MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>[[File:Proposals.png]]</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear=all>
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removals of previously added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action is taken.
*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==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
I have several pitches for you.
<h3 style="color:black">Rules</h3>
#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.
#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. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" 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.
#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 setting up a [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?board=57.0 collaboration thread on the forums].
#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>
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
This is an example of what your proposal must 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]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined.
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>
-----
<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>
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
<nowiki>'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT. (14 days for </nowiki>[[MarioWiki:Writing Guideline|Writing Guidelines]] and [[#Talk Page Proposals|Talk Page Proposals]])


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki><br>
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
<nowiki>#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]</nowiki>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.


To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


__TOC__<!--
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''


<br>
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
-->
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


<h2 style="color:black">Talk Page Proposals</h2>
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
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|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<h3 style="color:black">Rules</h3>
====Option Zero====
#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 section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{tem|SettledTPP}}.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#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:
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one. ('''All times GMT.''')  
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#*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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#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.
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.  


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
====Option One====
*Split [[Whomp]] and Big Whomp. ([[Talk:Whomp|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' September 26, 2012, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
*Merge [[Fire Breath (Yoshi)]] with [[Fire Breath]] ([[Talk:Fire Breath (Yoshi)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': September 28, 2012, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


==Writing Guidelines==
====Option Two====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


==New Features==
====Option Three====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


==Removals==
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.</s>
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
====Option Four====


===Coming up with a more consistent standard for the Super Mario series===
====Comments====
The Super Mario (series) page is not governed by a consistent definition for inclusion. In particular, the first two Super Mario Land games, Wario Land, and Yoshi's Island- all of which are included on the main Wikipedia page- are absent, and it seems to me that at least a few of these games would be included were the Mario Wiki community to agree upon a clear, ''consistent'' definition for what constitutes a Super Mario title. My proposed definition would be as follows:
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)


'''A platformer, either 2D, 3D, or mixed; Made by Nintendo; Features "Super Mario" in the title; Stars Mario as a playable character'''
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


The major consequence of this new definition would be the inclusion of the first two Land games onto the Super Mario (series) page. Reasons that have been provided against this inclusion have, in my mind, been very weak. Examples would include:
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


"The game just doesn't *feel* like a Mario game."
==Removals==
While it's true that the first two Super Mario Land games are unique, the same can be said of Super Mario Bros. 2 and Super Mario Sunshine, both of which are included on the (series) page.
''None at the moment.''


"The two Super Mario Land titles were directed by Yokoi, not Miyamoto."
==Changes==
Again, while this is true, it's a charge that could also be directed against other games on the (series) page, such as New Super Mario Bros. 2.
===Introducing the crossover article===
 
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
"The word 'Land' in the title tells us it's a separate sub-series."
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
This isn't tenable for two reasons. First, it would open the door to take off many other games on the list (64, Sunshine, Galaxy) that don't carry the familiar Super Mario Bros. moniker; secondly, Super Mario 3D Land ''is'' included on the (series) page, meaning it would need to be removed in the name of consistency.
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
 
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
"The two Land games weren't included in the Anniversary Collection Booklet."
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
Not only does the Mario Wiki make clear that the ACB carries no weight as a source for Super Mario canonicity, it would also leave us in the dark regarding later SM games. Should 3D Land be included? NSMB2? Leaning on the ACB defeats the purpose of establishing a clear definition for inclusion on the (series) page down the road.
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
 
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
It goes without saying that this isn't the only definition that could be used, but based on discussion with others, it seems to be the most reasonable first step. That said, I '''strongly encourage''' a reading of this topic from the Mario Boards, started by myself, which goes into some detailed discussion about the ambiguities on the (series) page and ways to fix it: http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.0
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Legault}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 18, 2012, 23:59 GMT.
 
====Support====
#{{User|Legault}} Consistency and clarity are essential.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} A written set of criteria is better than a literal nothing. Though I almsot abstained from voting as I don't think that specific page is even needed.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Raven Effect}} Per the arguments made in the thread you posted.
#{{User|Koopa K}} LOL, Yoshi's Island and Wario Land aren't in there because THEY AREN'T MARIO GAMES. Just because they have "Super Mario" in the title does not mean its a Mario game.
#{{user|Walkazo}} - Per my arguments in the thread ([http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.msg873172#msg873172 starting with this post]), and in the Comments below (which is basically a summary of my posts). Also, this wouldn't just affect [[Super Mario (series)]]: it also affects History sections, navigation template and categorization, [[Super Mario Land (series)]], [[Mario (series)]], and anything else that talks about the ''Super Mario'' or ''SML'' subseries - it's not a little change we're talking about here.
#{{User|RandomYoshi}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Blue CosmicToad}} &ndash; Per Walkazo.


====Comments====
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
This should be a regular proposal not a TPP. {{User|Raven Effect}}


I figured I'd make a mistake like this, although I tried to follow the guidelines as best I could. Moved to where I *believe* is the correct place... fingers crossed. {{User|Legault}}
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.


[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.


:Big long rant time: I'm trying to reproduce my key points from [http://www.marioboards.com/index.php?topic=20682.msg873172#msg873172 the thread], so that it's all in one place, and after this, I (hopefully) won't be making any more big blocks of text (I already delayed studying by two hours for this: if I keep it up, I'll totally fail my tests... not to mention, put you all to sleep).
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.
:-
:First of all, that Anniversary booklet is just as valid a source of info as any other officially-licensed product of Nintendo and we should use it as such (not "lean" on it, just use it as one of many things to consider when determining the series). Also, the fact that it can't tell us anything about what happened after its publication would be a ridiculous reason to write it off.
:-
:Secondly, the argument that keeping the ''SML'' games based on their name means ''SM3DL'' has to be removed too is rather flawed. For one thing, it doesn't contain "Super Mario Land" in its name, and even if it did, separating it would mean ''everything else'' about the game was ignored. The game wasn't designed as a continuation of the ''SML'' subseries: the plot, enemies and power ups are all ''Super Mario'' series staples, and the level designs (indeed, the game itself) are meant as an hybrid between the free-roaming 3D platformers and the linear sidescrollers of the ''Super Mario'' subseries, while the name is an ''homage'' to ''SML'', nothing more. Clumping games into series requires looking at the game as a whole; if they share a common element in their name, that gives us official grounds to say "yes, this is a series", but we don't ''have'' to, and on the flip side, games with differences in their names don't ''have'' to be kept apart, but it gives us the means to do so if the big picture suggests that we should. The "Super Mario Land" name gave us a means to separate the games (while the games themselves provide the ''reasons'' to separate them, which I describe in the third-last paragraph), and while one could try to separate "Super Mario Bros." by the same logic, they and the other "Super Mario ''whatever''" platformers (2D, 3D or otherwise) have so many common elements, the logic of separating them ends at the names.
:-
:Now, that's not to say there aren't differences within the subseries, of course. ''SMB2'' was recycled from another game so its plot is admittedly a departure from the usual "save Peach" story, and ''SMS'' changed things up a little too, but unlike ''SML'', many of the new species, characters and other aspects of these games reappeared in later ''Super Mario'' games (i.e. Bob-Ombs, Pokeys, Ninjis, Pidgits, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Cataquacks and the Piantas), with a number of other things becoming fixtures in the ''Mario'' universe as a whole (i.e. Birdos, Shy Guys, Petey Piranha, Gooper Blooper, Isle Delfino, Shine Sprites and F.L.U.D.D.), whereas ''SML'' and ''SML2'' only gave us Daisy (who's not in any ''Super Mario'' games) and Wario (only in one ''Super Mario'' game: ''SM64DS''). So no, the same ''can't'' be said for ''SMB'' and ''SMS''s' uniqueness compared to the ''SML'' titles.
:-
:''SML'' may have had the same "one-track sidescroller through various worlds to save a princess" outline as the ''SMB'' games of its era, but it used completely different characters, enemies, setting and gameplay elements (the vehicles and Super Ball). ''SML2'' may have then brought familiar ''Super Mario'' species into the mix, but it had a whole new plot and a new "choose the world you want to do first" approach to the game. And, by the time we get to ''SML3'', the subseries has morphed into a while new subseries: the ''Wario Land'' subseries, with a new protagonist along with a new plot, new enemies, new setting and new characters. ''WL:SML3'' still has "Super Mario" in its name, but it's definitely not a ''Super Mario'' game anymore, and rather than splitting up the "SML" games in order to keep this last one out while the others remain nestled in the ''Super Mario'' subseries, giving them their own series allows the last installation to remain with the first two. And the three ''SML'' games ''should'' be kept together, not because of their names, and certainly not because of their gameplay (seeing as each one is radically different from the next), but because they are ''explicitly'' linked together by plot, with the "Story" section of the ''SML2'' manual referencing <i>SML</i>'s plot, and <i>SML3</i>'s manual referencing ''SML2'' by name. That's more than enough reason to keep the three games together, and it's also another difference between them and the ''Super Mario'' games, which don't make nearly as much effort (if any at all) to link themselves to one another.
:-
:As for ''Yoshi's Island'', it has the "egg-as-'o'" title logo that was established by the game ''Yoshi'' three years before ''SMW2:YI'' was released, making it part of the ''Yoshi'' series right from the get-go. Like the ''SML'' games, it wasn't in the Anniversary booklet, so we have evidence tat Nintendo doesn't consider it a ''Super Mario'' game (again, we wouldn't make a decision based on that, but a fact's a fact, and it should not be overlooked). And more importantly, it doesn't have much in common with the ''Super Mario'' titles from an in-game perspective: it has a completely new story and new gameplay, aspects of which are re-used in subsequent "Super Mario"-less ''Yoshi'' games, but not the ''Super Mario'' subseries. And it doesn't even fit ''your'' criteria properly, since it ''doesn't'' star Mario as the playable character: it stars a gang of Yoshis, with ''Baby Mario'' becoming playable for brief interludes with the Super Star item.
:-
:Aaannnnd, I think that's everything I need to say. Hopefully I didn't forget any key points... Anyway, that's all for now, thanks for reading. - {{user|Walkazo}}


I offer three options:
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


Re: KoopaK's opposition -> Respectfully, you've failed to grasp the opening arguments. The point of this proposal is that the Super Mario (series) page needs to adopt a ''clear'' and ''consistent'' standard- '''whatever''' that standard may be. Perhaps you believe the Super Mario moniker is enough to constitute a SM game; perhaps Mario needs to be a playable character; perhaps you have a radically different standard in mind. What needs to be implemented is ''a standard'', and the one I've provided- which only adds the two Super Mario Land games, ''not'' Wario Land or Yoshi's Island- seems like a small but productive first step towards some much-needed consistency. {{user|Legault}}
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Re: Walkazo's opposition -> I've addressed your points at length elsewhere, so rather than repeat myself, I'll simply target the few ''concrete'' points you make (as that wall of text is absolutely swimming in ambiguity and subjectivity save for a handful of arguments) to demonstrate why there's little substance to your multi-variable, "cladogram" approach.  
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per proposal.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


1) The ACB booklet is either a) an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games, or b) ''not'' an authoritative source for determining which games are SM games. '''There is no middle ground'''. Because the Mario Wiki makes clear that no source is more "canon" than any other, the necessary conclusion is that the ACB should be treated as non-authoritative for the purpose of canonized compilation. And again, even if it were treated as authoritative, it would still be silent on later games- meaning we'd ''need to come up with a clear definition anyway.''
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Yes.


2) The rest of your rambling boils down to two points of focus, neither of which are '''remotely''' objective: ''feel'' and ''impact.'' The difference between Super Mario Land and Super Mario Bros. 2, you say, is that the latter introduced new things that became staples of the series; it doesn't matter if SML fits the common-sense criteria for a Super Mario game (name, genre, playable character, developer), since, according to your definition, the game didn't have enough ''lasting impact'' to warrant inclusion. If you want to be consistent, however, this feel / impact approach is still going to demand some pretty major changes on the Super Mario (series) page. Take Super Mario Sunshine, for example: doesn't feel a thing like Mario 64, and didn't have a lasting impact on the Super Mario series. Why is it on the series page? Or take a game like Super Mario Land 2: feels ''very similar'' to a traditional SM platformer, and ''did'' have a lasting impact on the Mario franchise in the form of Wario. Or what about a game like 3D Land? The series has never had a hybrid 2D/3D platformer before, and as the game introduced little new- it was largely a SMB3 homage- those same "feel" and "impact" arguments could be leveled here as well. There's a woeful lack of consistency in your approach. Which brings me to my third point...
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


3) You continue even now, weeks after our first exchange, to ignore my requests for providing ''any clear definition'' for what games to include on the Super Mario (series) page. Leaning on rhetorical flourishes like "Consider all the factors!" may make your arguments persuasive to some, but it also makes them hollow, and if the Mario Wiki values ''clarity'' and ''consistency''- and I can't imagine any reason it wouldn't- you need to make your standard ''clear''. Is your standard complicated? That's fine. Is your standard multi-variable? That's fine. '''Tell us what it is.'''
====Crossover comments====
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)


4) Lost in Walkazo's ramblings is that I'm *not* advocating including Wario Land / Yoshi's Island into the Super Mario (series) page. '''Only the first two Super Mario Land games will be added.''' I do wish people would make sure to read the opening post carefully before commenting or voting. {{user|Legault}}
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)


Just one question: Isn't any criteria we come up with for determining what belongs in the Super Mario series inevitably going to be fan based? I know Nintendo cannot be expected to fill in the gaps every single time, but still it seems like we're just accepting/rejecting things into the Super Mario series based on our personal perceptions of what a Super Mario series game should be. I don't think it's a really important page, it's in that weird zone between [[Mario (series)]] and the respective sub-series like the [[Super Mario Bros. (series)]]. I'm not arguing whether or not Nintendo considers Super Mario to be a separate series (because it's pretty clear that they do), but given the ambiguity what belongs in the series, I wouldn't mind if it was scrapped altogether.--{{User|Knife}} 00:53, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::{{@|Nintendo101}} I'm fine with that. [[User:Mushzoom|Mushzoom]] ([[User talk:Mushzoom|talk]]) 02:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]'').  [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)


Re: Knife -> You're right in that any standard we use is going to be unofficial, but assuming the Super Mario (series) page stays up (since this particular proposal doesn't question the merits of the page), the choice for now is one between a) an explicit, consistent definition, or b) something else. You'll also note that, as of writing, ''no standard'' has been given by the other side. Which means there are only a few possibilities for explaining the status quo: 1) There isn't currently a consistent definition for the Super Mario (series) page; 2) There is a consistent definition, but individual members are unwilling or unable to make it publicly explicit; 3) There is a standard, but it ''isn't consistent.'' Those voting for the Opposition should seriously reflect on how allowing this kind of ambiguity (whereas even the main Wikipedia page adopts a clear, consistent standard) will reflect on the integrity of the Mario Wiki, since I can't for the life of me think of ''any other'' such list that would go to such trouble to avoid definitional clarity. {{user|Legault}}
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
{{early notice|March 17, 2025}}
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


:Sorry about the ''Yoshi's Island'' thing (including it was partially me covering all the bases, but I also forgot about your third line by the time and was just using the opening line as reference by that point), but I didn't think you were trying to include ''Wario Land'' in there: hence I said "'''rather''' than splitting up the "SML" games in order to keep this last one out", i.e. rather than your strategy, which would merge the first two into the ''Super Mario'' subseries and leave the third one out. But speaking of extra games, doesn't the "made by Nintendo" criteria exclude ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'' and ''[[All Night Nippon Super Mario Bros.]]'', since, to my knowledge, they were just licensed by Nintendo? That point either needs clarification or you need to add those games to the list of changes. You also need to start using "canon" the same way as the wiki: being "canon" just means that it's official - it has nothing to do with being authoritative, and it does not come into play when dividing up the official info into subseries (from [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]: "''The canon of a franchise is a system of classification that separates official media products from unofficial media products [...] Any officially licensed appearance [...] are considered official [and] all official sources can be considered canonical and should be treated as such by all users [...] However, this does not mean any source of information is more canonical than the other. In no way should the organization of wiki articles be considered an assertion of what is canon in the Mario series.''"). The booklet is official so it is canon and we can use that information, however it is ''not'' all or nothing, since we still have the ability to make organizational decisions given the sometimes-conflicting info at hand; that's why we can separate things like [[King Boo (Super Mario Sunshine)]] from [[King Boo]]: the English name's the same, but everything else is different, so we decided they ''are'' different, and used the fact that their Japanese names are different as official grounds for splitting the page accordingly (both names are "canon", but one makes more organizational sense than the other). As for the rest of the discussion, I stand by my argument that what constitutes a ''Super Mario'' game can't be boiled down to a single elegant line; I agree that the games need to be (officially-''licensed'') platformers that include Mario as a playble character and which have "Super Mario" in their names in order to be ''Super Mario'' games, but the standard should not end at that. The enemy/character/whatever roster, plot and gameplay (power ups, stage select, whatever) are just as important to consider as those "must have" criteria (and some of it, like how many enemies reappear, ''could'' even be boiled down to cold hard numbers and not just qualitative observations), but either way, I disagree that looking at all the variables and making grouping decisions based on the number of similarities and differences that occur in those variables from game to game should be written off as inconsistent "rambling". The more info that is taken into account the better, because the resulting group members will have more in common with all the other members than if a broader definition was used and included less-closely-related subjects. Finally, regarding Knife's comment, having the "Super Mario" games grouped together is very useful for History sections as it keeps the main, popular platformers together, up at the top of the Histories, rather than letting the newer sets of games get buried under all the random spin-offs.- {{User|Walkazo}}
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.


The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


Re: Walkazo -> No worries about the Yoshi's Island / Wario Land mix-up; I just wanted to make clear that those games ''are not'' in line to be added with this new definition if accepted. Just the first two Land games, by nature of their genre, developer, title, and playable character. The new definition would indeed exclude SMBS and ANNSMB as being "unofficial" Mario games, in the same vein as Hotel Mario, but I considered this a minor change (the one major change being, as I mentioned previously, the addition of the first two Land titles). Only two more points to address here:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT


1) Returning to the ACB, it is ''not'' "canon" in the sense that I'm using the word: namely, that it does not operate as an authoritative source on which games are Super Mario titles and which aren't. If it were, then we'd be left in the dark not ''only'' regarding the games released after the ACB, but ''also'' regarding remakes and ports, which go unmentioned (Super Mario 64 DS, Super Mario Bros. Game & Watch, etc.)- not to mention SMBS and ANNSMB would also find themselves excluded.  
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea
#{{User|LadySophie17}} per all. That has always bothered me.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Very good to establish consistency.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. Finally consistency.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Consistency is good.


2) Your "holistic" approach comes at the price of inconsistency, subjectivity, and lack of clarity / verifiability. I do appreciate your honesty with this last post, because you yourself have now made clear that '''the Super Mario (series) page is currently organized without clear standards.''' Never mind arguments that the definition may be complicated or multi-variable; as of right now, ''a definition doesn't even exist.'' Though you're free to provide one at any time, it doesn't seem like that's a priority for you.
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====


This is where argument ends and where opinion begins: either you opt for a standard that is without clear definition or consistency and operates based on "feel," or else you opt for a standard that sets up some reasonable, but ''clear'' and ''consistent'', conditions for being considered a Super Mario game proper. [In other words, this is the main Wikipedia approach vs. the current Mario Wiki approach.] There's nothing else I can add on the matter beyond the observation that many people- much more than I expected- seem content to accept a status quo that lacks any kind of structure. A few days left, so we'll see where people fall on this dispute. {{User|Legault}}
====Comments (first topic heading)====


:I say again, you should really use "canon" the way it's supposed to be used around here: using a unique definition for a buzzword like that is potentially misleading to voters. The argument ''is'' over, but I would like to point out that qualitative decisions are not ''necessarily'' inconsistent and unclear if they're done right (i.e. is all the games get the same criteria put to them). Besides, while the threshold of how different one game is to the rest is subjective, a lot of the criteria that are innately being taken into consideration when deciding "is SML too different to be a SM game?" are just as cut-and-dry as "is Mario playable?" (i..e Luigi? yes/no? Peach? damsel/playable/no. Plot = save Peach? yes/no/different princess. Setting = Mushroom Kingdom/other. Super Mushrooms? yes/no/different function. % of enemies that appear in other "SM" games?). Given enough time one ''could'' map all these details out and come up with some arbitrary numerical cut-off for how many differences a game can have, or whatever, but that's tedious and unnecessary when we can simply do it in our heads. It may not be a concise definition, but it's worked for years, and I think it can continue to work for the wiki. - {{User|Walkazo}}
===Give ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' an article===
''Taiko no Tatsujin'' has had numerous crossovers with the ''Mario'' franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual ''Mario'' characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.


Seeing as I've been extremely clear as to what I mean by "canon," I doubt anyone is confused. Although since we're on the topic of misleading voters, I should mention that you continue to tiptoe around the fact that '''you haven't provided a standard.''' You're right that a complex definition ''can'' be made, but you've yet to do so, and this "holistic" approach is a tidy way to dodge the question. As I said before, it seems clear that consistency isn't a priority for this Wiki, which is disappointing to say the least; I'd expect a Wiki dedicated to the Mario games to at ''least'' meet the standards of clarity of the official Wikipedia page. As you said, though, this confused approach has been the standard here for quite some time, so it'd make sense that people would be resistant to change; it's just too bad that the change in question is a clear positive. This will probably be my last formal interaction with the Mario Wiki, since it's clear that my values line up more with the Super Mario (series) page on the main Wiki site, but I've enjoyed talking with you all and hope this process at least got a discussion going, one that may see the light of day again in the future. Thanks for the fun and thought-provoking talks, Walkazo. {{User|Legault}}
*The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=870WLPGnnKs using imagery from the games].
*The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrnhCfrtw Super Mario Bros.]" Notably, the videos include [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO31iswKX84 actual characters and imagery from the game showing up]. The former has nearly every enemy from the original ''Super Mario Bros.''
*''Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version!'' has "[[Fever]]" from ''[[Dr. Mario]]''. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
*''Nintendo Switch Version!'' has "[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]" from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]''.
*The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from ''Dr. Mario''. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and [[Super Star]]s appear [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxXo0oHzZg when notes are hit].
*''Blue Version'' has [[Cappy]] has an equippable hat.
*''Rhythm Festival'' has a medley of music from ''Super Mario Bros.'', re-used from earlier games.


===Allow quotes on non-character articles===
''Mario'' has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off ''[[Donkey Konga]]'' and [[Don-chan]] being a playable character in ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP DX]]''. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think ''Taiko'' is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.
The templates {{tem|Quote}} and {{tem|LLQuote}} have an important purpose on character pages, where they give a brief insight to the character's personality and/or traits. However, there are many non-character article subjects where a relevant quote can apply. But as per an [[User talk:YoshiKong/Archive 2#RE:_Quotes|unwritten, recommended guideline]], these templates are restricted to character articles. I feel that we have a greater extent for the use of quotes beyond the character aspect. On a personal account, I have added quotes to non-character articles where I saw relevance, and they were promptly removed (see [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Wario_Land_4&diff=next&oldid=1226299 here] and [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Item_Shop_%28Wario_Land_4%29&diff=next&oldid=1296582 here]), with the collective reason for the removals being the template is reserved for character articles. I wish to propose against the overall guideline for the quote templates. I believe if there is a readily available, ''strictly relevant'' quote that pertains to a specific non-character article, then it should have a place on that article.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|YoshiKong}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' September 19, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support (allow quotes in accordance to the described regulations)====
====Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)====
#{{User|YoshiKong}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|JORDAN DEBONO}} Per YoshiKong.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} I'm questioning this even being a proposal as the "rule" is not actually written anywhere and only one user "enforce" it. Either way, asinine stuff.
#{{User|Hewer}} This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got [[Just Dance (series)]] a page. Now we just need to figure out whether [[Mametchi|Tamagotchi]] gets one...
#{{User|Bop1996}} Per Glowsquid.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Blue CosmicToad}} Glowsquid has made an excellent point. Per Glowsquid
 
====Oppose (keep to the current recommendations)====
 
====Comments====


Maybe it's okay to put quotes on character and item articles, but having them at the top of a game article seems tacky to me IMO. But as far as I know we don't have an enforced policy about it either way.--{{User|Knife}} 09:46, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
====Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)====


:It's one of those unwritten rules. Perhaps game articles can be an exception to the proposal. However, throughout the article ''[[Wario Land II]]'', there are some quotes in the sections of the articles, where they back up what is explained in that section. Would this be accepted? {{User|YoshiKong}}
====Comments' Perfect Math Class====
{{@|Scrooge200}}, have you considered waiting until the proposal [[#Introducing the crossover article|immediately above]] is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' at all if it were to be pass. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
:Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just ''Zelda''. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::''Zelda'' is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::{{@|Scrooge200}} By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on ''Super Mario''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 09:46, March 17, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, March 17th, 13:46 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. A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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)

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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
  2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
  2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

#Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.

Option Four

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

  1. See the publication of the drafted Zelda article discussed in this proposal, titled "crossovers with The Legend of Zelda." (The draft can be viewed here.)
  2. Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to Zelda on the wiki to the published Zelda article (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like Link would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future Mario Tennis or something like that).
  3. Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. Zelda info on the list of references in Nintendo video games article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published Zelda one when they reach that section of the list article).
  4. Establish a navbox for crossover articles (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
  5. Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the Super Mario franchise has crossed-over.
  6. Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the MarioWiki:Manual of Style that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
  7. Note that this framework exists on the the crossover section of our coverage policy, and provide a link directing readers to it.

The Super Mario franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, Super Mario as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. Duck Hunt, Punch-Out!!, Exictebike, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Splatoon, etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s EarthBound, HAL Laboratory's Kirby, Game Freak's Pokémon, etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.

A lot of coverage of Super Mario references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of dedicated game articles, or in Super Smash Bros. articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and are not wholly about Super Smash Bros. anyways. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the Super Smash Bros. series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that Super Mario has made references and is referenced in many other franchises outside of Smash Bros. contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how Mario has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where Splatoon and Mario have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.

frog man!
green lad!

To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, I have been drafting what I would like to call a "crossover article" using The Legend of Zelda franchise as an example (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the universe articles from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the Zelda draft, consist of the following sections:

  • Overview : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to Mario. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For Zelda, this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because Mario had a lot of direct influence on Zelda as a series.
  • Recurring crossover subjects: for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside Mario-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with Mario highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with Mario.
  • History in the Super Mario franchise: a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the Super Mario franchise itself.
  • History in the subject series/franchise: a history section for the inverse, where Super Mario is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is Zelda.
  • Shared history (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Tetris series, NES Remix series, or other media.

Zelda is uniquely related to Mario and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with Super Mario within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to Super Mario or have elements inspired by it, such as Celeste, Gears of War, or Astro Bot.

I offer three options:

  1. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.
  2. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the Super Smash Bros. series should be left alone.
  3. Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.

I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted Zelda article! It is in my "community garden" sandbox for a reason.)

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
  13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists
  14. Mario (talk) Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
  15. OmegaRuby (talk) The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
  16. Pseudo (talk) I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
  17. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  18. Mushzoom (talk) Per proposal.
  19. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave Smash Bros. lists alone

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Sophie.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Soph
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
  6. Arend (talk) Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
  7. Okapii (talk) Per Sophie.
  8. Nelsonic (talk) Second opinion.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering Zelda subjects had Link's Awakening failed!
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  11. Salmancer (talk) Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
  12. Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.
  13. Weegie baby (talk) Yes.

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

I also happened to start a draft for a Pikmin series article the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... much rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--PopitTart (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne thank you for the kind words! - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)

Link -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Question: One of the proposed points is to "Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?
Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through Smash Bros., such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within Smash Bros. have only crossed-over with Mario within Smash Bros., and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ARMS is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, @Arend? - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in Smash, but it would be strange to do with ARMS considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ARMS regardless, considering how most of the ARMS development team is basically Mario Kart 8 alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with Kingdom Hearts. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.
Anyway @Nintendo101, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for Mario, one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular Smash Bros. info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about Zelda in Smash Bros. and less about Zelda with Mario in Smash Bros., but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of Smash Bros., would be retained.) For example, in my Zelda draft, Ganon is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist: Paint Studio, Yoshi's Woolly World, and the Super Smash Bros. series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant Zelda info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)

So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the Super Mario franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my Zelda draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the Super Smash Bros. series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how Zelda engages with Mario in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular Smash Bros. info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.
Another thing I just thought of: we already have Pushmo (series) and Just Dance (series) as guest appearances, and this proposal passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe @Kaptain Skurvy, @Nelsonic, and @Mushzoom can provide their two cents. Would you want the Pushmo, Just Dance, and Animal Crossing articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:
Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, Rhythm Heaven, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe Balloon Fight, maybe Clu Clu Land, maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would probably be redundant to split
Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles
Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken
No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts
I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
Forgot about The Legendary Starfy, that would qualify. There's also I Choose You! from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 I'm fine with that. Mushzoom (talk) 02:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
@Nintendo101 Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of Super Mario content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the list of references in Nintendo video games or the list of references in third-party video games. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Drill Dozer or Borderlands 2), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Punch-Out!! or Mobile Golf). Nelsonic (talk) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)

This is probably a separate proposal, but should the Link's Awakening article be outright merged with the new crossover one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 17, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards). It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.

To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one. That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.

The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion. If this proposal passes, the aforementioned page would look like this.

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

Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) per all. That has always bothered me.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Very good to establish consistency.
  9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
  10. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Finally consistency.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  12. Weegie baby (talk) The fact there are no headings on the first topics of talk pages annoys me so much 😤
  13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Consistency is good.

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Give Taiko no Tatsujin an article

Taiko no Tatsujin has had numerous crossovers with the Mario franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual Mario characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.

  • The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, using imagery from the games.
  • The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "Super Mario Bros." Notably, the videos include actual characters and imagery from the game showing up. The former has nearly every enemy from the original Super Mario Bros.
  • Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version! has "Fever" from Dr. Mario. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
  • Nintendo Switch Version! has "Jump Up, Super Star!" from Super Mario Odyssey.
  • The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from Dr. Mario. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and Super Stars appear when notes are hit.
  • Blue Version has Cappy has an equippable hat.
  • Rhythm Festival has a medley of music from Super Mario Bros., re-used from earlier games.

Mario has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off Donkey Konga and Don-chan being a playable character in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think Taiko is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
  3. Hewer (talk) This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got Just Dance (series) a page. Now we just need to figure out whether Tamagotchi gets one...
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)

Comments' Perfect Math Class

@Scrooge200, have you considered waiting until the proposal immediately above is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for Taiko no Tatsujin at all if it were to be pass. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just Zelda. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
Zelda is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
@Scrooge200 By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on Super Mario. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4786832"