MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
 
===List of talk page proposals===
{{TPPDiscuss|Split [[List of Mario references in video games]]|Talk:List of Mario references in video games#Split Article|Passed}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Do something with [[:Category:Artifacts]]|Category talk:Artifacts#Do something with this category|Passed}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Trim down [[:Category:Ice Creatures]] and [[:Category:Fire Creatures]]|Category talk:Ice Creatures#Do something about this category|Passed}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Split the page for [[Spiked Fun Guy]]|Talk:Spiked_Fun_Guy#Do_something_about_this_tangled-up_mess|Passed}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Split Walking Tree from [[Luigi's Mansion (race course)]]|Talk:Luigi's Mansion (race course)#Split Walking Tree from this page|September 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Add a second parameter to [[Template:Construction]] to include user names|Template_talk:Construction#Add_a_second_parameter_for_user_names|September 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Fix the [[Nintendo Power 20th Anniversary Comic]] page|Talk:Nintendo_Power_20th_Anniversary_Comic#Do_something_about_this_page|September 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Merge [[:Category:Merchants and Salespeople]] and [[:Category:Shopkeepers]]|Category_talk:Merchants_and_Salespeople#Merge_Category:Merchants_and_Salespeople_and_Category:Shopkeepers|September 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Merge [[Stump Petuni]] to [[Petuni]]|Talk:Stump Petuni#Merge this article to Petuni|September 28, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Don't class the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]] characters as [[Shaman]]|Talk:Shaman#Don't class the Paper Mario characters as Shaman|September 30, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Split ''Vs. Wrecking Crew'' from ''[[Wrecking Crew]]''|Talk:Wrecking Crew#Split Vs. Wrecking Crew from this article|September 30, 2017, 23:59 GMT}}
 
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
===''Arcade Archives'' page===
''None at the moment.''
With the recent announcement that Nintendo is putting their old Arcade games onto the switch via Arcade Archives, I feel like this is only fair; we gave [[Virtual Console]] its own page, and this is pretty similar to that.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwood777}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 22, 2017, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Camwood777}} - Well... No duh I support it. I ''proposed'' it.
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal. I don't see how it differs from the Virtual Console.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all.
#{{User|Mariomaster86}} Was just thinking the same thing.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
Don't think this needs a proposal tbh {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 20:14, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:Sorry. I'm still new here, and I don't really feel comfortable making whole new pages yet. At any rate, if it's fine, can it be made? '''''[[User:Camwood777|<font color="red">~Camwood777</font>]]''' [[User talk:Camwood777|<font color="red">(talk)</font>]]'' 07:48, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
::This could probably use a proposal. Currently we have the {{wp|Arcade Archives}} link to Wikipedia on the main page. I suppose there wouldn't be any harm making one here that mainly focuses on the Mario titles, but I'm not sure if we need the page or not. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:43, 16 September 2017 (EDT)


==Removals==
==Removals==
===Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule===
''None at the moment.''
The current rule regarding support votes in [[MarioWiki:Featured articles|our featured articles guidelines]] goes something like this:


"Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes. Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination. '''If you support, simply sign with your name, without adding a reason (unless you are the first supporter and thus the nominator).'''"
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


I used to enforce this rule, removing support reasons whenever I come across them, but now, I currently don't, because I've been thinking, seriously, what's the point of spending effort counter-productively removing reasons for support any more, even if the said support vote is ''actually constructive towards the article'' and not merely a fan vote as it once was? [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_articles/N1/Boo&oldid=680671 Fan votes used to be a particular problem in the past], but today, they are not as much as a problem as they once had them, so bending backwards to remove something....doesn't change anything at all and it wastes time expending effort that could go to something far more productive. The rule is also incredibly inconsistent to every other time we vote in MarioWiki, making this one of the reasons that removing support vote reasons used to be a frequent because the rule is convoluted and confusing to new users of MarioWiki and thus make the mistake constantly.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
Hell, at this point, with me refusing to enforce this rule any more, it seems like no one else even enforces this terrible rule too, so now, I'd like to officially get rid of that parameter from our Featured Article ruleset once and for all, because there's no point to having a rule that no one wants to enforce and this would free up time for users doing other more productive edits, and this is especially true for support votes that actually do say something useful or actually praise editors for their hard work, which would encourage them to work harder and happier.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Baby Luigi}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 20, 2017, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Baby Luigi}}
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Heck, even I support featured articles with a reason. Per Baby Luigi's reasoning.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} ''Why'' is that even a rule?
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} This rule is outright broken. It overcomplicates the voting process '''''and''''' has no clear reason for its inclusion. Per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Giving a reason for the support is definitely nice and actually tends to prevent otherwise unseen fan votes since it "exposes" them, in my opinion.
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This feels pretty obvious at this point.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I can try to explain. A lot of support reasons back in 2008-2009 used to be nothing more than "I like this guy he should be featured", so it had to be decided somewhere that they wanted to remove the reasons....because...it would...clutter...less space...and it would ... er...discourage fan voters..? I honestly don't see the logic here at all, in hindsight today. What gets accomplished here? Nothing? Just removal of words. That's it. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 14:58, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That logic makes the defining premise behind the movie make sense by comparison. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:33, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::I think part of it was that almost everyone, in essence, was just saying "Per the first guy who already wrote about why the article's good," and they got rid of the support reasons to eliminate the redundancy. This also prevents people from including anything that the nominator missed and allows people to support nominations for entirely personal reasons, so I'm all for requiring support reasons. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:38, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:@Baby Luigi: I think you accidentally forgot to provide the "Per proposal" reason with your vote. Could you do that please? Thanks! {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 19:17, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::tbh, I don't think it's necessary, since I'm the original proposer so you kinda know what my intents are. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:44, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Eh, the rules say that every vote needs a strong reason. It's not necessary here, but it's useful for, say, proposals with multiple options. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 12:30, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::You know, I've been thinking. Why exactly do we need a strong reason for voting in the first place? A vote is a vote. It has the same power regardless if there's a paragraph attached to it or if it contains only two words. Hell, the usage of "Per all" pretty much circumvents the "strong reason" rule most of the time it's used, sometimes even as  veil to hide laziness or going with the popular side. I mean, fishing for votes is already strongly discouraged in the first place, so it's not like we can easily rig votes in our favor and if there is malicious intent, that's why we have admins (people can also rig proposals and circumvent things with "per all" too, but at least people aren't terrible enough for this to be a huge problem in this wiki). {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 18:02, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think it's just a catch-all clause to prevent people from giving insane or nonsensical reasons for voting. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:09, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)


==Changes==
===Split the image quality category===
===Add categories for images of characters===
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
Currently, if one wants to find all the images of a certain character on the wiki, there is no easy way to do so. While galleries might just have all images of a character, it must be remembered that certain images have specific purposes, such as {{media link|Lemmy-Bike-Trick3-MK8.png|showing a specific animation}}, {{media link|SMWGPB3 Ludwig OreSama.png|showing the personality of a character through poses and lines of dialogue}} or {{media link|PMCS Iggy Weak.png|showing certain features of the physical appearance such as the eyelids}}. Including all these images without context would likely make the galleries bloated. A simple solution at the moment might be creating categories of images of characters to be added to the images themselves, of the format <nowiki>[[Category:{character} Images]]</nowiki>. With proper maintenance, doing so would allow, in the longer term, to see all images of a character on the wiki, allowing easier maintenance as well as retrieval of images that might have a second purpose on the wiki beyond the original one they were uploaded for, all this without creating bloat on the galleries.
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Mister Wu}}<br>
====Split both====
'''Deadline''': September 18, 2017, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
#{{User|Mister Wu}} A first step as the comments noted, but a very useful one.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.


====Support====
====Only split screenshots====
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Per proposal
#{{User|LED42}} I also think so. Yes, it can take a long time to finish, but finding certain character images is a hard work right now, even with the search page. It'd be split into sub-categories, to make it easier.


====Oppose====
====Only split assets====
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per Alex95 and Wildgoospeeder's comments.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I think the benefits of this proposal are far outweighed by the unnecessary processes and the horrendous organization we have to undertake. First of all, the only images that ultimately benefit from this proposal are screenshots. Nearly everything else related to their character are already found in the gallery, making the category on the bottom mostly redundant with their placement on galleries. Second, this proposal runs on the assumption that there are only one or two characters max per screenshot, and the proposed changes to the screenshots already sounds like more complication on top of an already messy proposal. Because that's what the proposal is aiming to do, and doing so will provide a gigantic, ugly mess of categories on the bottom area of the picture, which makes browsing images by their game even harder to do. And finally, what are the qualifications for characters receiving a category page? Are we going to give one-shot NPCs their own image category? The proposal doesn't say which characters "deserve" their own category, with maybe the proposed number of character images being "5", which I think is an arbitrary number for various reasons.
#{{User|Time Turner}} This kind of system would only work properly if our images had a rigorous and consistent naming system - otherwise, it'll just be an odd mash-up of random images, with no coherent order to any of it. Per everyone else.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Alex and Wildgoosespeeder in the comments. I am also not sure how many characters would receive a category.
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per me and Wildgoosespeeder below.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Baby Luigi and Time Turner.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Leave image quality alone====
How would group images be handled? And would this include literally every image of the character - artwork, sprites, screenshots, et al.? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:50, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
:For the categories to have a purpose, they should include all images of the characters. Subcategories such as sprites, artwork or scans can be implemented later if this is beneficial and if enough images can be had in them. Group images are an interesting point, I see other wikis that indeed include all characters in an image, and since multiple categories per page are a thing here too, listing all characters might indeed be the best way. Anyway, as you can easy imagine, implementing this kind of templates is not something that can be done all at once, so as first step we can categorize images having one character to immediately see the time needed to properly implement the categories, the feasiblity and the benefits - if there are any -, after this "pilot phase", group images can be dealt with.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 21:07, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
::Fair enough. As follow-up questions, how many images should a character have before an category is created for them, and will this eventually be expanded to include enemies, locations, items, and others? Even if these won't be applied for the "pilot phase", I'd still say that they're worth considering for the future. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:06, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
:::Since we are talking about specific characters, a special case, we must consider whether grouping makes sense: the main pages already group some characters together through categories, but it must be seen if this simplifies any work - if a reader or a maintainer wants to know the exact number of images of a specific character, the category page should show it, it might be even useful to know whether some characters only have a single low quality image while they should have more than that. Expanding to other classes, such as enemies or items, can be considered if we indeed obtain good results with the characters, my idea at the moment is still focusing on something we want to know the covearge of or we want to see the images of, but if you want to extend even beyond that we can consider at that point setting a limit, possibly like the one of the current standards for image categories - should be five images.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 23:41, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
::::So would any character with five images get a category, or would it only be major characters? I don't feel it would make sense for minor characters such as [[Coach (Super Mario Galaxy)|Coach]] to receive a category. --{{User:TheFlameChomp/sig}} 20:07, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::From a long term point of view, knowing that a character has not so many images might be an intenresting information, especially if said character should have many more, if this were to pass I don't think we should start with minor characters, though, we could either go with the major characters {{media link|EncyclopediaSMB - Characters pt1.jpg|listed in the}} {{media link|EncyclopediaSMB - Characters pt2.jpg|Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.}} minus the species and the Toad variants, if we want to follow the Nintendo criterion of major characters, or the Mario series characters who have a gallery on this wiki and are featured in the [[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario series main games]] if we want to see whether such categorization makes sense or not.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 20:58, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
I don't get it. What's wrong with the galleries? Yeah, [[Gallery:Mario|some might be rather large to look through]], but categorizing an image based on character would be pretty much the same thing as sticking it in a gallery. Seems redundant to me. Additionally, categories are alphabetized, and some images may not be named based on their relevance. Galleries, however, are sorted based on the type of image, from artwork to sprites to screenshots. Sure, categories show 200 images at a time, which makes loading times easier, but galleries are sorted in a way that makes navigation easier. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:16, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I'm with {{user|Alex95}} on this one. I think our organization of images is a little lackluster, but the current proposal doesn't have any real benefits. We are clumping unlike images into the same image category. This will take a long time to implement, but why not organize each image category found in [[:Category:Images by game]] into say like [[:Category:Super Mario World Sprites]], [[:Category:Super Mario World Artwork]], etc., to be in [[:Category:Super Mario World Images]]? The reason I have not proposed this because of the sheer intensity of the project handling 300+ categories and dealing with [[Special:MediaStatistics|~80,000 images]]. The hiarchy I'm suggesting:
:*[[:Category:Images by game]]
:**[[:Category:Super Mario World Images]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario World Sprites]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario World Artwork]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario World Screenshots]]
:**[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. Images]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. Sprites]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. Artwork]]
:***[[:Category:Super Mario Bros. Screenshots]]
:I don't see this being implemented any time soon. Also, there could be unforeseen conditions that could come up. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:47, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:@{{User|Alex95}} I fear you might be missing a point. Putting all images of a character in a gallery leads to bad layouts and to problems which were very well presented by {{User|Baby Luigi}}, [[User_talk:Mister_Wu#Koopaling_Color_Splash_sprites|when I myself was invited to avoid this in the case of Iggy's sprites from ''Paper Mario: Color Splash'']]; since the reasons are actually valid I started avoiding putting in the galleries images that are alraedy referenced in main pages due to their main purpose, and I've been mostly doing this since then to avoid cluttering galleries with images from a single source. In no way can a gallery replace a systematic retrieval system of images of a character, which is what [https://www.pidgi.net/wiki/Category:Ludwig_von_Koopa PidgiWiki] or, if we want to stay in NIWA, [https://archives.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Category:Charizard Bulbapedia] have, both [https://www.pidgi.net/wiki/File:Koopalings_-_Mario_Kart_8.png actually using] [https://archives.bulbagarden.net/wiki/File:AG189.png a method similar to what I'm suggesting]. My point is, even though in the games this might be of secondary importance, the ''Mario'' franchise as a whole is inevitably character driven, being named after a character, but currently finding all images of a character isn't simple, and galleries have unavoidable restrictions that cannot solve this - either you sacrifice layout for coverage, or you sacrifice coverage to have a cleaner layout, the latter being important not to give the idea to the new users that you can upload whatever you like in the gallery.
:@{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} I won't deny the amount of work needed, still I think an issue is definitely there, and if fans are coming for images of the characters, we give them little resources to find them, same for maintainers, actually. I more than welcome better proposals for improving the situation, since of course the system I'm proposing is tested and actually implemented, but nonetheless very simple and requires much manual work to implement here.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 19:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
I'm on the fence, personally... I don't think it'd be a horrible idea, it'd just take a LOT of weeding out specifics to make it work, and gallery might be used more frequently. '''''[[User:Camwood777|<font color="red">~Camwood777</font>]]''' [[User talk:Camwood777|<font color="red">(talk)</font>]]'' 17:37, 15 September 2017 (EDT)


Also, putting ALL characters will never end, I think only in major characters, minor characters should be out of this category. {{User:LED42/sig}} 13:42, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


===Create articles on all of the Lakitu Info Center missions in ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam''===
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
We already separate the missions from the world articles in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario 64 DS'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon'', so why don't we do the same for ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam''? I can already think of a lot of content to go into these articles, and plus, I can easily create them as well.
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


'''Proposer:''' {{user|Toadette the Achiever}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline:''' September 21, 2017, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Even though they are nothing like the missions of the 3D games. They are like the minigames of [[Mario Party (series)]].
#{{User|Camwood777}} - Consistency, yay!


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


====Comments====
====Comments====
Feel free to contact me if you want to assist in the project, should the proposal pass. :) {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 23:45, 13 September 2017 (EDT)
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)


Before I say anything, are you planning on splitting the [[Trouble Center]] info? What makes Lakitu Info Center missions any more deserving than the Trouble Center ones? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 00:48, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


As much as I want to support, I also want to oppose (so I'm not voting atm). It seems like a majority of the missions are repeats: "Find the Toads", "Capture Nabbit", "Capture Toads"... The missions in the 3D titles were more diverse, allowing for more in-depth explanations (though there are shared missions, like the Red Coin ones). How exactly are you planning on expanding the missions? (Also echoing Baby Luigi. Not ''everything'' with a name needs to be split.) {{User:Alex95/sig}} 00:51, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
what about Donkey Kong (1981)? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:True, the vast majority missions have the same type of objective. '''But''' no two missions are exactly alike in terms of layout and structure, and the only missions that are the same are the [[Hard Mode]] variants. If you want, I can show you a demo, but that will take time to make. {{User:Toadette the Achiever/sig}} 01:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:That would work for ''Donkey Kong'', but the original ''Mario Bros.'' and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)


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


===What to do about ''Paper Jam'' Shiny articles===
Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.
Copy/pasted from [[Talk:Shiny#What_to_do_about_Paper_Jam_Shiny_articles|here]] with no loss of information:


For the Shiny variation of enemies in ''[[Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam]]'', we have them as separate articles from the actual enemies, such as [[Shiny Paper Dry Bones]] or [[Shiny Paper Swoop]]. {{User|TheFlameChomp}} and I ultimately found out that the "Shiny" part of their names don't actually exist, the enemies are actually titled "Paper Dry Bones" or "Paper Swoop" and the shiny counterparts are more like how ''Pokemon'' is handled; the same enemy, just slightly stronger. We've decided that merging the Shiny variant with the Paper variant would be best, but some don't have pages on their Paper variant either, instead being written into the main article. The main problem here is the nonexistent "Shiny" title, but "Paper" is within the enemy names as well, which gives me three options.
Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the ''only'' difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.


'''Option 1: Create articles for the "Paper" variant of enemies (that don't already have one) and merge the "Shiny" variants into it'''
This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?


Continuing with the examples above, the information on [[Paper Dry Bones]] would be split from the main [[Dry Bones]] article (with a {{tem|main}} in the corresponding section) and the information in [[Shiny Paper Dry Bones]] would be merged with Paper Dry Bones.
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Option 2: Merge the "Shiny" information to the main article with the "Paper" enemies'''
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


"Paper" is part of the enemy names whereas "Shiny" isn't. Most, if not all, of the "Paper" enemies are currently merged with their main counterpart. This option involves moving the "Shiny" information there as well. For example, [[Paper Dry Bones]] and [[Shiny Paper Dry Bones]] will both be merged to [[Dry Bones]].
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
#{{User|Hewer}} I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I mean, if it’s just the same thing and no changes (assuming it doesn’t include dates for save files), then I guess this one makes the most sense.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's the simplest, it seems reasonable enough, and is applicable across the board; while it isn't exactly in-line with how Nintendo is handling things as of the Switch era, it's reasonable ''enough'' and can easily account for pre-Switch cases very well.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. Especially if that means that we will stop using "English (United States)" for games that use a variety of English that is not specifically American and weren't even released in America such as ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|SMBTLL]]'' or ''[[Mario & Wario]]''.


'''Option 3: Split the "Shiny" and "Paper" enemies into separate pages'''
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice, as this seems to be Nintendo's official methodology as of the Switch; however, this ''exact'' rationale doesn't account for situations like, say, [[Mario Party 8]] and its infamous recall in the UK, which predates Nintendo's official distinguishing of NA English and UK English from the Switch era, leaving us at a bit of a loss for how to handle it exactly.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} This option could also work if date formatting is different despite the game itself using the same script for the US and UK/Australia, like Mario & Luigi: Brothership.


See comments below. Regular enemies, Paper enemies, and Shiny enemies would each have their own page, with the Shiny variant receiving a (Shiny) tagged at the end.  
====Option 4: Do nothing====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”


'''Option 4: Do nothing'''
====Comments====
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)


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


To clarify, this will '''not''' effect the Shiny enemies found in ''[[Paper Mario: Sticker Star]]'', as those enemies do have "Shiny" in their title and are considered a separate enemy.
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Alex95}}<br>
:In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline:''' September 21th, 2017 23:59 GMT


====Option 1====
Realistically even though Canadian English does use British/Commonwealth spelling most of the time, they just get US English spelling in games as Nintendo groups Canada with North America and their English is pretty similar to English in the US, so Nintendo products in Canada are just the same as in the US.  
#{{User|Alex95}} - My preferred option.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} I think that the paper variants should have their own pages.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per proposal, since I helped find some of the information.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} For consistency with the paper characters from ''Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam'' having their own page, all the paper enemies from that game should have them as well, I guess; if Shiny enemies in the game are just shown as variants of the same enemies, we should reflect that as well.
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This makes the most sense. We made pages for the shiny versions in Sticker Star, but not for shiny OR paper versions in Paper Jam? This is silly.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.


====Option 2====
In this case why don’t we also just group American English and Canadian English into one and call it "North American English" even if it’s moreso mainly American English? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)


====Option 3====
:I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per [[Template:Languages/doc|the documentation for the "languages" template]], the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Shinies are different from regular paper variants in terms of improved stats and appearance. And per Option 1 vote.
#{{User|Time Turner}} Different enemies deserve different articles.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Yoshi the SSM.


====Option 4====
::I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)


====Comments====
If Nintendo is also still adding English (United Kingdom) for their games despite there being almost no differences from the North American English versions aside from date or other words if needed, why do they keep American spelling? Wouldn’t it make more sense for British English spelling to be used even if it’s one of the only differences between English (United States) and English (United Kingdom)? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)
If there is another option I didn't think of, let me know. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:50, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
 
:How about an option for creating pages for the paper variants and keeping the shiny variants separate? After all, [[Gritty Goomba|the same name does not make the same enemy]]. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 17:54, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::The problem is that "Shiny" isn't part of the enemy's name. It's more like an additional parameter. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:58, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::Could we have, say, "Paper Goomba (Shiny)"?[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::::I'm fine with that. If they have different appearances and different stats, then it's really no different than the other examples I tend to throw out at times like this. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:12, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::That'd be a really odd identifier considering [[Shiny Paper Goomba]] is a different enemy. I wouldn't support it, but I can see this as an option. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:15, 14 September 2017 (EDT)


Also, why is this a talk page proposal? Aren't these bulk changes the kind of thing best suited for the main proposal page, especially when it (potentially) involves merging? [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_45#Move_Mario_Party_3_Duel_Maps_back_to_their_old_capitalization|One proposal]] was even called out for deciding to rename multiple pages in a talk page proposal. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)
:I thought having two weeks would be enough time for everyone to go over the different options. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:22, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::"Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page [the main proposal page]." I'm pretty sure this qualifies. Besides, how much time is really necessary to understand "create articles and merge other articles", "merge articles", and "create articles"? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:25, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::Oh, I did not see that... Let me see if I can cancel this and copy/paste this proposal to the main page, or if I need to start a new one. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:32, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::::My comment now makes no sense. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:37, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::It's fine. Mine look off, too. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 21:38, 14 September 2017 (EDT)


So, now that we've settled on a location, why do you oppose option 3, Alex? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:16, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:I don't work for Nintendo nor do I know anyone personally who does, so I can't exactly say for sure. But my best guess is that they simply don't feel like they need to anymore. The main problem with Nintendo not having separate US and UK English localizations before was that certain words considered offensive in the UK but not the US would show up in Nintendo of America's localizations that were also going to be largely reused in Europe, as seen with ''[[Mario Party 8]]'' and ''[[Super Paper Mario]]''. But now such words appear to get caught and edited out during Nintendo of America's initial English localization pass, like "[[wiktionary:welcher|welcher]]" in ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions]]'', "[[wiktionary:bugger|bugger]]" in ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]'' and "[[wiktionary:bummer#Noun 3|bummer]]" in ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]''. Also, it seems that ever since at least ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'' or so, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe have been working together more closely on English localizations from the start, as a couple English localization staff at NoE are now often also credited on NoA localizations and vice versa. With any potentially problematic words (regionally or otherwise) now seemingly being addressed much earlier on, there's no longer a really good reason they ''need'' to otherwise address differences between American English and British English during the localization process that would justify the extra time, effort and pay. While I'm sure it was appreciated by some, as Hewer mentioned, most people in the UK are used to reading and hearing US English and can understand it just fine (and the same goes vice versa to a lesser extent). It's not like Spanish where many Latin Americans genuinely struggle with understanding Spaniard slang and sometimes vice versa. As for why they still store UK or “EU” English scripts separately from the US ones in internal data despite being them being almost or outright entirely identical now, I think part of that is a remnant of the previous generation where more distinct localizations stored in folders labeled by both region and language was the standard (and it makes it easier for them to port over the more distinct localizations from older games whenever they bother doing so, like ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'''s for ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]''). But I think the other reason is to make it easy just in case something actually still needs changing between regions, most commonly the aforementioned date formats. Because that can be legitimately confusing, since they would essentially be backwards otherwise by the other region’s standards. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 19:56, February 14, 2025 (EST)
:Because I see the shinies more as a pallet swap than anything else. Yes, the enemy gets a slight increase in stats sometimes, but as far as the game itself is concerned, they're the same enemy. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 22:19, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
::In the same way that ''Superstar Saga'' considers [[Gritty Goomba (Gwarhar Lagoon)|Gritty Goomba]] and [[Gritty Goomba (Teehee Valley)|Gritty Goomba]] to be the same enemy? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 22:24, 14 September 2017 (EDT)
:::If the different parameters were the only thing different, then I'd say they're two forms of the same enemy, like how I'm proposing here. However, the Gritty Goomba in Teehee Valley has an additional role the variant in Gwarhar Lagoon does not. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 12:57, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::So you'd consider [[Limbo Bro (Guffawha Ruins)|Limbo Bro]] and [[Limbo Bro (Teehee Valley)|Limbo Bro]] to be the same enemy? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:01, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::Yes. I thought they were already, tbh. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:06, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::Why? Because they have the same name? Even though they have different appearances, different locations, different abilities, and different stats? Shall we also merge the two [[Chap]]s for being NPCs with the same name? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:08, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::Okay, I get what you're saying. They are different enemies with different just about everything. But for the ''Paper Jam'' Shiny enemies, the game (from what I know) seems to regard them as an alternate form of the same enemy. Different parameters, sure, but the same enemy. I'll go back on the Limbo Bros., and the Gritty Goombas and Chaps should remain split, due to them clearly being different enemies and characters. But as far as the game is concerned, ''Paper Jam'' seems to regard the normal and Shiny enemies as the same enemy. I'll go through with whatever option ends up supported the most. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:20, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Can you elaborate on how ''Paper Jam'' regards them as the same enemy? It's a genuine question, as I haven't played the game. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:23, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::I haven't played the game either, but what I've been told and have seen, the Shiny enemies are more like an alternate variant rather than a separate enemy. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:25, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::I've asked FlameChomp about it, and going by [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheFlameChomp&curid=219985&diff=2289825&oldid=2289824 his explanation], it seems more akin to the [[Gold Beanie]]s for regular [[Beanie]]s or the [[Amazy Dayzee]]s for [[Crazee Dayzee]]s - a rarer version of a regular enemy (please, correct me if I'm wrong). I'd consider that to be something worth splitting. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:30, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::The thing with Gold Beanies and Beanies or Amazy and Crazee Dayzees is, not only do they look and act different, but their name is as well. But yes, that's close to what I mean. It's simply a rarer version of the same enemy. Whether that's something to be split or not, I'm leaving to the proposal. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:35, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::I played the game. And what makes shiny paper enemies different from paper enemies besides what I mentioned is that they are usually rare (though one can make them less rare) and drop Shiny Battle Cards usually. But, they seem to be in place of regular paper enemies. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:36, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and an enemy by any other name would still be the same enemy. A single name should not be the only deciding factor when it comes to creating or deleting articles. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that you're leaving it to the proposal - you're voting in the proposal yourself, and your vote counts just as much as anyone else's. You're free to change it as you see fit, or even vote for multiple options. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:39, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::::::::I'm voting for the option that I think would work best. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:42, 15 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I think we can have [[Shiny Goomba]] separate from "Paper Goomba (Shiny)" since we list the "Paper" enemies from the other paper games with the regular enemies, and if we're splitting the "Paper" versions, we should split those "shiny" versions from the "other" shiny versions for consistency. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:56, 15 September 2017 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
===Make Dark Mode available to everyone===
===Double the amount of time a proposer can edit their talk page proposals===
{{early notice|February 20}}
Because talk page proposals are less visible than regular proposals, they are given an extra week for discussion. I'm not going to argue against that; though smaller issues occasionally go on for too long, the extra time is invaluable for when [[Talk:Rocky_Wrench#Rocky_Wrenches_are_a_type_of_Monty_Mole|large changes are being discussed]]. With that in mind, why can they only be edited within three days of the proposal's creation, the same amount of time as a regular proposal? So, we want to give people more time to discuss proposals, but we don't want to give the proposers more time to acknowledge the discussion and make changes as needed? There's a clear discrepancy here. I propose to double the amount of time a proposer can change, delete, or otherwise edit their proposals on talk pages, from three days to six. This lines up with the doubled amount of time they take in the first place.
Dark Mode is available to users with an account under preferences but it should be a toggle-able option for all users, even if they're not an editor. Wikipedia allows everyone regardless of role to toggle Dark Mode, so I don't see why [[Super Mario Wiki|this wiki]] shouldn't follow suit.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Pizza Master}}<br>
'''Deadline''': September 19, 2017, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per.
#{{User|Drago}} Per proposal. I think a week might make more sense than six days though; it seems simpler.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} nice idea, <s>though I would prefer if Light Mode was called "Ground Mode" and Dark Mode was called "Underground Mode" for our site.</s>
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} This definitely makes sense to me. If TPPs have an increased amount of time for voting, then so should the time that is allowed to edit them. Though I don't necessarily agree with that "they are less visible" argument. Talk page proposals are about as visible as mainspace proposals, and these days, most editors DO check the list of TPPs regularly and as easily as browsing through this page. If visibility is a problem for TPPs, then measures should be taken to ''be more visible'', since these matters are about as important as main space ones.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, theme changes are unavailable to users not logged in? Just, at all? It's not just dark mode, it's ''any'' theme, since it's all on Preferences. This feels like something that, if it's possible, it shouldn't even be a proposal, it should just be added outright without vote. This is a very obvious quality-of-life change for users that don't happen to be logged in.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}}Why do we still need to create an account just to not torture your eyes when we use this wiki at night? It literally has zero effect to the users who are always logged in anyways.
#{{User|Alex95}} - I may not be 100% on board and can see issues, but they're the same issues we're having currently, so... I'll support the proposed extension.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} The fact that this wiki has a Dark Mode and it ''still'' isn't available to everyone who uses the site is a crime.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Wikipedia does it and it serves as an accessibility feature for some people.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} Sounds like a good idea, and it seems feasible to implement...
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Since the duration of the time of voting is twice, it makes sense to also allow twice the time to edit.
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This feels the most fair. Double the time to vote, so double the time to edit the proposal.
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all.
#{{User|LED42}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per all.
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Per all, especially Mister Wu and Camwood777. It would only seem fair to allow double the voting and double the changing at once.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====


====Comments====
====Comments====
"Talk page proposals may be closed by the proposer at any time if each voting option has fewer than five votes." (Closed means the same as delete.) So are you proposing to double this to ten votes too? Because closing date is not dependent on the number of days passed for TPPs. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:01, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
My question is: is it possible to enable this feature for non-logged-in visitors? I'm asking this because Dark Mode is considered a "[[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets|Gadget]]", and not a regular MediaWiki feature. They work with JavaScript though, so I suppose it ''could'' work in some way (given we have [[MediaWiki:Common.js]] and all), but I would still ask {{user|Porplemontage}} if a toggleable, easily accessible Dark Mode for everyone (including non-users) is possible, if I were you. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:33, February 13, 2025 (EST)
:I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals. Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:03, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::''I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about a discrepancy between the rules applied to both regular proposals and talk page proposals, not a rule that applies uniquely to talk page proposals.'' It is kind of hard to tell the difference between the two statements. What's the difference between them? ''Besides, that rule says nothing about letting the proposer edit their proposal nor anything about what happens after five votes.'' Obviously, otherwise it will fall under "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" with the above quote being rule 4 of TPPs. And I know this. Otherwise, I wouldn't make my comment. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:10, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::The first statement refers to rules that apply to both kinds of proposals with the only difference being their timespan, whereas the latter statement refers to rules that apply exclusively to one kind of proposal with no parallel for the other kind. Beyond that, what point are you making? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::::In either statement, there is this to be considered:
::::"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."
::::"Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one ('''all times GMT''').
::::*For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT."
::::So they will be basically the same design. Unless I am reading this wrong. As for point to this, Isn’t it obvious? I want to know if votes are going to double or not or if canceling is going to change like the other two. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::This proposal wants to change one thing: the time period in which a proposer can change their talk page proposal should be expanded to six days from the current three days. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::I know this and I want to support this. But canceling a proposal is already different in TPP than in RP. I just wanting to know if you going to keep this difference, double this number, or change it to six days. In either case, I can easily support this. But I want to know before I do support. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 13:39, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::<s>You say that you can easily support this, but then you oppose. Sure. What specifically are you perring about their comments?</s> sorry got the proposals mixed up {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::On topic, as I said previously, the ''only'' thing that will be changed is the time limit for editing the talk page proposals. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:56, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::LOL. Anyways. You seem to imply that canceling will be changed to six days rather than (5) votes. OK. Though I like the 5 vote rule (and theoretically, it could be included as an additional thing to do), I don't know how it came to be. Either way this passes, this will change TPP's rule 4. {{User:Yoshi the Space Station Manager/sig}} 14:04, 12 September 2017 (EDT)


@Drago: It's tempting, but I'd rather that it's exactly equivalent to the main proposals. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:14, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:I've asked [[User:Porplemontage|Porple]] on his talk page, so we'll see when he answers. [[User:Pizza Master|Pizza Master]] ([[User talk:Pizza Master|talk]]) 17:40, February 13, 2025 (EST)


The problem I'm having with this is that new information can show at ''any'' time, even at the final day of the proposal. In which case, a new proposal would be created when able to. There's also the option of getting an admin to cancel the proposal so the new information can be taken into account without actually going through with the current proposal. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:20, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::Porple's response on his talk page seems to imply that it might be possible. [[User:Pizza Master|Pizza Master]] ([[User talk:Pizza Master|talk]])
:So should we not allow proposers to edit proposals at all and just have them cancel their proposals whenever new information comes up? Giving the proposers more time to effectively respond to others without having the current discussions and votes being entirely cast aside (at the same time, setting a time limit for the changes prevents proposers from changing things at the last minute, but I don't want to give them infinite time). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:22, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::I'm not saying that. I'm all for having more time, but at the same time, there is a limitation that can screw with the proposal at the last minute, even if the time limit is extended to anything other than "infinite". Additionally, users may have to reconsider their votes after the change, some of which may not notice it (though the proposer can certainly send a message if they wish). {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:27, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::The same logic can be applied to the current time limit, but I don't think that it pans out in either case. I'm suggesting that, for a 14-day proposal, proposers have the ability to make changes for the first 6 days (ratio of 6/14 or 3/7), to be equal with a 7-day proposal allowing proposers to make changes for 3 days (3/7). The proposer should be motivated to inform voters of any changes, but I don't see what's different between the two kinds of proposals. If anything, you seem to be suggesting that the current time limit should be ''shortened'', if you're that concerned about voters not noticing any changes until it's too late. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:33, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
::::I am concerned that voters may not notice the changes, but I definitely don't want the time to be shortened. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 13:40, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::Another option may be to require proposals to notify voters of any changes (barring superfluous stuff like spelling/grammar corrections). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)


For a related topic, I have been thinking about the 7-day proposal and 14-day TPP should either be all 7 or 14 days for any proposal. Is there any benefit to having this time rule as we currently have it? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 13:38, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
===Make about templates on ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' courses and ''New Super Luigi U'' courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page===
:I think that this was discussed at some point in the past, but I can't seem to find any trace of it... At the very least, it's one of those rules that's been around [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_18#Rules_and_Regulations_for_Specific-Article_Proposals|for a long time]] and nobody has really bothered to question it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 13:53, 12 September 2017 (EDT)
"Where is that Star Coin in [[Jungle of the Giants]]? Oh, I’ll use Super Mario Wiki. Wait, I’m playing ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'' so it’s the counterpart [[Giant Swing-Along]]. How do I get from the Jungle’s page to Swing Along’s page? The about template should take me to… a [[Soda Jungle-1|disambig]]?"


===What is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''?===
What the hypothetical person above said. There’s only two courses with the code [[Soda Jungle-1]], and since Nintendo does not reuse worlds in other games in the same role as worlds, the odds of there ever being a third Soda Jungle-1 are 0%. Given this is the case, if a user does go to a [[New Super Mario Bros. U|Mario U]] course when they meant a Luigi U course, having the about template point to a disambiguation page for a whopping two articles means the user has to click two times to reach the corresponding article for Luigi U. While this is a minor issue, there's a whole [[MarioWiki:Naming#Shared titles|paragraph]] in [[MarioWiki:Naming]] dedicated to saving readers the clicks when searching for the most obvious topic of a group of topics that share a name. I think that philosophy should be extended to this curiosity.
''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic]]'' is, to make a long story short, a game that was altered to become ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]''; though it did not originally contain any ''Mario'' subjects, [[Shy Guy]]s, [[Pokey]]s, [[Bob-omb]]s, [[Birdo]], and others all originate from this game. Due to the impact this game had on the ''Mario'' franchise, we cover it on the wiki, and I think we can agree on keeping it that way. At the same time, it currently exists in a limbo where we don't know to what extent we should cover it. There was [[Talk:Yume_Kōjō:_Doki_Doki_Panic#Merge_Imajin.2C_Mama.2C_Lina.2C_Papa.2C_and_Poki_and_Piki_with_this_article|a proposal]] that decided that covering the game's characters was too much, but at the same time, the article is a part of [[:Category:Games not originally in the Mario series]], with an emphasis on ''not originally''; if it's currently a part of the ''Mario'' franchise, then we should cover it to that extent. [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] doesn't even bring up the game, so there's no help there. Still, if we use the sections of the policy page as a guideline, we may be able to decide for ourselves what is ''Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic''. Here are the logical options:


'''Option 1: It is a full-fledged member of the ''Mario'' franchise.'''<br>
We should carve out a special exception regarding the About template for this pair of games. About templates for levels from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' and ''New Super Luigi U'' simply link to the other article, even though the articles in question do not share a name. The disambiguation page remains, because neither Soda Jungle-1 is more prominent than the other. (It also matches the relationship between ''Donkey Kong Country'' levels to ''Donkey Kong Land'' levels) As a result, this:
If this option is chosen, the game will be considered to be a member of the broad ''Mario'' franchise, albeit one that is not part of any specific series (similar to ''[[Super Princess Peach]]''). Though it was not a ''Mario'' game at the time, you can think of it as having been retroactively included into the franchise. As such, any unique characters, items, and other subjects will also be given individual articles alongside the game's article.
*"This article is about Jungle of the Giants, a level in ''New Super Mario Bros. U''. For other uses, see Soda Jungle-1."
becomes this:
*"This article is about Jungle of the Giants, a level in ''New Super Mario Bros. U''. For its ''New Super Luigi U'' counterpart, see Giant Swing-Along."


'''Option 2: It is a crossover with the ''Mario'' franchise.'''<br>
And so on and so forth for all... 90 or so courses.
If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as a crossover between the ''Mario'' franchise and some other nebulous series (it'll end up in the same section as the ''[[Mario & Sonic (series)|Mario & Sonic]]'' series and the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series). This partially relies on the assumption that the ''Mario'' subjects within the game have retroactively become members of the ''Mario'' franchise and not something that the ''Mario'' franchise appropriated. Like option 1, all of its subjects will get articles; this just affects which categories it'll be slotted into and other such details.


'''Option 3: It only contains guest appearances of the ''Mario'' franchise.'''<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
If this option is chosen, the game will be treated as containing guest appearances (à la [[Captain Rainbow]] and [[SSX on Tour]]). This is very similar to option 2, except the argument now is that the ''Mario'' franchise's impact on the game isn't substantial enough to constitute a crossover. As with other guest appearances, the game itself will be given an article, but none of its subjects will be given an article. In short, nothing much is actually affected beyond categories and other such details.
'''Deadline''': February 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Option 4: It is part of a group unto itself.'''<br>
====Support: Link the corresponding courses together with the about template====
If this option is chosen, it shall be deemed that the game is not part of the ''Mario'' franchise, not a crossover, and does not feature guest appearances, yet all the same, it is something worth covering on the wiki. [[MarioWiki:Coverage]] will be updated with a short section under "What the Super Mario Wiki covers" that describes the game's historic role in the franchise while explaining why it is being covered on the wiki. A bit of time can also be spent explaining why similar games, such as ''[[Talk:Panel de Pon|Panel de Pon]]'', aren't being covered on the wiki. I don't want this to be the "Yume Kōjō" exclusive section, but rather something that potentially leaves some open space for other games should they ever turn up (or ''Panel de Pon'' if we decide to give it its own article again). Since it's not a part of the franchise, the game will be treated like one of the guest appearances: only the game itself gets an article. I can provide a write-up if requested, but I think this is clear enough.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I only have 100 seconds to beat the Luigi courses, for the love of hammers save me the click when I put in a Mario course by accident!
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} If there are two and only two levels that correspond to the same world name and level number (e.g. "Soda Jungle-1"), then one should just immediately link to the other, just like pages that use the <nowiki>{{distinguish}}</nowiki> template such as [[Slug]] and [[Vine Slime]]. Seeing the disambiguation page should only be necessary if someone thinks to visit "Soda Jungle-1" first without remembering the level's exact name.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} one of those changes so obvious you question why they weren't done that way in the first place. per proposal!
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Very sensible change to make.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us. If there were more than 1 DLC like ''NSLU'', maybe linking to the disambiguation would have more merit, but with exactly 1 of them...


'''Option 5: It is perpetually in limbo (do nothing).'''<br>
====Oppose: Status quo, about templates go to disambiguations.====
If this option is chosen, nothing happens. Well, this proposal will be archived, but that's it.


If you're questioning why we need to decide where this game belongs, then I'll answer that it's better than having a game wrapped up in contradictions, existing someplace where nobody really knows what to do with it. Let's nip this one in the bud, shall we?
====Comments (Use <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> to cross-link Mario/Luigi U courses)====
I know I'm on about swapping from "level" to "course". That's for another day, which is why the example doesn't change the word choice. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:54, February 14, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Time Turner}}<br>
===Include the show's title in home media releases of various ''Mario'' cartoons where it seems to be intended===
'''Deadline''': September 23, 2017, 23:59 GMT
Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.


====Option 1 (fully part of the ''Mario'' franchise)====
''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World (television series)|Super Mario World]]'' all have [[List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! home media releases|home]] [[List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 home media releases|media]] [[List of Super Mario World (television series) home media releases|releases]] that include various episodes on a single VHS or DVD. Most of these releases are named after an episode included within it, with the show's name/logo appearing before it, however, we seem to omit the show's name for no reason?
#{{User|Time Turner}} We'll say it's been grandfathered in.
[[File:The Bird The Bird front VHS cover.jpg|right|100px]] I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title ''{{fake link|The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: The Bird! The Bird!}}'', as evidenced by the cover. However, we've just title the article as [[The Bird! The Bird! (VHS)|''The Bird! The Bird!'' (VHS)]] which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' have it like this. So why are these different?
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} The debate reminds me of the whole ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'' kerkuffle in nerd circles debating whether it is a Mario franchise game or not, and yet we do include it as part of the greather Mario franchise as well because of its roots that kicked off the Mario franchise. I think the same logic there can be applied here. The fact that Doki Doki Panic even first started off as a Mario prototype before the people who owned Doki Doki Panic requested that their characters be used should tell you that the game was intended to be part of the Mario franchise to begin with and what they were going with this title. The proposal also mentions the legacy of the game to the other Mario titles and I completely agree with its very strong influence it has on the Mario franchise. I think this option is the best choice for coverage purposes.
#{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwood777}} - This generally seems the most accurate to how it's treated nowadays.
#{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all.


====Option 2 (crossover)====
Now, of course, if the title of the show is clearly intended to NOT be a part of the title, then we won't include it.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} ''Doki Doki Panic'' '''is''' ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' and could even share the template - but the ''Yume Kōjō''-themed branding and the use of their family characters does make this version of the game a crossover.


====Option 3 (guest appearance)====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option 4 (entirely separate)====
====Support====
#{{User|Time Turner}} Since it's not technically actually a part of the franchise, this is the next best thing.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!''
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per Time Turner.
#{{User|Arend}} Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country: The Legend of the Crystal Coconut#Omit "Donkey Kong Country" from the titles of home media releases of the show|a prior proposal]] on doing the inverse.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Time Turner.
#{{User|Alex95}} - It may not be part of series itself, but it still had some impact on at least one game in the main series.


====Option 5 (do nothing)====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} It doesn't really fall under any of the aforementioned categories perfectly, and I'm fine with the way it's currently represented.
#{{user|Wildgoosespeeder}} I'd rather do nothing because this is very complicated. I think this will take months of analysis before we can be more decisive. One week is insufficient.


====Comments====
==Miscellaneous==
@Doc: How is it being represented now? There's no consistency to it currently, at least not as far as I can see. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 18:46, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
''None at the moment.''
:It's represented as having a vague relation to the series, which it does have. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
::We're not helping anyone by saying that it is vague and ill-defined and leaving it at that. Besides, just because the game itself is vaguely defined doesn't mean we should also vaguely define it. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:12, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
The history of this game is very complicated, more complicated than ''[[Tetris Attack]]'', which makes it very hard to put that information in a satisfactory spot on {{SITENAME}}. Why isn't this on the article's talk page? --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 21:25, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:I opted to slot it here due to the potential impact it may have on our coverage policy + it's more apparent as a precedent. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:26, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
I agree with the notion that ''Doki Doki Panic'' can now be considered a full-fledged member of the franchise (it '''is''' ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' and released a mere one year prior with ''Mario'' elements and influence already in it), but at the same time, I'd also say the pesky ''Yume Kōjō'' branding technically makes it something else. I'm considering taking the crossover option, but I also noticed that ''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'' isn't considered a crossover despite the ''DDR'' title. Is there a reason for that? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:45, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:I don't rightfully know, to be honest. Maybe because, despite the name, everything in it is decidedly from the ''Mario'' franchise (besides the rhythm gameplay, although the franchise [[Donkey Konga|is no stranger to that]])? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:49, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
::Then my guess is that there are no established ''DDR'' characters to consider it a crossover - but if that's the qualifier, Imajin being the mascot of the festival is enough for me. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:22, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
 
@Wildgoosespeeder: What is exactly is going to be analyzed during those months? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:53, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:We need a lot more discussion time than just a week. That's what I am hoping for. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
::What are you hoping to discuss during those months? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 23:57, 16 September 2017 (EDT)
:::This proposal seems very complicated what you are hoping to achieve. So many options. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 00:02, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Please answer the question; I am genuinely curious what you wish to discuss for several months. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:03, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::Then I don't have the answer you are looking for. A one-week proposal with vague options just sounds hasty to me. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 00:06, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::What about the proposal is vague? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:07, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
:::::::It sounds generalized. Also, we can vote for more than one option. I agree that a lot of the options apply to the game, but this is looking like you want it to apply to one option only in the end. --{{User:Wildgoosespeeder/sig}} 00:10, 17 September 2017 (EDT)
::::::::Can you elaborate on what you mean by the proposal being "generalized"? Also, what is the issue with letting people potentially vote for multiple options? The point of a proposa is that the community votes on what to do, and I don't see how the multiple options take away from that. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 00:23, 17 September 2017 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 20:14, February 17, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, February 18th, 01:14 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Split the image quality category

Issue 1: Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. Issue 2: All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:

  • Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
  • Assets to be uploaded with higher quality - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png.

Additionally, Template:Image-quality will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split both

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense
  8. Mister Wu (talk) A first step as the comments noted, but a very useful one.
  9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  10. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:

  • Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

  • Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality. Something similar should also be done for the Articles with unsourced foreign names category. Apikachu68 (talk) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

what about Donkey Kong (1981)? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Do nothing

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per the documentation for the "languages" template, the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. PaperSplash (talk) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)
I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)

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

Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)
I don't work for Nintendo nor do I know anyone personally who does, so I can't exactly say for sure. But my best guess is that they simply don't feel like they need to anymore. The main problem with Nintendo not having separate US and UK English localizations before was that certain words considered offensive in the UK but not the US would show up in Nintendo of America's localizations that were also going to be largely reused in Europe, as seen with Mario Party 8 and Super Paper Mario. But now such words appear to get caught and edited out during Nintendo of America's initial English localization pass, like "welcher" in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions, "bugger" in Super Mario RPG and "bummer" in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. Also, it seems that ever since at least Paper Mario: Color Splash or so, Nintendo of America and Nintendo of Europe have been working together more closely on English localizations from the start, as a couple English localization staff at NoE are now often also credited on NoA localizations and vice versa. With any potentially problematic words (regionally or otherwise) now seemingly being addressed much earlier on, there's no longer a really good reason they need to otherwise address differences between American English and British English during the localization process that would justify the extra time, effort and pay. While I'm sure it was appreciated by some, as Hewer mentioned, most people in the UK are used to reading and hearing US English and can understand it just fine (and the same goes vice versa to a lesser extent). It's not like Spanish where many Latin Americans genuinely struggle with understanding Spaniard slang and sometimes vice versa. As for why they still store UK or “EU” English scripts separately from the US ones in internal data despite being them being almost or outright entirely identical now, I think part of that is a remnant of the previous generation where more distinct localizations stored in folders labeled by both region and language was the standard (and it makes it easier for them to port over the more distinct localizations from older games whenever they bother doing so, like Mario Kart 8's for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe). But I think the other reason is to make it easy just in case something actually still needs changing between regions, most commonly the aforementioned date formats. Because that can be legitimately confusing, since they would essentially be backwards otherwise by the other region’s standards. PaperSplash (talk) 19:56, February 14, 2025 (EST)

Make Dark Mode available to everyone

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 20 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Dark Mode is available to users with an account under preferences but it should be a toggle-able option for all users, even if they're not an editor. Wikipedia allows everyone regardless of role to toggle Dark Mode, so I don't see why this wiki shouldn't follow suit.

Proposer: Pizza Master (talk)
Deadline: February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Pizza Master (talk) per.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) nice idea, though I would prefer if Light Mode was called "Ground Mode" and Dark Mode was called "Underground Mode" for our site.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, theme changes are unavailable to users not logged in? Just, at all? It's not just dark mode, it's any theme, since it's all on Preferences. This feels like something that, if it's possible, it shouldn't even be a proposal, it should just be added outright without vote. This is a very obvious quality-of-life change for users that don't happen to be logged in.
  4. Mushroom Head (talk)Why do we still need to create an account just to not torture your eyes when we use this wiki at night? It literally has zero effect to the users who are always logged in anyways.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per all
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) The fact that this wiki has a Dark Mode and it still isn't available to everyone who uses the site is a crime.
  7. PaperSplash (talk) Wikipedia does it and it serves as an accessibility feature for some people.
  8. Arend (talk) Sounds like a good idea, and it seems feasible to implement...

Oppose

Comments

My question is: is it possible to enable this feature for non-logged-in visitors? I'm asking this because Dark Mode is considered a "Gadget", and not a regular MediaWiki feature. They work with JavaScript though, so I suppose it could work in some way (given we have MediaWiki:Common.js and all), but I would still ask Porplemontage (talk) if a toggleable, easily accessible Dark Mode for everyone (including non-users) is possible, if I were you. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:33, February 13, 2025 (EST)

I've asked Porple on his talk page, so we'll see when he answers. Pizza Master (talk) 17:40, February 13, 2025 (EST)
Porple's response on his talk page seems to imply that it might be possible. Pizza Master (talk)

Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page

"Where is that Star Coin in Jungle of the Giants? Oh, I’ll use Super Mario Wiki. Wait, I’m playing New Super Luigi U so it’s the counterpart Giant Swing-Along. How do I get from the Jungle’s page to Swing Along’s page? The about template should take me to… a disambig?"

What the hypothetical person above said. There’s only two courses with the code Soda Jungle-1, and since Nintendo does not reuse worlds in other games in the same role as worlds, the odds of there ever being a third Soda Jungle-1 are 0%. Given this is the case, if a user does go to a Mario U course when they meant a Luigi U course, having the about template point to a disambiguation page for a whopping two articles means the user has to click two times to reach the corresponding article for Luigi U. While this is a minor issue, there's a whole paragraph in MarioWiki:Naming dedicated to saving readers the clicks when searching for the most obvious topic of a group of topics that share a name. I think that philosophy should be extended to this curiosity.

We should carve out a special exception regarding the About template for this pair of games. About templates for levels from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U simply link to the other article, even though the articles in question do not share a name. The disambiguation page remains, because neither Soda Jungle-1 is more prominent than the other. (It also matches the relationship between Donkey Kong Country levels to Donkey Kong Land levels) As a result, this:

  • "This article is about Jungle of the Giants, a level in New Super Mario Bros. U. For other uses, see Soda Jungle-1."

becomes this:

  • "This article is about Jungle of the Giants, a level in New Super Mario Bros. U. For its New Super Luigi U counterpart, see Giant Swing-Along."

And so on and so forth for all... 90 or so courses.

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: February 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Link the corresponding courses together with the about template

  1. Salmancer (talk) I only have 100 seconds to beat the Luigi courses, for the love of hammers save me the click when I put in a Mario course by accident!
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) If there are two and only two levels that correspond to the same world name and level number (e.g. "Soda Jungle-1"), then one should just immediately link to the other, just like pages that use the {{distinguish}} template such as Slug and Vine Slime. Seeing the disambiguation page should only be necessary if someone thinks to visit "Soda Jungle-1" first without remembering the level's exact name.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) one of those changes so obvious you question why they weren't done that way in the first place. per proposal!
  4. Rykitu (talk) Per all
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Very sensible change to make.
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us. If there were more than 1 DLC like NSLU, maybe linking to the disambiguation would have more merit, but with exactly 1 of them...

Oppose: Status quo, about templates go to disambiguations.

Comments (Use {{about}} to cross-link Mario/Luigi U courses)

I know I'm on about swapping from "level" to "course". That's for another day, which is why the example doesn't change the word choice. Salmancer (talk) 18:54, February 14, 2025 (EST)

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

Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.

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

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

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!
  2. Arend (talk) Per the Kaptain. I've made this same suggestion in a prior proposal on doing the inverse.

Oppose

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4742527"