MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
Line 8: Line 8:
==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
==Changes==
==Changes==
===Create ''Mario Kart'' course redirects with game prefixes for recurring track names===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
In case the title wasn't clear, I'm referring to making redirects like {{fake link|GBA Rainbow Road}}, {{fake link|DS Mario Circuit}}, and {{fake link|Wii Bowser's Castle}}. My argument for doing this is simple: '''I think it would be both useful and in line with our redirect policy.'''
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'']].
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
 
====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
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
 
====Comments====
@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)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::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)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)
 
===Include the show's title in home media releases of various ''Mario'' cartoons where it seems to be intended===
{{Early notice|February 24}}
Okay, the title may be a bit confusing, so let me aloborate myself.


For my first point: Series convention has people referring to these tracks this way even outside of official contexts, and people aren't going to take the time to think about whether a certain course came back before typing it into the search box. Heck, even I, whose editing hangout spots include not [[Classic course#Table of classic race courses|one]] but ''[[Mario Kart (series)#List of console and mobile game courses|two]]'' lists of which courses appear in which games, find myself sooner typing "DS Bowser's Castle" into the search bar than "Bowser Castle (Mario Kart DS)", if only because one is shorter.
''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'', ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' and ''[[Super Mario World (television series)|Super Mario World]]'' all have [[List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! home media releases|home]] [[List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 home media releases|media]] [[List of Super Mario World (television series) home media releases|releases]] that include various episodes on a single VHS or DVD. Most of these releases are named after an episode included within it, with the show's name/logo appearing before it, however, we seem to omit the show's name for no reason?
[[File:The Bird The Bird front VHS cover.jpg|right|100px]] I've got an example here. This VHS here is clearly intended to have the title ''{{fake link|The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: The Bird! The Bird!}}'', as evidenced by the cover. However, we've just title the article as [[The Bird! The Bird! (VHS)|''The Bird! The Bird!'' (VHS)]] which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Home media releases of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (television series)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' have it like this. So why are these different?


I do not believe these would be in violation of [[MarioWiki:Redirects|our redirect policy]], as these names are neither silly (being an extension of series convention) nor ambiguous (there's only one course "Wii Mario Circuit" could be referring to). These are really the only criteria they need to meet, as the policy is otherwise very encouraging of redirects.
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.


Now, my initial proposal was to do this for all unprefixed courses with recurring names, not counting MK8 or spinoffs since we don't know for sure what their prefixes would be. This results in this list:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': March 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


*{{fake link|GBA Bowser's Castle 4}}
====Support====
*{{fake link|GCN Bowser's Castle}}
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!: Per all!''
*{{fake link|GCN Rainbow Road}}
#{{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.
*{{fake link|DS Mario Circuit}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} For consistency.
*{{fake link|DS Bowser's Castle}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the proposal Arend mentioned; this seems to be how the official releases are titled, so we should follow suit.
*{{fake link|DS Rainbow Road}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I see no reason not to do this. It only serves to improve clarity, and the show's title is almost always on the actual cover of the home media anyway.
*{{fake link|Wii Luigi Circuit}}
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal. This just makes sense for consistency.
*{{fake link|Wii Mario Circuit}}
#{{User|Pizza Master}} Per all.
*{{fake link|Wii Bowser's Castle}}
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all


It seems a bit excessive to me, but I realized while writing this that I may want to include an option to do this for ''every'' course (aside from MK8 and spinoffs), so I'm also including that as an option.
====Oppose====
====Comments====
I'd also like to say that ''[[The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video]]'' doesn't appear to have its full (or correct) title either, as I explained [[Talk:The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Video|here]]. The front of the box states ''The Biggest Ever Video: The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'', and the back of the box calls it ''The Biggest Ever Super Mario Bros. Super Show Video''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:15, February 19, 2025 (EST)


'''''DOUBLE EDIT: I've changed the second option to be what the edited-in third option was, since I didn't realize I was leaving Tour out when I first made it. I am sorry if this causes confusion.'''''
===Merge introduction/ending sections for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles + potential retitling of Gameplay section===
{{Early notice|March 1}}
Back in 2013, there was [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/34#Get_rid_of_pointless_Mario_Party_Minigames_beginnings_and_endings|a proposal]] to cut intro/ending descriptions for ''Mario Party'' minigame articles the proposer deemed pointless, which was rejected by the community. However, with over ten years passing since the original proposal and some discussion I had with some staff on the Discord server regarding the sections/descriptions, I would like to revisit the idea of addressing these sections and the issues that commonly plague them.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
TL;DR: This proposal, if passed, would merge the Introduction and Ending sections of articles for ''Mario Party'' minigames into the Gameplay section, which itself may be renamed to Overview to reflect a more all-encompassing coverage of the minigames if the community supports such an idea. For explanations and more, read on.
'''Deadline''': January 27, 2023, 23:59 GMT


====Create the redirects listed above====
While the descriptions for the intros and outros of the minigames can help our readers who need tools like screen readers, many of said descriptions are often riddled with issues, some common problems including, but not being limited to:
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
*Excessive descriptions of minor details or other forms of filler/content bloat that do not meaningfully contribute to the article: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Eyebrawl&oldid=4500992 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sugar%20Rush%20(minigame)&oldid=4509228 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Flip_the_Chimp&oldid=4715460 3]
#{{User|Hewer}} Second choice.
*Introduction sections consisting of basic gameplay demonstrations with no other important context or other aspects: [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=On-Again,_Off-Again&oldid=4744643 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Chain_Event&oldid=4513579 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Blazing%20Lassos&oldid=4746544 3]
*Ending descriptions amounting to little more than "the winners/losers do their respective animations": [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Sick_and_Twisted&oldid=4504726 1] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Platform_Peril&oldid=4744623 2] • [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Burnstile&oldid=4494938 3]


====Create these redirects for every course (aside from MK8, Arcade GP, and Home Circuit)====
One of the most important rules of keeping readers interested is to keep one's writings as concise as possible, and it goes without saying that including details that are insignificant to what defines the minigame like what characters, enemies etc. are in the background or the exact angles or motions or positions the camera is in will clutter information that is actually relevant and important to the minigame, thus reducing the quality of the pages for readers. Even if all the filler were to be cleaned up, the descriptions, especially ones of the aforementioned "the winners/losers do their respective animations" type, tend to be so short that it does beg the question as to whether the minigames really need dedicated sections for their intros and outros. Plus, a lot of people who read the minigame articles are more likely to do so for information like how it plays or what game it appears in, not what happens to the winners or losers in a minigame like [[Glacial Meltdown]].
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} My listed reasons can apply, albeit more mildly, to all these courses; and as the redirect policy says, redirects don't cost anything.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, I'm surprised this wasn't already the case (also it's kind of already done with the non-city Tour courses [[Tour Ninja Hideaway|here]], [[Tour Merry Mountain|here]], and [[Tour Sky-High Sundae|here]], <s>I would suggest extending this to Tour courses as well but since it's inevitable that they'll all be in the Booster Course Pass I guess that would just end up pointless in the long run</s>).
#{{User|Tails777}} While the idea of these technically not being official names still come to mind, I'm no doubt supportive of this, mainly cause I'm definitely one of those people who refers to pretty much every track with their system prefix beforehand, official or not. On another note, this could also just make it easier when these tracks inevitably do return, as the article contents can just be moved over to these redirects.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Tails777
#{{User|RealStuffMister}} per proposal <s>however as i mentioned in my comment, this would be my secondary option if another choice including Tour courses is added.</s>
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|ShootingStar7X}} Per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} It makes sense, those redirects will eventually become the actual page names anyway (except maybe for the case of ''Mario Kart Tour'' whose non-city courses aren't consistently given the ''Tour'' prefix)


====Don't create redirects====
This is where I propose we merge the contents of the Introduction and Ending sections back into the Gameplay section of the minigame articles, of course cleaning them up of filler and other unnotable details where needed. The Introduction sections can be repurposed to serve as the opening line of the Gameplay section while the Ending sections can serve as the conclusion.
 
On the Discord server for the wiki, @Mario has also suggested the idea of renaming the Gameplay section to Overview to satiate any concerns or other desires from our userbase to keep the Gameplay section being, well, about the gameplay of the minigames. This will be provided as an alternate option for those who favor that option more than the mere section merge. If you do not agree with either proposal, a "No change" option (Option C) has additionally been provided.
 
If you have any other ideas on how to address the issues I’ve listed or have any questions, criticisms, comments or concerns, feel free to suggest or otherwise fire away.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|ToxBoxity64}}<br/>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option A: Merge intro/outro sections, keep name for Gameplay section====
 
====Option B: Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview"====
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Since introductions and endings are mainly cosmetic, this seems like the more appropriate name to use.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Mario5 (opening) - MP6.png|18px]] These sections have always suffered from poor writing and serve mostly to pad the article (why are there such egregious descriptions of how the camera behaves in these articles?). There is some utility in these to contextualize the minigames, so this information should be kept in many instances (though ones with the standard win/lose endings shouldn't be mentioned, only the ones where a funny consequence happens like Wario getting his butt destroyed in [[Piranha's Pursuit]]), but they don't need to be in their own section. I think overview is a better broader way to name these sections.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Mario.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The intro/outro sections are long overdue for some merging. Mentioning them is all fine and good, but do we really need an entire section dedicated to exactly one sentence that amounts to "the camera zooms in and the winner does a funny dance" on articles like [[Burnstile]]?
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Introduction: Technetium reads through the proposal. Gameplay: Technetium types "Per all". Ending: Technetium clicks "Save changes".
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} These sections are far too short to justify being separate.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't agree that "minor" or "uninteresting" information should be removed (like, if we did remove all of the "they do their victory animations" descriptions, that would leave us with some minigame articles that describe the endings while others don't, which is not helpful to readers at communicating the information and just makes it look like information is missing). But merging the sections is fine, they can be very short.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per everyone.
#{{User|BMfan08}} But who could forget such classics as "the winning player attempts to do a winning pose as the player wins" or "the other team is sad that they lost the game"? Ahem. Anyway, per all.
 
====Option C: Keep intro/outro sections individual (No change)====


====Comments====
====Comments====
I would say "Create redirects for all unprefixed courses from MK7 or before", however I believe that Mario Kart Tour courses should be included in this list, so the page {{fake link|Tour Singapore Speedway}} would redirect to [[Singapore Speedway]]'s article. For now, i will vote the option i mentioned earlier, but if you create an extra option to include Tour courses, then i'd vote that one {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 19:28, January 21, 2023 (EST)
I dunno. The sections are pretty poorly done, but part of ''Mario Party 8''{{'}}s brand of humor is having humorous endings to minigames so a header calling them out makes a certain kind of sense. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 15:28, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:Like I said in my vote, the issue there is that they'll all inevitably come to the Booster Course Pass and be moved to those names anyway, so it would probably just end up being unnecessary extra work. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:33, January 21, 2023 (EST)
:It's not really for all minigames, but Mario Party 8 does have more on an emphasis on those beginning and ends, especially the ends (that impression of the ending of [[Crops 'n' Robbers]] was strong on me lol; I still remember seeing characters finish their pose, jump on a truck, and leave WHILE the rankings are tallying up and thought that would be the standard for Mario Party games going forward). That being said, I'm not sure if the emphasis is that pronounced, as other Mario Partys can also have a bit of a dramatic ending like in [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]] and [[Photo Finish]] from Mario Party 4; [[Merry Poppings]] and [[Head Waiter]] from Mario Party 5; and Mario Party 8 has some more generic endings like [[Picture Perfect (minigame)]] or [[Flip the Chimp]]. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:49, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::that just means some courses will have prefix redirects, while some won't for up to 11 months, this, to me, is an "all or none" situation, if you're gonna do some, you might as well do them all. besides, creating a redirect, then transferring contents of another article to it isnt that much work, there's been [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Tour_Sydney_Sprint&type=revision&diff=3730051&oldid=3726004 more intense stuff] done to their articles before. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 19:41, January 21, 2023 (EST)
Ahemtoday, you can still change the second option to include tour courses, the rules state you can append proposals within the first three days of it being written. Im sure if the people voting for it care enough about the other games having the redirects, they'd agree to Tour courses too {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 12:02, January 22, 2023 (EST)


I'd rather have the prefixes removed from the course names that are unique (and keep them for those that have different iterations such as (character) Circuit or Rainbow Road courses, obviously) then make prefix redirects. I honestly dislike how ''Tour'' courses that got added to BCP have the prefix, but those that has yet to be added did not. — [[User:Stache|Stache]] ([[User talk:Stache|talk]]) 23:00, January 23, 2023 (EST)
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


=== Decide what to do with ''StreetPass Mii Plaza'' ===
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.
Merge request has been sitting on this page for a while, so let's resolve it once and for all. ''[[StreetPass Mii Plaza]]'' features plenty of ''Mario''-related content, so it should be considered a guest appearance. However, it covers too much information unrelated to ''Mario'', so I additionally propose to trim the features section, Find Mii, and DLC to only cover ''Mario'' content.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Spectrogram}}<br>
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
'''Deadline''': January 28, 2023, 23:59 GMT
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


==== Trim and classify as a guest appearance ====
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
# {{User|Spectrogram}} I'll go work on my ''Smash'' proposals
# {{User|LadySophie17}} Fine by me
#{{User|Killer Moth}} This makes perfect sense to do. Per proposal.


==== Classify as a guest appearance (no trimming) ====
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
==== Merge and redirect ====
==== Comments ====


===Merge certain non-Mario fighters from the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series into game-specific lists and trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters===
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
Here's a simple premise: the ''Super Mario'' Wiki is not the ''Smash'' Wiki. The wiki has no business giving undue focus to every single element that has been part of the Smash Bros. series. In spite of the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Merge_unrelated_to_Mario_objects_and_items_in_the_Smash_Bros._series|efforts]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Merging_non-Mario_Smash_Bros._series_bosses_and_the_remaining_enemies._Round_3!|to curtail]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Delete_the_bonuses_pages_from_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series|this practice]], the elephant in the room is still cosily seated.
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


I'll first reiterate [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/45557/post-2345729 my feelings] on non-Mario concepts featured in this series: in my view, Mario Wiki's mission is indeed to provide information on anything the Mario cast interacts with, and the various Super Smash Bros. concepts, therefore, deserve by all means the privilege to be covered in some way, shape, or form. The problem is that these concepts are currently presented in excessive detail, much of which is specific to these concepts and perhaps as far-removed from Mario as one can get. I believe the two courses of action proposed here go hand in hand towards offering a much more streamlined coverage for the subjects that lack enough notability within the bona fide ''Mario'' franchise.
<references/>


Following the standard of the [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items]] and [[List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses]], my initial plan was to propose merging fighters who have had no significant presence within the ''Mario'' franchise into one list housing all their current ''Smash''-related information, in addition to, perhaps, any other relevant information from other ''Mario''-related media where they had cameos and mentions. Realising that the resulting page would be excessively long and more than likely violate the [[MarioWiki:Article size|article size policy]] tenfold, I came up with a compromise that aims to achieve a similar effect:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
#'''Trim away detailed, textual information on special moves for all non-Mario fighters.''' Special moves are intrinsic to a character, employing their own abilities and/or weapons. Giving each move a separate heading within a fighter's article just isn't proportional to the extent they manifest a relationship with Mario elements; they can be neatly summarised in prose, as fighter articles [[Samus_Aran#Super_Smash_Bros.|already do]]. In removing this information, a sizable amount of space will be saved, allowing for more compact fighter lists. Images relevant to the special moves will be kept and repurposed as part of the next course of action:
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#'''Make a list of fighters for every ''Super Smash Bros.'' game (where ''for 3DS'' and ''for Wii U'' fighters share the same page) containing the relevant sections of each of the non-Mario, non-franchise-significance fighter, complete with a gallery of relevant images for each section.''' For instance, this means that we take the ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' sections of [[Ness]], [[Simon Belmont]], and other fighters who fulfill the aforementioned criteria and throw them in a "List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate fighters" list, with each section having a gallery that comprises any relevant image that would go unused as a result of the redistribution of information. A visual example of how this would work can be seen at the end of the proposal.


A few notes:
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
*if a character has had a significant appearance within the ''Mario'' franchise proper, such as having a playable role in ''Mario Kart''--and this includes actual Mario characters--'''their page will remain intact'''. They will still have an entry on the relevant fighter lists, but nothing else beyond their representative artwork and a "main" tag with a link to their respective article. Cameos such as ''Super Mario Maker'' costumes, ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' designs, ''WarioWare'' microgame appearances, non-speaking roles, and mentions do not constitute a significant appearance--and neither do appearances in media where ''Mario'' characters are [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest appearances|guests]], such as ''Captain N'', nor appearances in non-Mario media that is syndicated/distributed with Mario media, such as ''The Legend of Zelda'' cartoon and the [[King_Dedede#Mario_Kirby_Meisaku_Video|Mario/Kirby OVA]].
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
*in cases where information on a fighter is split between lists, their current article is turned into a disambig page for their list entries (e.g., for Ness, it'll be "For information on Ness in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, see: {{fake link|List of ''Super Smash Bros.'' fighters § Ness}}; {{fake link|List of ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'' fighters § Ness}} etc.") For fighters who have only appeared in one ''Smash'' game, their current article is turned into a simple redirect to their respective section.
*current profile sections won't be moved to these fighter lists to keep their size reasonable. Trophies, stickers, and spirits of each fighter are already covered on their parent pages.
*Subspace Emissary info and classic mode routes from ''Ultimate'' will be among the ported information, even for non-Mario fighters. Reason being, these often involve Mario characters as opponents or otherwise.


With all that said, affected pages include:
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
{|
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
|-
|
*[[Bayonetta]]
*[[Byleth]]
*[[Captain Falcon]]
*[[Captain Olimar]]
*[[Chrom]]
*[[Cloud Strife]]
*[[Corrin]]
*[[Dark Pit]]
*[[Dark Samus]]
*[[Duck Hunt (character)|Duck Hunt Duo]]
*[[Falco Lombardi]]
*[[Ganondorf]] (would lose Featured status in the process)
*[[Greninja]]
*[[Hero]]
*[[Ice Climbers]]
*[[Ike]]
*[[Incineroar]]
*[[Jigglypuff]]
*[[Joker]]
*[[Kazooie]]? (need to look into that one '"Club Nintendo'' comic)
|
*[[Kazuya Mishima]]
*[[Ken Masters]]
*[[King Dedede]]
*[[Little Mac]]
*[[Lucas]]
*[[Lucario]]
*[[Lucina]]
*[[Marth]]
*[[Meta Knight]]
*[[Mewtwo]]
*[[Min Min]]
*[[Mr. Game & Watch]]
*[[Ness]]
*[[Palutena]]
*[[Pichu]]
*[[Pikachu]]
*[[Pit (character)|Pit]]
*[[Pokémon Trainer]]
**[[Charizard]]
*[[Princess Zelda]]
|
*[[Pyra]] / [[Mythra]]
*[[Richter Belmont]]
*[[Ridley]]
*[[Robin]]
*[[Roy (Fire Emblem)]]
*[[Ryu]]
*[[Samus Aran]]
*[[Sephiroth]]
*[[Sheik]]
*[[Shulk]]
*[[Simon Belmont]]
*[[Solid Snake]]
*[[Sora]]
*[[Steve (Minecraft)]]
*[[Terry Bogard]]
*[[Toon Link]]
*[[Wii Fit Trainer]]
*[[Wolf O'Donnell]]
*[[Young Link]]
*[[Zero Suit Samus]]
|}


The following pages will remain unaffected:
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
*[[Banjo]] - playable in ''Diddy Kong Racing''
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
*[[Fox McCloud]] - reasonably significant appearance in the ''Club Nintendo'' comic "[[Super Mario: Mario im Wunderland]]"
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
*[[Inkling]] - playable in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
*[[Isabelle]] - playable in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
*[[Kirby]] - major appearances in ''Club Nintendo'' comics
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
*[[Link]] - playable in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
*[[Mega Man]] - major appearance in the ''Club Nintendo'' comic "[[Super Mario: Die Verwandlung]]"
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]] Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
*[[Mii]] - (playable) appearances in many ''Mario'' titles
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
*[[Pac-Man]] - playable in the ''Mario Kart Arcade GP'' crossover series
*[[R.O.B.]] - playable in ''Mario Kart DS''
*[[Sonic]] - playable in the ''Mario & Sonic'' crossover series
*[[Villager]] - playable in ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''


I put together a sample layout that would inspire the appearance of these new fighter list pages; particularities, such as image size and whether or not fighters with intra-Wiki "main article" tags need an image to begin with, are negotiable.
====Don't make a standard====
----
<div class="contentbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"data-expandtext="Show sample"data-collapsetext="Hide sample">
Page title: '''List of ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' fighters'''


This is a list of fighters in ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]''.
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


<big>'''Mario</big>
===Add the namespace and anchor parameters to {{tem|iw}}, {{tem|wp}}, and {{tem|fandom}}===
----
The <nowiki>{{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}</nowiki> templates are missing the namespace and anchor parameters. In this case, I'm just wondering if there's a possibility to add those parameters.
[[File:Mario SSBUltimate.png|thumb|200px]]
{{main|Mario#Super Smash Bros. Ultimate{{!}}Mario § Super Smash Bros. Ultimate}}
{{br}}
<big>'''Link</big>
----
[[File:LinkSSBU.png|thumb|200px]]
{{main|Link#Super Smash Bros. Ultimate{{!}}Link § Super Smash Bros. Ultimate}}
{{br}}
<big>'''Ness</big>
----
[[File:Ness SSBU.png|thumb|200px]]
{{main-external|SmashWiki|Ness (SSBU)}}
Ness appears as an unlockable playable fighter in ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]''. While his moveset is mostly unchanged from the previous ''Super Smash Bros.'' titles, he has received various new tweaks to his moves. Ness now emits PSI when pummeling opponents and while using his neutral aerial. His up aerial, rather than headbutting, has him waving his hands in the air. In addition, for his PK Fire and PSI Magnet moves, graphics are taken from ''EarthBound''. He and Lucas have a new victory theme, which is an arrangement of the last two of the Eight Melodies from ''EarthBound Beginnings''.


Several of Ness's attacks receive names: his forward smash is called Batter Up!, his up smash is called Around the World, his down smash is called Walk the Dog, his forward throw is called PK Throw, and his back throw is called Reverse PK Throw.
The new parameters for the templates are as follows:
*<code>ns</code> – Used for inserting namespaces.
*<code>a</code> – Used for inserting anchors.


;Classic Mode route
Here are both what the templates will look like and some examples for the <code>ns</code> and <code>a</code> parameters:
{|class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;" align=left
!colspan="5"|Home to Onett!
|-
!width=20px|Round
!width=150px|Opponent(s)
!width=100px|Stage
!width=250px|Song
|-
!1
|Ness (blue costume)
|[[Magicant]]
|Magicant <small>(for 3DS / Wii U)</small>
|-
!2
|[[Lucas]]
|[[New Pork City]]
|You Call This a Utopia?!
|-
!3
|[[R.O.B.]] (purple costume) ×3
|[[Fourside]]
|Fourside
|-
!4
|[[Sheik]]
|[[Gerudo Valley]]
|Bein' Friends
|-
!5
|[[Toon Link]] (dark costume) ×2
|[[Luigi's Mansion (stage)|Luigi's Mansion]]
|Unfounded Revenge / Smashing Song of Praise
|-
!6
|[[Villager]], [[Isabelle]]
|[[Onett]]
|Onett Theme / Winters Theme
|-
!Final
|[[Master Hand]], [[Crazy Hand]] ''(intensity 7.0 or higher)''
|[[Final Destination]]
|Master Hand<br>Master Hand / Crazy Hand ''(intensity 7.0 or higher)''
|}
{{br}}
;Gallery
<gallery>
10-Ness.png|Stock icon
SSBUltimate Launch Star.jpg
</gallery>
{{br}}
<big>'''Simon</big>
----
[[File:Simon Belmont SSBU.png|thumb|200px]]
{{main-external|SmashWiki|Simon (SSBU)}}
'''Simon Belmont''' is a protagonist from Konami's ''{{wp|Castlevania}}'' video game series, debuting in its very first entry. He makes his ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' debut in ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' as a third-party playable character, alongside fellow Konami characters [[Solid Snake]] and [[Richter Belmont]], his descendant. He was announced to be playable in the game during the August 2018 ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' Direct, alongside fellow newcomers Richter, [[Chrom]], [[Dark Samus]], and [[King K. Rool]].


Simon's various attacks involve him using his "Vampire Killer" whip. His special attacks are Axe, an axe that is a powerful projectile; Holy Water, a magical, multi-hitting projectile dealing flame damage; Cross, a projectile with boomerang-esque properties; and Uppercut, a powerful uppercut that functions as Simon's recovery move. His Final Smash, Grand Cross, involves trapping players in a coffin and destroying it. Simon's whip is long-ranged, being effective to use from far distances. Simon's forward, back, and up aerials also function as tether recoveries, making them useful for recovering when close to an edge.
;<nowiki>{{iw}}</nowiki>
<pre>
[[:{{{1}}}:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{2|}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{3|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]
</pre>


{{wp|Keith Silverstein}}, Simon's English voice actor in ''{{wp|Castlevania: Judgment}}'', reprises his role as Simon. {{wp|Hideo Ishikawa}}, who voiced Simon in ''DreamMix TV World Fighters'', also reprises the role in the Japanese version.
<code><nowiki>{{iw|strategywiki|Gravity Rush|ns=Category}}</nowiki></code>
:{{iw|strategywiki|Category:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush}}


In his debut trailer, he arrives at [[Dracula's Castle]] and eliminates Death shortly after the latter killed [[Luigi]]. He later confronts [[Dracula]] himself but is nearly defeated, only to be saved by his descendant Richter.<ref> Nintendo (August 8, 2018). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awl4L0yVdkg Super Smash Bros. Ultimate Direct 8.8.2018] ''YouTube''. Retrieved August 8, 2018</ref>
<code><nowiki>{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie|a=Gameplay}}</nowiki></code>
:{{iw|jiggywikki|Banjo-Kazooie#Gameplay|Banjo-Kazooie}}
;<nowiki>{{wp}}</nowiki>
<pre>
{{iw|wikipedia|{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{{l}}}:}}{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}
</pre>


Similar to [[King Dedede]] in ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'' and [[Lucina]] in ''[[Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS]] / [[Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|Wii U]]'', Simon's name is announced differently in the Japanese version to reflect the pronunciation in that language. This trait is also shared with Richter and King K. Rool.
<code><nowiki>{{wp|Nintendo 3DS|a=3DS family comparison table}}</nowiki></code>
:{{wp|Nintendo 3DS#3DS family comparison table|Nintendo 3DS}}


In the Adventure mode, Simon is seen standing near a cliff when he and the other fighters oppose [[Galeem]] for the first time. Although Simon is not shown to be hit by Galeem's beams directly, he, like every fighter except [[Kirby]], is imprisoned in the World of Light, where a Galeem-serving puppet fighter of him is created. Simon is later freed after his puppet fighter is defeated, and he subsequently joins Kirby's team against Galeem and later [[Dharkon]].
<code><nowiki>{{wp|WikiProject Video games|ns=Wikipedia}}</nowiki></code>
:{{wp|Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games|WikiProject Video games}}


Simon is a heavy fighter, being heavier than Snake, [[R.O.B.]], and [[Banjo]] & [[Kazooie]] but lighter than [[Samus Aran|Samus]], [[Bowser Jr.]] (and the [[Koopalings]]), Dark Samus, and [[Terry Bogard|Terry]], while having the same weight as [[Wario]], [[Ike]], [[Ridley]], and Richter.
;<nowiki>{{fandom}}</nowiki>
<pre>
{{plain link|https://{{urlencode:{{{1|www}}}}}.fandom.com/{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{l}}}}}/}}wiki/{{urlencode:{{{2|Main Page}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&amp;nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&amp;#35;{{{a}}}}}|WIKI}}|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}
</pre>


;Classic Mode route
<code><nowiki>{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6|a="Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"}}</nowiki></code>
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;" align=left
:{{fandom|spongebob|Incidental 6#"Chocolate with Nuts"/"Chocolate with Nuts: Puppet Edition!"|Incidental 6}}
!colspan="5"|Smash-vania
|-
!width=20px|Round
!width=150px|Opponent(s)
!width=100px|Rule
!width=150px|Stage
!width=200px|Song
|-
!1
|[[King K. Rool]], [[Incineroar]] (black costume)
|
|[[Dracula's Castle]] (Battlefield)
|Vampire Killer
|-
!2
|Giant [[Ridley]]
|
|[[Luigi's Mansion (stage)|Luigi's Mansion]] (Ω)
|Out of Time
|-
!3
|[[Bayonetta]], [[Dark Pit]]
|Free-for-All
|[[Umbra Clock Tower]]
|Bloody Tears / Monster Dance
|-
!4
|[[Charizard]] (blue costume), [[King Dedede]] (green costume)
|
|[[Kalos Pokémon League]]
|Beginning
|-
!5
|[[Bowser]], [[Ganondorf]], [[Mewtwo]]
|
|[[Reset Bomb Forest]]
|Simon Belmont Theme (The Arcade)
|-
!6
|[[Richter Belmont|Richter]]
|
|Dracula's Castle
|Divine Bloodlines
|-
!Final
|[[Dracula]]
|
|
|Nothing to Lose<br>Black Night
|}
{{br}}
;Gallery
<gallery>
66-Simon.png|Stock icon
SSBU Axe Simon.png|<small>Standard special:</small><br>Axe
SSBU Cross Simon.png|<small>Side special:</small><br>Cross
SSBU Rising Uppercut Simon.png|<small>Up special:</small><br>Rising Uppercut
SSBU Holy Water Simon.png|<small>Down special:</small><br>Holy Water
SSBUGrandCross.png|<small>Final Smash:</small><br>Grand Cross
</gallery>
</div>
----


'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
<code><nowiki>{{fandom|spongebob|Battle for Bikini Bottom|ns=Map}}</nowiki></code>
'''Deadline''': January 30, 2023, 23:59 GMT
:{{fandom|spongebob|Map:Battle for Bikini Bottom|Battle for Bikini Bottom}}


====Support====
If this proposal passes, then we'll be able to add the <code>ns</code> and <code>a</code> parameters to the <nowiki>{{iw}}, {{wp}}, and {{fandom}}</nowiki> templates. It's important to tell about the extra parameters can be handy. That way, we won't need to worry about inserting both either the <code><namespace></code> or the <code>#</code> on the first parameter and displayed text on the second parameter.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} According to calculations that came to me in a dream, this proposal has an 86.489% chance of failure.
#{{User|Spectrogram}} Per proposal and the discussion on Discord. ''Smash Bros.'' is a crossover, sure, but ''Mario'' content is now very minor compared to the games' first installment, and the problem will only continue to get worse and worse with each coming game and their DLC.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm looking at these pages for Smash characters, and... this is just a less comprehensive version of what's on the Smash wiki. I really don't see the need for these. Perhaps they could be just trimmed, but... well, that'll happen anyway with this whole list thing.
#{{User|Cosmic Cowboy}} Yeah. I gauged interest for this on the forums, and we aren't trying to be SmashWiki here. SmashWiki exists for a reason, you know?
#{{User|Shiny K-Troopa}} This is the only NIWA wiki hogging ''Smash'' content like this, it makes no sense. Most of it is irrelevant to ''Mario'' and Super Smash Wiki has a purpose.


====Oppose====
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
#{{User|Wikiboy10}} Absoutely no. We have had many proposals to restrict''Smash Bros.'' information that failed and this would be one of the most serious. The game is a crossover, so we have to cover all the relevant information that a crossover game must have. At least with other instances, those were just gameplay mechanics or related to non-playable characters. This is merely giving the game a guest appearance role, which would go against what we stood on the games for years. This proposal also fails to mention the Subspace Emissary which has many of the characters interact (and this is why I felt merging Master Hand and other story-related bosses wasn't a good decision). I'd only really accept this if the game was considered a guest appearance but we have consistently referred to it as a crossover. I feel that these pages could be important if people want to know which characters have crossovered with the franchise at one point.
'''Deadline''': March 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Our stance on trimming Smash coverage has, in almost every instance, been to condense information, not cut it. This would not only completely reverse that stance, but start top down at what is pretty much the most important aspect of the series - a change like this, if it were to go through, should really start bottom up. Axing this much information on fighters, when [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Merge_all_non-Mario_universe_Super_Smash_Bros._Stages_into_a_collective_article|we couldn't even get a consensus on merging the stages]] just a few months ago and elements of the series like trophies, stickers, and spirits are still covered in full, is a weird way to go about it and definitely too much, too fast. Aside from that, I don't think splitting this into one page per game would be the best way to do this. There's a lot of overlap between fighters, and realistically, how different is Captain Falcon across the series that we need to split that information over five pages? (Also, I'd say Samus would be worth keeping around too since she had a physical appearance in SMRPG.)
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. Though I have been in favor of condensing and limiting some of the ''Smash Bros.'', but like my position on having articles for stages, I feel that fighters are important enough to have their own articles, especially when the games are considered crossover appearances. I am also not in favor of completely cutting content unless it refers to very minor aspects of the series.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Yeah, no. Per every individual point raised above.
#{{User|Paper Jorge}} If we're gonna start violently trimming Super Smash Bros. content, I think starting at the prominent, notable and major playable characters with various crossover cameos ''instead'' of starting at trophies, Lylat Cruise convos, spirits, challenges, you name it........is horrible. Terrible prioritizing. I actually think if we're gonna reinvent the wheel and start from scratch, the playable characters and stages should be the most important things to keep.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} After thinking about for a little bit, I have to agree with the opposition here. Trimming down coverage on things like items and bosses is one thing, but these are the characters that are the most vital part about the game. This wiki covers all Mario-related crossovers. It is why we have articles for Sonic characters because they appear in the Mario & Sonic games and make up half of the cast, we can't just go around trimming content for the sake of them not being Mario characters. Ultimately, like the users above, I find this to be unnecessary.
#{{User|Hewer}} The main reason I'm opposing this is because I think it's inconsistent with how we handle other crossover games. While it's true that, say, Mario & Sonic has a much greater proportion of Mario content than Smash does, that doesn't change the fact that there is still a significant amount of Mario content in Smash, and the Sonic characters in Mario & Sonic that we give their own articles don't have much more to do with the Mario series than all the Smash characters, the only real difference between them being that one crossover has significantly fewer franchises involved in it than the other. If we decide to make a change like this then I think we should first revise the [[MarioWiki:Coverage|coverage policy]] as a whole, because it doesn't seem logical to me to merge the Smash cast into Lists of Super Smash Bros. fighters without also having List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters in Mario & Sonic, List of Dragon Quest characters in Fortune Street, etc. Also, merging fighters when every [[stage]] is still split even after a somewhat recent failed merge proposal for them is kind of ridiculous.


====Comments====
====Support: Add the extra parameters====
@Wikiboy10, err, there's a specific statement right there in the proposal that Subspace Emissary info will be kept. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:44, January 23, 2023 (EST)
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Gives us more options for cases where we might need it.


@Waluigi Time: Where do we draw a line between condensation and removal of information? What about the former [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Delete_the_bonuses_pages_from_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series|bonuses pages]]: that information was outright removed due to being irrelevant and having equivalent coverage on the Smash Wiki. The amount of detail given to each character's special move set is similarly completely out of line with this website's scope and is being better handled on the other wiki. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:01, January 23, 2023 (EST)
====Oppose: Keep as is====
:It seems to me that anything we have cut has always been the nitty-gritty minor elements of the series. Besides fighters, we still cover all the available information on the stages, items (including Assist Trophies and Pokemon), bosses, side modes, and the collectibles I mentioned, even for what's been merged to list pages. Setting aside my own opinions on Smash coverage, I just don't think starting by gutting the most important element of the series is a good idea when all of that is still on the table. There's a reason why the successful Smash coverage proposals have been done gradually, and why the ones that have tried to do too much at once failed. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 13:20, January 23, 2023 (EST)
::And wouldn't the in-depth explanations that this wiki currently provides for each character's moveset be well beyond reasonable? Smash Bros. items, Assist Trophies, and assist Pokemon aren't nearly comparable to fighters in gameplay role; there's only so much you can write about these, and their current coverage already lays down the gist for each. Recurring side modes like Break the Targets and Home Run should be broken up and merged with their relevant game articles (keep in mind that subjects like Mob Smash and Classic Mode are currently handled in this way, and that works well enough), and the collectible lists continue to have hosts of irrelevant information the likes of which this wiki should get rid of, albeit I agree the way this was attempted was not the best. In contrast to the unsuccessful proposals you mentioned, the present one pursues a very clear goal: merge fighters into game-related pages and, in the process of assuring these pages are within acceptable parameters, trim the useless and deprecated information that takes the form of detailed movesets. The alternative approach would have been to make this proposal a two-parter, where one establishes whether said information should be trimmed, and the other finally advocates merging the fighters provided the first one passes, but I think the proposal in its current form serves to accelerate the process whilst providing two simple options. With all that said, I do operate under the assumption that, given the two-part proposal situation, there would have been a sizeable overlap between the people who would support one and the people who would support the other, as would be the case with the opposition. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:14, January 23, 2023 (EST)
:::I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on what's "reasonable" to cover then, since we have totally opposed stances here and I doubt any more back and forth would change that. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:00, January 23, 2023 (EST)
@Paper Jorge: As far as the wiki is concerned, fighters and stages are just another aspect of the game, regardless of how you or anyone else perceives them. Fighters may be the game's main draw, but that essentially only plays into player preference and sympathy, and this is their only claim to coverage priority on this wiki; there otherwise exists zero ingrained, objective priority to cover one group of Smash subjects better than another. (Name one besides "characters are playable and I relate to them more than to an inanimate object".) The proposals that aimed to restrict information on stages, trophies and the whole shebang had too many options, and Smash coverage is already contentious as it is, so it's not difficult to see why these proposals had users pulling in different directions, yet those subjects should definitely be revisited ''especially'' if this proposal, by a miracle, succeeds. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:54, January 24, 2023 (EST)


Unlike crossovers where ''Mario'' franchise makes up a very large portion of the game, such as ''Sonic'' or ''Fortune Street'', ''Smash'' should be covered as a guest appearance. There is no reason why a series with countless franchises put together should be covered in full. Mario elements deserve pages, I don't understand why we should bother with the rest. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 14:06, January 24, 2023 (EST)
====Comments (wiki linking)====
:Not sure if treating Smash as a guest appearance is optimal, but I agree on maintaining a differentiation between it and other crossover situations. Hewer, respectfully, did you even read the coverage policy before bringing it up? It says right there that Smash Bros. is an exceptional type of crossover, as it's marketed as "many franchises coming together" rather than "Mario and then something else". Thus, quote, "pages for the [Smash] series are decided on a more particular basis", different from the treatment of other crossover titles. Your vote, and Killer Moth's for that matter, are based on wrong premises. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:20, January 24, 2023 (EST)
::You misunderstood my point (though it is my fault for not explaining it better). "should be covered as a guest appearance" does not imply "should be classified as a guest appearance". ''Smash Bros.'' as a crossover should only have in-depth (key word is in-depth, lists are a perfectly fine compromise) coverage of ''Mario'' elements and the rest is unneeded. I know coverage policy well, thanks. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 14:28, January 24, 2023 (EST)
:::I was addressing Hewer with the part of my message that concerned the policy, not you. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:44, January 24, 2023 (EST)
::::I apologize for being an idiot. [[User:Spectrogram|Spectrogram]] ([[User talk:Spectrogram|talk]]) 15:11, January 24, 2023 (EST)
::Ok, sorry for having worded my vote badly, but what I was trying to say is that if we're doing things like this to our Smash coverage I think we should first revise the coverage policy as a whole because I don't think it's consistent to give subjects only related to Mario via Smash less importance on the wiki than subjects only related to Mario via other crossovers. For example, [[Sticks the Badger]] and [[Incineroar]] really have the same amount of relevance to Mario as each other, both being characters we only cover because they were playable in crossovers with a lot of Mario content, and I don't think the proportion of Mario content in each crossover is a good reason to treat these otherwise virtually identical cases differently to each other. Yes, there are a lot more other franchises in Smash than in those smaller crossovers, but there is still a very large amount of Mario content in Smash probably comparable to the amount in those other crossovers even if the proportion may be very different. I'm aware the coverage policy says Smash is something of a special case but I personally don't think that exception should be taken to this much of an extreme in trying to have our cake and eat it too. I've reworded parts of my vote to hopefully be more clear. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:11, January 24, 2023 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 15:11, February 24, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, February 24th, 20:11 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes, PaperSplash (ended February 23, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Split the SMRPG Chain Chomp from Chain Chomp, Kirby the Formling (ended February 22, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (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)
The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposer: ToxBoxity64 (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even other non-numeric parts of a source that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)

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

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

The new parameters for the templates are as follows:

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

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

{{iw}}
[[:{{{1}}}:{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{2|}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{3|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}}]]

{{iw|strategywiki|Gravity Rush|ns=Category}}

Gravity Rush

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

Banjo-Kazooie
{{wp}}
{{iw|wikipedia|{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{{l}}}:}}{{#if:{{{ns|}}}|{{{ns}}}:}}{{{1}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}}}

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

Nintendo 3DS

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

WikiProject Video games
{{fandom}}
{{plain link|https://{{urlencode:{{{1|www}}}}}.fandom.com/{{#if:{{{l|}}}|{{urlencode:{{{l}}}}}/}}wiki/{{urlencode:{{{2|Main Page}}}{{#if:{{{id|}}}|&nbsp;({{{id}}})}}{{#if:{{{a|}}}|&#35;{{{a}}}}}|WIKI}}|{{{3|{{{2|}}}}}}}}

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

Incidental 6

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

Battle for Bikini Bottom

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

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

Support: Add the extra parameters

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Gives us more options for cases where we might need it.

Oppose: Keep as is

Comments (wiki linking)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4754503"