012 to 2018 (being briefly changed in 2014 and 2015).
</blockquote>
Or we could cut out that last bit mentioning the wiki by name. The point of this proposal is less to decide exactly how we integrate these into articles and more just to clarify that we are allowed to.


Just in case the proposal deadline has to be extended, please refer to [[User:M&SG/proposal|here]] for some examples of acceptable transparency and unacceptable transparency. {{User|M&SG}}
Again, to be incredibly clear, <big>'''this proposal is not about changing any article titles. The current naming policy will not be changed at all by this proposal.'''</big> This is merely about allowing articles to mention alternate names that aren't being used as the title. If this proposal fails, I suppose [[Yellow ledge]] and any other articles mentioning the Encyclopedia names will have them removed (though I'd imagine the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] page itself would still be able to keep its list of errors).


@Arend: You're missing the point.  This proposal only applies to artworks that have bad transparency.  Please look at my examples, and you'll clearly get the picture. {{User|M&SG}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Hewer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@Mario Fan 123: Well it's one thing when you have a white background, but when you put the image on a black background, that's when you'll notice how poorly done the transparency is. {{User|M&SG}}
====Support (allow English Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, referred to as "Per all" in the ''Super Mario Wiki Encyclopedia'', is a common vote reasoning found in proposals.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} This sounds very reasonable! I especially like the clarification regarding the names from the encyclopedia not being fully correct.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is exactly the kind of stuff i envisioned for the Naming sections! very good idea, per proposal
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Tentative support. I think this can be helpful for readers visiting the site, especially if integrated as LinkTheLefty suggested.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} As long as it's kept to the naming sections, this should be fine. I'm surprised we don't allow it already.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.


<s>Okay, basically  you want to remove transparency?</s> Guys, they're saying they want bad transpaprensy removed.
====Oppose (ban English Encyclopedia names from being mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)====
{{User|Superfiremario}}
'''@Mario Bros.! I'm supporting now.''' {{User|Superfiremario}}


@Zero's vote: Most of these "transparent" images ''don't'' look good on articles{{User|Superfiremario}}
====Comments Encyclopedia====
 
(Is the tier below ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' even presently used for ''any'' article title?) The <nowiki>{{encyclopedia}}</nowiki> template was modeled after <nowiki>{{conjecture}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{another language}}</nowiki>, and in the latter case, the information is normally relegated to the "Names in other languages" section. I think that the revamped "Naming" section would be a good place to put ''Encyclopedia'' names if this passes. There are too many instances, like with several ''Super Mario Galaxy'' instances, where the ''Encyclopedia'' name is outright confused with something else, and putting those details in the introductory paragraph could cause even more confusion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:10, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
I'd like to point out a png image with awful transparency which should be used as an example for this proposal. Alas, I don't know the file name, but I know the image. It's the Galaxy Airship artwork that was ripped from the boss poster. The image looks fine on a white background, but put against a black background or save it to your computer and open it in MSPaint and it reveals how horrendous the transparency is. {{User|Rise Up Above It}}
:Yeah, that sounds fair enough. And I don't think any articles currently use titles from website filenames, it was just added to the naming policy as a failsafe in the off chance we ever get a subject not named by any other sources. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:41, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
 
::We might want to temporarily trim that from the naming policy if it's not currently being used, or merge it with rest of the dev data tier (since it'd use that template anyway), since an unused tier is probably a sign that it's starting to get a bit much... But anyway, what about quotes from the book that aren't name-related? For example, the [[MIPS]] article uses ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' as a source for him being Peach's pet rabbit. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:52, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
IDK, but I'll show directly some examples from MS&G's page to coroborate the problems. Maybe many of you misunderstood this proposal. This is not to kill PNG as many of you think, it's to get rid '''badly edited or cropped pictures''' that they turned out be of worse quality than their originals (regardless they were JPEG or PNG or whatever). In a few words, pictures, like artworks '''Shouldn't be edited'''.
:::I'd say those sound reasonable to allow as well if this passes. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:29, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
 
The chart shows the bad-edited pictures set in a black background, this problem can be seen in any colored bg but white or some white-based color.  
 
{| style="background:#000000;"
|[[File:MSMart5.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:BowserKartWii.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:Bowsersmg2.png|260px|center]]
|[[File:BlackMagesportsmix.png|center]]
|}
 
It's possible to converse JPEGs into PNG but '''never edit them''' unless it needs so and in this case must be '''well-crafted''', not like this. This is becoming in a trend by many user and shouldn't be atually in the Mariowiki, so think twice before taking a decent decision.
 
{{User|Coincollector}}
 
'''@All Opposers''' What M&SG is trying to say is that we need to remove the transparency from the images that look bad on a different color background than white. Jusy look at the pictures above. The look crappy in a black background.
{{User|Supremo78}}
:Well, just like Supremo above, I don't think it means ALL jpg to png images are really going to be undone, as I know many of them that are amazing that had that happened. I think that the proposal is just to have some quality better. I really don't understand why a jpg image is just tossed out there like it is trash when many amazing images have been uploaded by jpg. Png's might be really good as well, but if you try to put a jpg into a png and it doesn't work out, then you might as well just leave it as in instead of trying to continue with what you are doing. But...I still am trying to decide which side I should support, because I can see it - through the opposers' eyes - as to why this shouldn't pass as well, and what the outcome of all this change could lead to. {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
 
@ Bowser Jr And Tom The Atum: You don't get the point. This proposal, again, '''this is not to remove PNG images, nor saying that JPEG is better than PNG nor something''', this proposal is to stop users that believe they can edit or make certain pictures transparent without noticing important details like the chart shown above. Don't think you're becoming experts on this... {{user|Coincollector}}
 
 
Okay, I see now what the whole purpose is. You want to delete the PNG's with bad quality of transparency. That is kinda okay, but here comes my opinion. You see, it is kinda good when we're talking about the ones that have some effects that have less to no hardness (like shadows of some people, or fur standing upright, or even fire). However, I think it doesn't make sense at all to delete those of bad quality with 100% hardness (so, for example, no shadows & stuff, no fur standing upright, no fire). An experienced converter or transparency maker could easily take the original file and make the file better transparent. If you don't get what I mean, take a look at these blue dots (the upper ones have no hardness, and the lower ones have a hardness of 100%):<br>
{| style="background:#000000;"
|http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/4282/examplefd.png
|}<br>
See what I mean? The blue dot with 100% hardness has it's background completely removed, and there's almost no sign of white pixels left around, while there is a whole bunch of white left at the blue dot with no hardness. As with the middle two in the earlier example, it's transparency ''could'' be better. Seeing the Black Mage at the right, that one could also be done better (seriously, there are pixels left behind that ''don't even belong'' to the artwork), but it has a shadow, so we therefor have to wait for an official release of the artwork with no background (though I, unfortunately, think it will never come).<br>So, what I want is that most artwork that has no background nor hardness-less things, such as shadows, should have another re-upload, with original file, with the background removed, making it looking more polished than it first was.<br>{{User|Arend}} - I see, btw, that ''all the examples above'', have at least been upoaded by UltraMario3000 as the latest revision. I suggest for him that he needs a (better) program that removes the background easily, and/or that, if he uses a Magic Wand tool, that he should increase its tolerance, but not too much. Testing the tolerance is always good, too.
 
:@ Arend: There is no problem to upload high quality transparent images, specially those that are 2D artwork that have plain effects and the tolerance is reliable. The problem comes when you ''try'' to make the artwork transparent. If you find  a picture with no transparency, keep the image unaltered. If you find a transparent image of quality (of tolerable size, not too smaller than the original and the alpha is smooth) keep the image unaltered. If you find or '''make''' a transparent image and has bad quality in transparency and the alpha is not smooth, then undo it. By the way, just a 2D artwork is transparent doesn't mean will be 100% good: [http://www.mariowiki.com/File:Wmage.PNG For example, look at the history here] {{User|Coincollector}}
::@Coincollector: I actually meant ''all'' art, not just 2D. I thought anyone would get it, then someone thinks I only talked about 2D, though I never said it was about 2D. I only used a simple example.<br>Anyways, people who make things transparent can ''try'' to make things transparent, but should <u>not</u> ''save'' directly. They first need to ''test'' the transparency, by adding, for example, a black background as a new layer, if possible. If the art's transparency's not good (enough), they have to ''undo'' the action of making it transparent, ''change'' the tolerance, ''select'' the unwanted things, and try it again. Then they have to test it again, and, if needed, repeat the whole thing, until it is finally good enough.<br>About the 2D art you showed me, it is because the uploader (who seems to be the same person who uploaded the LQ transparency pics above), did not care about the tolerance. Eventually, he should resize the picture a little to make the black lines smoother. To keep a higher quality, shrinking is suggested.<br>I think you skimmed my whole lecture-thing (or whatever it could be described the best) and thought I talked about that transparent 2D art is always good quality, but I never said that. {{User|Arend}}
:::@ Arend: I see your point and is right. In fact you've expandend one of my statements in bold of the comment with the pictures. I have other things to support this. As you said, making a transparent image requires much more time than somebody can think. You may get a whole day dealing with a single image to make it ransparent, testing how will look and undoing it over 100 times if there is a noticeable mistake. The thing gets more complicated when you're playing with the alpha where the colors blend with the background (if you don't what alpha is, is the opacity's bearing of every pixel in a picture, for example the diffuse blue in black bg). Some of the pics above have alpha that the user overlooked and left them in white patches, which makes these pictures unsettling when you look over a background of another color... even more, the white's presence and that dithering ruin the pictures' aesthetics. As I said, the pictures should remain unaltered if they don't need. Making oneself a picture transparent is not easy actually and, these are the mistakes that one can get if they don't this work in a professional way: if you'll do it, do it well and if you didn't well, undo it. Consider my last comment but one as a consequence of this explanation. Also, there are more tools to use than a "magic wand" {{user|Coincollector}}
 
@Super Luigi! Number One!: Do you know how in the simplest way? It's not an easy task as you think. Requires trial and error to get the best quality.


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Merge the non-game lists on the side bar with the video game lists===
''None at the moment.''
I find it very weird that this wiki considers the non-game elements canon but still keeps them separate on the side bar so i think we should merge the two lists together because if everything is official/canon than they should be on the same list. Because right now the two lists separates the game and non-game elements on these lists and i don't think we should do that. Plus we already merged all of the non-game categories so i think it only makes sense to merge the lists two
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}<br>
'''Deadline''': July 14, 2011, 23:59
 
====Support====
#{{User|Goomba's Shoe15}} per my proposal and consistency also i am sorry if you can't understand what i'm proposing due to my grammar.
#{{User|Reddragon19k}} Per GS15!
#{{User|Koopa K}} Per GS15
#{{User|BoygeyDude}} Per all.
#{{User|Supremo78}} Ah now I understand. Per proposal.
#{{User|Superfiremario}} I get it.
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &ndash; Yes. Our wiki establishes games and other media as being equal in how we should cover it and not being in separate canons. So it would make sense for us to merge these lists. Per proposal.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - See my comment on the series proposal above. Having one list is best since you can find everything in one place and it's all equal and whatnot, but I also think we should use symbols to differentiate the various series and the alternate media within that unified list. The more organization, the better.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
Sorry, but I don't get what you are saying. {{User|Zero777}}
 
:Yeah I don't either. {{User|Supremo78}}
::You see those lists on the side bar well currently there separated into game and non-game i'm proposing we merge them together like we did with the categories {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}
:::By "non-game" do you mean beta? Can you please clarify what the non-game stuff is? I don't know what it is. {{User|Supremo78}}
::::Non-game stuff is things from the cartoons and the comics and according to the mario wiki canon policy they are supposed to be on considered on the same level of canon as the games. However, for some reason they are split on the big lists on the side bar and i'm proposing that they be merged together like how the non-game categories and game categories were merged together {{User|Goomba's Shoe15}}

Latest revision as of 10:53, March 22, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, March 22nd, 14:53 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 essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a 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 the status quo wins for that option by default. 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])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

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)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
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)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 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)
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)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 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)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.

Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)

If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if Builder Mario had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if Mole Yoshi had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the Super Pickax had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)

But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:

I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared to base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.

Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would Mega Yoshi be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Even though one needs to know how to Tail Swipe to beat all Mega Yoshi areas? Would Penguin Mario be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? Which is main unique thing about it, given Ice Balls are from Ice Mario and good swimming is from Frog Mario? If we gave the field form of Luiginary Ball a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer? Again, something necessary to complete the ball's tutorial area?

As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a {{main}} article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how Dash handles the Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) (Relevant Edit) and the Spin Dash (Relevant Edit). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.

This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on Spin Jump, Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on Swim, Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on Roll, and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely Fireball, Ice Ball, Hammer, and Bubble. Builder Boxes are Crates, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with Superball Mario years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. Yoshi's Swallow, Egg Throw, et al, Baby DK's DK Dash Attack, Diddy Kong's Diddy Attack and Barrel Jet, and Rambi's Supercharge and Charge are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. SMB2 Mario is bizarre, but charge jump is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, and the article doesn’t have a Super Mario Maker 2 section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.

Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut Fly, an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of {{main}} templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a userpage, based on the existing List of power-ups. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article. As the various contexts of Fly are not the same kind of action to begin with, the article will become List of methods of flight. This broadens the scope to fit all of the components. (Note how "flight" is not a proper noun).

Tail whip was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. Tails are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to Cape, which used to compile the yellow capes of Cape Mario and Superstar Mario into a listicle before this proposal reduced it to only the Smash Bros. attack.)

Oh yeah and I guess Strike of Intuition is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to Detective Peach. Given everything else, it gets merged too.

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert Fly into a list with the name List of methods of flight

  1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is

Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list with the name List of methods of flight

Oppose: Status quo

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate Mariowiki:Once and only once EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find. Furthermore, we do not merge character-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-Mario characters in the Super Smash Bros. series) - for instance, look at Scuttle and Flutter Jump - so why should we do so with forms?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.

Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)

I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. Salmancer (talk) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Question; would this merge Fireball Punch, and would this failing result in re-instating Dangan Mario? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. Salmancer (talk) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been retired. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Thanks, wish I'd known that before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the Luigi Cap. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..

After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies.

- Penguin Mario

The system works! It's repeated for White Raccoon Mario in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for Power Squirrel Mario to Flying Squirrel Mario, with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". Salmancer (talk) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? Salmancer (talk) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until Super Mario 3D Land, despite it being usable by that form in Super Mario Bros. 3? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine.

In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves, making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing X Button or Y Button) and glide (now done by holding A Button or B Button, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.
Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"
In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

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

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and certainly more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
  4. Rykitu (talk) All 5 Princess Peach games have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
  5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
  6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  7. Pseudo (talk) While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her full proper name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
  9. Sdman213 (talk) per all.
  10. Tails777 (talk) I still stand by Daisy being referred to as her shortened name, but I feel this can be a case where consistency doesn't really need to be a necessity: Princess Peach is still a very commonly used name for Peach herself and while just referring to her as Peach is as common, the full name is still used much more often when compared to Daisy and especially compared to Rosalina.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name, we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Abolish the monarchy.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  7. Blinker (talk) Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like Fox, Sonic, etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
  9. Pizza Master (talk) per all
  10. PopitTart (talk) I was initially hesitant because of the existence of Princess Peach Showtime, but I was quickly swayed by looking at the game's online store page, which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
  11. Arend (talk) Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" without an uppercase P.
  12. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  13. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all

Mushroom Head (talk) The people who type “Princess Peach” into the search bar are nerds.

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

Based on the vote so far, this option may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 26, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the option if applicable.

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in Super Mario Land, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101
  3. Pseudo (talk) Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
  4. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in Mario Party 9, Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as Super Mario Land itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-Land is practically a defining trait of hers.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per last times.
  4. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Since I'm supportive of "Princess" being removed from Peach's article title, the same would apply to Daisy, who has made fewer appearances, including with the "Princess" title.
  6. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all three past proposals.
  7. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  9. Blinker (talk) Per all
  10. Tails777 (talk) Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
  11. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
  12. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  13. Pizza Master (talk) per all.
  14. PopitTart (talk) Hi, She's Daisy!
  15. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.
    Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of Larry as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, with visibility nigh intact. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.
  16. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  17. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) per all

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

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

Based on the vote so far, this option may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 26, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the option if applicable.

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Comments (Princess Particle Party!)

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

I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in Smash Bros. games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the Super Smash Bros. games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer I was referring to the Super Smash Bros. series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made Mario Kart Tour, a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In Melee, for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the selection screen. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's more reason for us to move it? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally Peach-hime, Daimaō Koopa and Dedede-daiō, respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, one interview where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying Star Fox's Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. Super Princess Peach enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are technically conjectural.--PopitTart (talk) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), this ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of Blue Shell if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

Now, for a change of pace:

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

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

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

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


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

That first bit about consistency also works as an argument for why Peach and Daisy don't necessarily need to be "consistent" with each other regarding whether they use the long names. Anyway, I believe that "Daisy" being the preferred official name over "Princess Daisy" is incredibly clear, and the fact that a name is sometimes used in certain cherry-picked instances doesn't override the most common and prominent usages. Everything you say about the current names being used in official sources and being familiar to fans applies just as well if not better to the names this proposal seeks to change to. You're right that the current names are used more than something like "Professor Elvin Gadd", but it's not like that has to be the cutoff point (and as I said earlier, you could certainly make an argument that Princess Daisy has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do, which you even supported shortening). Keeping it the way it is does not cause "substantive harm", exactly, but I don't remember anyone ever arguing that it does - the benefit of the move is to be more accurate to the overwhelming majority of official sources. And I do not understand your characterisation of this as "policy for the sake of policy", it's for the sake of accuracy to the source material, which the wiki is always striving for.
Here's a hypothetical to consider: if it happened that the wiki's article on Daisy had always used the name "Daisy" (and assuming everything else about the situation was unchanged), do you think you'd be pushing for a move to "Princess Daisy"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
Potentially, yes. I would. Because I think Princess Daisy is more inherently clarifying as the article title and it is exercised in modern contexts that I think are more directly parallel to how one would title articles in referential material like ours. I think there are sometimes different goals and incentives for character selection screens and the like. For example, at the end of Super Mario Bros. 2 Peach is simply called "Princess," but if this site only covered SMB2, I would argue our article name for her should be "Princess Toadstool" despite it not being the name in-game.
My view in the previous proposal on this, as well as the one concerning the Koopalings, has evolved over time. I think "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" are better, more intuitive, and more clarifying article titles (especially for the former, though I do admittedly still prefer the parallel between Peach and Daisy. That's a bit less important though). In my experience, most people who engage with Nintendo games and Mario do not know these characters simply as "Peach" and "Daisy." So when you have these more clarifying names exercised in the modern era - in instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc. - alongside the more familial "Peach" and "Daisy," what benefit does changing those names bring us? Because if anything it could create instances of navigating the site to find articles on these characters more difficult for some visitors by making their roles more opaque, at least peripherally. So I don't see any gain from this tradeoff, or an improvement of accuracy. I see it as trading a slightly more clarifying, valid, and exercised name for one that is equally valid but less clarifying. The only real benefit is that it can make piping links easier in the body texts of articles for editors, but I am personally more than willing to sacrifice editorial convenience to clarify things for readers when the option is there. I help maintain this site for them primarily, and it is for similar reasons why I did not simply title this article "The Legend of Zelda." - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:35, March 21, 2025 (EDT)
Admittedly, this response is based on personal life experience, but we've had basically the opposite happen to us; sure, people generally get it when you say "Princess Peach", but tend to raise eyebrows at "Princess Daisy" over just calling her Daisy. Calling Rosalina by "Princess Rosalina" is then promptly seen as an extreme over-correction if it's explained to them. Having quick-fire asked both friends and family about this, "Daisy" came up every time over "Princess Daisy", sans one instance of someone mistaking her for Rosalina and one giving an obvious joke answer, and in the former case, even then they omitted "Princess". Admittedly, there is probably a very large bias among family members at play as we have a dog expressly named Daisy, and our sample size here is incredibly small as this was very spur of the moment, late at night.
Even still, the total lack of any "Princess" particles at all here definitely reflects a very different lived experience, so while we definitely can't speak for everyone--it would be extremely silly of us to try to assert that your peers don't include "Princess" just because ours don't, that's absurd!--we can definitely vouch that, in our corner of the world, the "Princess" particle tends to be omitted. Make of this what one may, we just thought we'd share our own experiences here. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 00:28, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
"Princess Daisy" is the name used much less by fans in my experience too. If there actually are fans who primarily use "Princess Daisy" (ignoring for a moment the fact that I don't think that matters), I do think it's at least plausible that the wiki's usage of the name is part of the reason. Also, why is "clarification" such a big deal anyway? People who know about the Mario franchise would expect an article called "Daisy" to be about the major recurring character called that, I don't see any real potential for confusion. We shouldn't be sacrificing accuracy to appeal to some hypothetical minority who wouldn't understand what the page was about if we removed the word "Princess" from the title (and who for some reason can't just glance at the start of the article for two seconds to immediately find out). Also, this list you keep giving of "instruction booklets, encyclopedias, general official media, etc." - what exactly is this referring to? In your vote you listed Super Mario Land (so old that Peach was still Toadstool), the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (seriously?), and "licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy" (which have never taken priority over the video games in any case I'm aware of, and which often use the shortened name anyway). I'm not a big fan of ignoring the naming policy's guidance to cherry-pick sources that use the name we'd rather have. The usage of shortened "Daisy" is not limited to character select screens as you keep implying - for instance, see the links I provided in an earlier comment, which show that most official websites use the names "Princess Peach" and "Daisy". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:11, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
I do not agree that "Daisy" is a more accurate article title than "Princess Daisy." I think they are equally as valid, same with "Princess Peach" and "Peach," but again, I admittedly feel more strongly for her than Daisy. As others have mentioned, she even had a game published last year that referred to her as "Princess Peach" in the title. It would be disingenuous to say "Daisy" is not used more often than "Princess Daisy," but the latter is used, whether it is in contexts you personally think should be considered valid or not. This was part of what I was saying with people treating these names as outdated and erroneous as "Princess Toadstool." These names are exercised in the modern era. So I do not think we are sacrificing accuracy by retaining the names we have. But we are sacrificing clarification, which is something I care about in maintaining reference material aimed for the public to read. This isn't a site just to be edited. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:55, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
For what it's worth, Nintendo101's messages here more or less match my opinion on this subject entirely. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 09:14, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Merge the "did not reach consensus" and "tied" proposal outcomes on the archives

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 27, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

This came up in the comments at the tail end of my poll proposal archive proposal. A grand total of four proposals have "tied" and are therefore represented by brown. Notably, nobody decided this proposal would be brown even though, by any reasonable definition of "tie", it is one. I take this as a sign that this distinction isn't really... suiting the reality of the proposal page. After all, what makes a tie so different that it needs its own color, when it's just a particular arrangement that a failure of consensus can land on?

By the way, one color has to win out in the merge, and my view is: it will be brown. This is going to sound hugely pedantic, but I don't think white is good for a proposal archive color, at least not one with this meaning. Outside of the new dark mode, it looks like it doesn't have a background. That makes it look like some state inherently separate from the others, or like some kind of blank state with no meaning, or like it's related to what gray means. This isn't any of those; it's a pretty normal fate for a proposal to meet. Brown is more in line with the look of the others, and it looking close to "no quorum" better conveys its similar meaning. (Arguably you could merge in "no quorum", too. I'm not here to make that argument but if I was, we should obviously use orange.) Therefore, I say we're merging them to brown.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; as it stands, both "ties" and "failed to reach consensus" are in this weird spot where it's unclear which of the two you're meant to even use outside of, y'know, if the vote count literally ties, which isn't a particularly helpful distinction as far as the archive is concerned.
  6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) What is even the difference between these two outcomes anyway?
  8. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.

Mushroom Head (talk) A tie is so mathematically so damn improbable it is absurd it still is separate from no consensus.

Oppose

Comments

there's something to be said about the fact that the proposals are color-coded in the first place (which is VERY inaccessible to colorblind folks, people using screenreaders, and people who do not remember each color-outcome connection by heart), but that's for another proposal. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:09, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed, having some kind of symbology or just writing out the outcome in the proposal listing alongside the current color schemes would be a big improvement. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 10:12, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
There's a reason we've thus far yet to even think about touching proposal colors for darkmode; among other reasons, like "who has ever used wikitable wario?", we're kinda hoping a more sophisticated thing comes along for the colorblind on the off-chance we can actually incorporate that thing somehow. Symbols in particular sounds very nice. also the idea of having to darkmode white and gray is a Nightmare Scenario so here's hoping this can rectify that one! Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 10:54, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
Wasn't a feature recently added where you can scroll over the result and it states what it means? Or does this not work on screenreaders? Technetium (talk) 10:58, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
that feels like more of a bandaid fix. i think a better solution would rework how Template:Proposal archive looks to present the data in a cleaner way. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 12:49, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
maybe we could use some symbols like triangles or squares. MHA Super Mushroom:) at 08:10, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title

To be as clear as possible, this proposal will not affect any article titles. It is specifically about article content. With that out of the way...

So this classic proposal passed to ban any citations of the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Then this later proposal passed to allow the book to be cited, but only for subjects with no other official English names. I think this makes sense and doesn't need changing as far as article titles go, but the problem is that it creates an awkward inconsistency where only articles whose titles come from the book are allowed to acknowledge it. For example, Pipe Fist can use the encyclopedia as a citation for the name, but Winged Strollin' Stu can't even mention the existence of the "Soarin' Stu" name.

There are a few reasons why I think it would make sense for wiki articles to be allowed to mention weird names from the encyclopedia:

  • It's official information, so it makes sense to document it if we want to be informative and comprehensive. An all-or-nothing system where the names have to be either the title of the article or not mentioned at all feels unintuitive.
  • There seem to be some cases where this is already done. For example, the Yellow ledge article mentions Encyclopedia's "Ladyfinger Lift" name, with a citation and everything, despite it not being the title.
  • The information is also already covered on the wiki on the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself, which has a nice list detailing all the stuff the book got wrong or took from the wiki. If we're covering it anyway, I don't see why we shouldn't also put this relevant information on the pages about each individual subject.
  • The wiki normally is allowed to mention official names even if it thinks they're wrong. For example, the Cleft page makes it clear that the "Moon Cleft" name from Super Paper Mario is a translation mistake, but it still mentions it anyway. And there are other cases similar to Encyclopedia where we do this kind of thing: the Polterpiranha page isn't called "Ghost", yet it still explains that "Ghost" is the name used for them in Smash games. The Nipper Dandelion page even explains the situation of how its name was a fan name before it was an official name.
  • Although the aforementioned proposal that allowed the Encyclopedia to be cited was intended to have it as a special case with the absolute lowest priority on the naming policy's list of sources, that has since been overridden by another proposal that introduced website filenames as an even lower-priority naming source, and the naming policy explicitly encourages mentioning those weird alternate names. So if we're allowed to mention names that are less trustworthy than Encyclopedia's, why shouldn't we mention Encyclopedia's names too?

If this proposal passes, articles will be allowed to mention alternate names from the Encyclopedia even if they are not being used as the title. For example, Comet Luma's article could start with something like:

Comet Luma, referred to as Lumacomète in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or, if we want to make it more clear that we think the name is wrong, maybe even:

Comet Luma, erroneously referred to by its French name Lumacomète in the English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or maybe we could exclude the name from the intro and mention it later in the article, perhaps in a "Naming" section, similar to what Nipper Dandelion and Yellow ledge are already doing. Perhaps that could even give us more room to explain where the name came from like the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia article does.

Naming

Comet Luma is one of the few characters in Super Mario Galaxy to not have a published official name for English releases of the game, nor in any official paratext for Super Mario Galaxy like the instruction booklet or Prima Games guidebook. In dialogue, Rosalina refers to it as "the Luma who knows about such things [about Prankster Comets]" and Polari does not mention its name in the English localization. The English translation of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia erroneously refers to it by its French name "Lumacomète",[1] which was used as the title of its article on the Super Mario Wiki fan website from 2012 to 2018 (being briefly changed in 2014 and 2015).

Or we could cut out that last bit mentioning the wiki by name. The point of this proposal is less to decide exactly how we integrate these into articles and more just to clarify that we are allowed to.

Again, to be incredibly clear, this proposal is not about changing any article titles. The current naming policy will not be changed at all by this proposal. This is merely about allowing articles to mention alternate names that aren't being used as the title. If this proposal fails, I suppose Yellow ledge and any other articles mentioning the Encyclopedia names will have them removed (though I'd imagine the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself would still be able to keep its list of errors).

Proposer: Hewer (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (allow English Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)

  1. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, referred to as "Per all" in the Super Mario Wiki Encyclopedia, is a common vote reasoning found in proposals.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) This sounds very reasonable! I especially like the clarification regarding the names from the encyclopedia not being fully correct.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) this is exactly the kind of stuff i envisioned for the Naming sections! very good idea, per proposal
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Tentative support. I think this can be helpful for readers visiting the site, especially if integrated as LinkTheLefty suggested.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) As long as it's kept to the naming sections, this should be fine. I'm surprised we don't allow it already.
  7. Rykitu (talk) Per all.

Oppose (ban English Encyclopedia names from being mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)

Comments Encyclopedia

(Is the tier below Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia even presently used for any article title?) The {{encyclopedia}} template was modeled after {{conjecture}} and {{another language}}, and in the latter case, the information is normally relegated to the "Names in other languages" section. I think that the revamped "Naming" section would be a good place to put Encyclopedia names if this passes. There are too many instances, like with several Super Mario Galaxy instances, where the Encyclopedia name is outright confused with something else, and putting those details in the introductory paragraph could cause even more confusion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:10, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, that sounds fair enough. And I don't think any articles currently use titles from website filenames, it was just added to the naming policy as a failsafe in the off chance we ever get a subject not named by any other sources. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:41, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
We might want to temporarily trim that from the naming policy if it's not currently being used, or merge it with rest of the dev data tier (since it'd use that template anyway), since an unused tier is probably a sign that it's starting to get a bit much... But anyway, what about quotes from the book that aren't name-related? For example, the MIPS article uses Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. as a source for him being Peach's pet rabbit. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:52, March 22, 2025 (EDT)
I'd say those sound reasonable to allow as well if this passes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:29, March 22, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4795729"