MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, July 9th, 16:57 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and 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}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • 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.
6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. 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.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Decide if Gallery:Ground should be deleted (discuss) Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Keep the Mario & Luigi Clothing pages as list articles (discuss) Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Chancellor and Toad Minister (discuss) Deadline: July 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Birdo and Birdo (species) (discuss) Deadline: July 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Bowser's Brother to Fake Bowser (Blue) (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split History of Bowser (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Kaptain Skurvy to be a Kannon (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Princess Daisy to Daisy (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Include Golf: Japan Course and Golf: U.S. Course in the Mario Golf series (discuss) Deadline: July 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Count Down and Ring-a-Ding as "watch (boss)" (discuss) Deadline: July 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Greaper and/or Polterguy with Boo Guy (discuss) Deadline: July 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Reorganize Template:Galleries (discuss) Deadline: July 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels, GuntherBayBeee (ended July 2, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the New Super Mario Bros. games, the Super Mario Maker games, Super Mario Run, or Super Mario Bros. Wonder

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

^ NOTE: Currently the subject of an active proposal.

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)

Split the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door bestiary into a separate article for the Nintendo Switch remake, ThePowerPlayer (ended July 4, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow colorful tables again

Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.

Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists:

---

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

---

Level number	Level name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:

• 
• 

The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.

Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: July 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: Allow colors

1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal, and per all.
5. Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
6. Meester Tweester (talk) Per proposal.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
9. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
10. Arend (talk) TBH I always found it odd why only the Donkey Kong games get to have the colored tables... is it a remnant of the DK Wiki? In any case, it'd be nice to have some color (not sure if everything should have similar standardized colors or if it should be a case-by-case basis though)
11. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. This makes the tables easier to read, and it's also easier to find specific sections. I do think we should standardize the colors, though. Order above all.
12. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I am not sure what caused this recent trend of table bleaching, but it drained all appeal from them. I don't think we need to standardize colors for specific purposes, either. Just give each game or topic a color that is fitting for that particular case. Not everything needs to be set to rigorous standards, live a little.
13. Technetium (talk) Per all.
14. Yook Bab-imba (talk) We should embrace colors in the Mario wiki. I think the DKC games are some of our best looking articles, the tables playing a huge part. I do think some consistency is needed, though (a light yellow row next to a dark purple row with white text for example is just garish).
15. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
16. Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, I can see some use for this, but I still feel they should be table classes each used under select circumstances.

Oppose: Prioritize gray

#Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes?
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk).

@Ahemtoday Yeah, perhaps something like the navboxes could work. The problem with the proposal title is that it's misleading in a certain sense since there already has been one custom styling for the wikitables -- "dk" , which is for Donkey Kong content. I think what it's trying to get at is allowing more standardized wikitable options, and this way there would be less likelihood of conflict if, let's say, someone else were to overhaul an entire page and how it looks. I still think colors should be reserved in specialized circumstances. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:34, July 2, 2024 (EDT)

Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names

Or, to be specific, move:

• G. R. P-Troopa to "Glad Red Paratroopa"
• G. Torpedo Ted to "Glad Torpedo Ted"
• Glad P. Plant to "Glad Piranha Plant"
• M. M-Spike Top to "Mad Mecha-Spike Top"
• M. Red P-Goomba to "Mad Red Paragoomba"
• Mad G. P-Troopa to "Mad Green Paratroopa"
• Sad N. Plant to "Sad Nipper Plant"
• C. A. F. H. Bro to "Calm Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother"
• C. Chain Chomp to "Calm Chain Chomp"
• C. Fishing Boo to "Calm Fishing Boo"
• C. V. Plant to "Calm Volcano Plant"
• A. F. H. Bro to... nothing in particular, actually, they're already included on the same page as the SMW one. More on that later.

We have a few reasons for wanting this, and a few justifications, but for the sake of putting everything out on the table, I'll start with our immediate emotional feelings.

In Super Princess Peach, a lot of returning enemies with existing official names are given "emotional" variants. When English names are said in full, these are exclusively referred to as "Glad", "Mad", "Sad", or "Calm" versions of the original enemies. Additionally, to my understanding, the Japanese version of the game universally modifies names for emotional variants by appending 喜(Ki), 怒(Do), 哀(Ai), and 楽(Raku) respectively to preexisting official names for all enemies which have them. With this in mind, we feel it is, if nothing else, a bit silly to present these enemies as if we don't know what their names are supposed to be abbreviating.

That being said, of course, we're aware of the reasons why. Despite this feeling, we would have begrudgingly respected the former name of friend of the wiki Bombshell Bill Blaster had she not decided to change it, and we were certainly in support of keeping The O. P. L. W. T. E. E. W. R. F. A. K. E. B. I. Happens faithful to the source material. There are many cases like this, where something awkward needs to be the name of a page because, well, that's just what it's called.

But this bothers us anyway, and I think that hinges on the contention that these names are definitive official names for unique enemies.

Super Princess Peach presents these names in exactly one context, which is the in-game glossary section. In Japanese, none of the names are abbreviated, and all names of returning enemies are shared with previous official names for those enemies, with the variants having the relevant emotion appended. Meanwhile, in English, a number of emotional variant enemy names (and A. F. H. Bro, but we'll get to him later) are abbreviated when the addition of the extra words would make them excessively long. While the names are able to scroll to display more, the display column for their names in-game is quite small, and none of the abbreviated names are longer than 15 characters. This implies that, regardless of how the localizers may have wanted to change these names, they had a hard character limit.

The Naming policy actually has something that I think expresses our feelings here. It's for name changes, but given that these are all variants of preexisting enemies, I think it applies. Quote: "...the newer name will replace the older one with certain exceptions. Exceptions include naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames ... It is up to the users to find and determine what the naming errors, translation errors, and use of aliases/nicknames are. When mentioning subjects whose names have changed overtime, the newest name generally takes greater priority, except in the context of older media where they went by previous names, in which case those are used instead."

So, if we're in a situation where an enemy is agreed to be a variant of a preexisting enemy (the pages of these enemies will generally confidently state this, because it's obviously the case), and that enemy uses a variant of the same name as that preexisting enemy in Japanese, but then is shortened in English in a manner that would have been impossible to not do... Isn't that just a forced translation error? Or at the very least, some kind of alias? Can we really consider these to be official English names for these enemies if it was physically impossible to translate them in accordance with the Japanese naming scheme? And furthermore, when we can see that literally every name in the game that wouldn't have been over 15 characters was translated that way?

Personally, I think this is a pretty compelling explanation of why we feel this should be an exception to the usual rules, so I wanted to raise it. With all this in mind, it feels sort of disingenuously literal to take an alias that the localizers had no choice but to use and which doesn't reflect the Japanese name at all as more official than a name which actually describes all of the properties of the enemy as depicted in the game. But it's up to you guys.

Though, I will say, if we're going to take the stance that the literal in-game name is all that matters... Why are A. F. H. Bros still using their old name from 1991? Super Princess Peach was their last in-game appearance, and therefore has the most modern official English name.

Proposer: Exiled.Serenity (talk)
Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Exiled.Serenity (talk) Proposer.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Though Pseudo makes compelling points, I don't see how there could be anything else but the names the pages all already say are "presumably" their actual names. If necessary, we can add the conjuncture disclaimer at the top of the articles. The main reason I support this change is because the abbreviations do not make it immediately obvious to someone who is browsing all Paratroopa variants (something I was actually doing recently) what "G. R. P-Troopa" is. This is true for all of the enemies and their base species. Moving them to the full names makes it clear what they are without having to click on the page.

Oppose

1. Pseudo (talk) These names are simply not these enemies' official names. We can certainly read between the lines regarding their names and come to reasonable conclusions about what they stand for and why their names are abbreviated, and this is currently done on all of these articles by mentioning what each title is presumably short for. Despite that, the unabbreviated names aren’t actually used in the game itself nor in any other extant official material, so I’m not comfortable moving these pages unless a source can be found explicitly backing up the enemies' full names (and, for the record, I am not staunchly opposed to moving Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother to A. F. H. Bro despite its strangeness, since it's the more common name in recent sources, though I'm not really certain I'd support it, either, but it's a conversation for another day and another proposal anyway).
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Pseudo.
3. Hewer (talk) I'd rather we didn't move official names to unofficial ones because we don't like the official names. There is plenty of precedent now for using shortened names if they're what official sources use, but in all of those cases, the long names were at least also official names - here, they're not.
4. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Using the official in-game names takes priority over using "full names".
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Those are their names.
6. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) Per all, especially given ongoing Daisy proposal.
7. YoYo (talk) per all.
8. Sdman213 (talk) per all.

Comments

To clarify the end of my vote regarding Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother, it was brought up a while ago on Talk:Volcano Lotus that the English version of the Mario Portal’s Super Mario World page surprisingly refers to this enemy as an A. F. H. Bro despite the original game using the full name in the end credits. While there has been understandable concern about citogenesis on the Mario Portal, this still can be taken to suggest that A. F. H. Bro became the main official name starting with Super Princess Peach, especially since this enemy’s article wasn’t moved on this wiki at the time for the Mario Portal localizers to cross-reference. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 01:15, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Abstaining for now, but the very reason why we haven't moved these Super Princess Peach enemies to the full name is also the exact same reason why hadn't moved B. Bill Blaster to Bombshell Bill Blaster for so long until the Nintendo Switch remake of TTYD. There simply hasn't been an official record of these enemies' full names. This is due to character limitations, of course, but it should be noted that the original GCN version of TTYD still never even referred to the B. Bill Blaster by its full name in the Tattle, which should be exempt from character limitations, as can be seen with H. S. Goomba; it was only until the Nintendo Switch remake when the full name of Bombshell Bill Blaster has finally been used, hence we finally moved that article then. But the full names for all these Super Princess Peach enemies have still never been in use before in an official sense (at least Amazing Flyin' Hammer Brother's full name had been implemented in its debut game's cast roll). rend (talk) (edits) 05:47, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Not just in TTYD, but also in the first Paper Mario they're also called B. Bill Blasters in the tattle. Nightwicked Bowser 06:27, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

The tattle log thing is the exact reason why I'm fine with B. Bill Blasters. They had ample opportunity to give a full name, and didn't. In TTYD, they even make something of a joke out of it. Plus, I think it isn't truly unbelievable that they could be, like, "Buff Bill Blasters" or whatever. Meanwhile, Super Princess Peach had nowhere to clarify this, and all of the abbreviated enemies save AFH Bro are variants of enemies that do have official names in the exact same menu. Therefore, I don't think it's reasonable to treat these aliases as official names in this one specific case. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:29, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

Contextually speaking, "Buff Bill Blaster" should not make any sense. Given the Japanese names for this (スーパーキラーたいほう/スーパーキラー大砲 Super Killer Taihō) matching with that of Bombshell Bill (スーパーキラー Super Killer), one can easily determine that the "B." stands for "Bombshell". Yet, we did not rename this to Bombshell Bill Blaster until the TTYD remake, because the full name hadn't been recorded in an official game until now. And we should treat these Super Princess Peach enemies the same. rend (talk) (edits) 14:14, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

The Japanese name certainly heavily implies this, but the localization team is under no obligation to accurately reflect that, and had ample room to make clear that the enemy was deliberately, officially localized this way. Additionally, unlike SPP, there aren't twenty other enemies in the game referred to officially in full as "Bombshell" variants, all with similar aesthetics and mechanics, in a game where the central gimmick is that both you and your enemies have undergone "Bombshellification". It's just a one off that they could've localized more accurately but decided not to for whatever reason. I get where you're coming from, but I think SPP is in a very unique situation. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 19:49, July 8, 2024 (EDT)

Wanted to add a couple comments since it's been a day:

• I think that DrBaskerville raised a significant point here that I overlooked. Insisting that these literal names are official is fine if you already know what they're supposed to be short for, as we all do, but if you're just a random person browsing variants of Goomba then "M. Red P-Goomba" tells you absolutely nothing. Frankly, it looks like it could just be some guy's real name.
• I think a lot of the opposition votes aren't contending with our central point here. To be clear: We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names, because they are obvious nicknames describing variants of enemies which themselves have official names in the exact same menu. I don't think there's any real reason to take these names as definitive or official, because they're mistranslations, aliases, and nicknames all at once and there's nothing in the game which goes against this.

Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:59, July 3, 2024 (EDT)

"We don't think that the official names should be discounted. We simply think that these should not be considered official names" ...What? That is discounting the official names. If no official sources back up a name, then it's simply not an official name, no matter how much you think it ought to be. And even if we did have a source for these full names, see the proposals I linked to in my vote - do you disagree with the recent Baby DK rename, for instance? If a shortened name is used significantly more often than a full name, the shortened one is what should take priority. In this case, we've got a usage of the shortened names vs. no usage of the longer names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, July 4, 2024 (EDT)

What we're saying is that, because these enemies are only referenced via a name that is a forced translation error, they effectively do not have official names. Comparatively, every letter in each acronym (save AFH Bro) has an official indication of what it's supposed to be short for in other official enemy names in the same menu. So, in lieu of an official name, we resort to a conjectural one based on an immense amount of official information. And as a bonus, it also more clearly describes at a glance what an enemy is. As for Baby DK et al, we agree with the change. The SPP enemies are pretty much the only case in which we would want to make an exception. Honestly, we've even pretty much turned around on AFH Bro at this point, though it's too late to edit the proposal now. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 12:15, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

They are officially referred to using names. Thus, whether you like them or not, they have official names. Conjectural names should be an absolute last resort when there is no official name at all, not just a way to get out of using official names we don't like - technically, even if they did have no official English name, we'd first have to fall back on the Japanese names before making anything conjectural. It doesn't matter whether we know what the letters stand for, we know what the DK in Baby DK stands for too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

These are official names, erroneous or not. The wiki still refers to Goobles as Swoopin' Stus in regard of their Super Mario Sunshine appearance, even if them being given the name "Swoopin' Stu" in the Player's Guide is most likely in error as well and might've been for Winged Strollin' Stu instead, as "Swoopin' Stu" fits that enemy much better than it does to Gooble.
Besides, most of the names listed aren't even translation errors. Things like Mecha-Spike Top, Volcano Plant and Boss P. Plant certainly are, but G. R. P-Troopa is not given in error, but as I said before, due to character limitations. Do you honestly think that officially given acronyms and shortenings because the full name could not fit in the given space, is an honest-to-god translation error? rend (talk) (edits) 14:05, July 6, 2024 (EDT)

I concede that calling it an "error" implies a degree of judgement that I don't really intend to direct toward the localizers here. I'm pretty much just using that term because it's what the naming policy uses, but I think terms like "alias" or "nickname" are more accurate to my feelings. The central point to me is that the truncation was completely forced, which makes me chafe at the idea that it should be considered "official". I understand that that's the string of text that's in the game, but I truly believe that presenting it in lists and links and so forth as an abbreviated name without the context of those space limitations is sacrificing accuracy in the name of precision. Exiled.Serenity (talk) 20:06, July 8, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Decide how to handle identifiers for non-Mario characters

Some subjects that pertain to the Mario series share names with characters from outside franchises that have articles here. The wiki's had a bit of an inconsistency in how these characters are identified in article titles, signalled as far back as when Steve Minecraft was added to Smash Ultimate: on the one hand, the character Big from the Sonic series uses the "character" identifier, whereas the obstacle from Wario Land named "Big" lacks any identifier whatsoever, reason being that the latter pertains to the Mario series (specifically, the Wario branch) and should consequently be prioritized on a wiki titled after Mario; on the other hand, you have the case of Steve from NES Open Tournament Golf (a game billed as part of the Mario franchise) using an identifier to separate himself from Steve the Minecraft avatar, who punches Mario in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. Let's make up our mind on one universal course for all such instances.

This proposal concerns two parties:

• one subject that is considered a part of Super Mario or any other franchise that receives full coverage according to the MarioWiki:Coverage policy; hereafter called "Mario-adjacent";
• any subjects considered a part of franchises outside of the wiki's scope, who share the same name as the aforementioned Mario-adjacent subject and, for one reason or another, have an article or redirect on this wiki.

I chose to consider only one subject on the Mario side because, given two or more Mario-adjacent subjects of the same name, these would already require identifiers as dictated by current policy and thus shouldn't be affected by this proposal's outcome.

With these parties so delineated, I propose three options:

• Option 1: Both parties, including the Mario-adjacent party, use an identifier.
  • Example: Steve (NES Open Tournament Golf) and Steve (Minecraft) retain this naming scheme.
• Option 2: Identifiers are added or omitted depending on how prominent a subject is deemed to be. Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one.^*
  • Example: Knuckles (Saturday Supercade) is an obscure character from one episode in a very early Donkey Kong show that is currently in large part considered what kids today call "lost media". Contrarily, Knuckles (Sonic the Hedgehog) is a significant character from one of the biggest video game franchises on the planet for the past 3 decades. It doesn't matter who is Mario-adjacent or not; the Sonic character is more prominent and would be prioritized by dropping his identifier, while the Saturday Supercade character retains his. The Sonic character will contain an {{about}} tag linking to the Mario-adjacent Knuckles, and if an additional three or more non-prominent things named "Knuckles" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by a "Knuckles (disambiguation)" page.^**
• Option 3: Do not use an identifier for the Mario-adjacent party, but use identifier(s) for the outside parties, without respect to how prominent one is over the other.
  • Example: Ike (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!) drops the identifier and takes over the current Ike disambiguation page because the character comes from a Mario cartoon, while Ike (Fire Emblem) retains his identifier due to pertaining to the Fire Emblem games. The Mario-adjacent Ike will contain an "about" tag linking to the Fire Emblem character, and if an additional three or more non-Mario things named "Ike" surface on the wiki, that "about" tag is superseded by an "Ike (disambiguation)" page.^**

In any case, the nature of the identifier(s) and the disambiguations that may result from these changes are subject to current naming policy.

^* - Whether one subject is more prominent over another may be up to editors to decide on case-by-case basis, though the majority of the cases I've seen are pretty cut and dry, like the one related to the two Knuckles. Use common sense.
^** - Per MarioWiki:Naming: "If there are five or more pages sharing the same name, a disambiguation page must be used, although it may be given a "(disambiguation)" qualifier if one of the articles has the plain title."

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 2: Use identifier(s) only for the less culturally-prominent subject(s), prioritize the most prominent one

1. Hewer (talk) Per naming policy, "if there is one subject that is clearly more popular than the others, the popular subject will keep the original title while the others use identifiers". I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for crossover characters. Sure, they're not from Mario originally, but they are related to Mario, otherwise they wouldn't be covered here. People who search "Knuckles" are extraordinarily more likely to be looking for the echidna, and they have every reason to be since we give full coverage to the Mario & Sonic series of six games (more if you count the paired releases individually) where he is a fully playable character in every installment, compared to a one-off supporting character in an ancient and highly obscure show that we only cover the DK and DK Jr. segments of. I don't really see why being a non-Mario character by origin is a reason to be excluded from the usual identifier rules, since it doesn't really correlate to the likelihood of them being searched for (which is what identifier rules are based on).
2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Hewer.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per Hewer. If we were to make a ruling for which subject with a shared title has priority as the primary subject, prioritizing subjects based on how often they appear in Super Mario-related media makes more sense than prioritizing subjects based on how closely connected to the greater Super Mario franchise their origins are.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer and JanMisali.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all.
6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Hewer and JanMisali.
7. Mario jc (talk) Per Hewer and my comment here.

Option 3: Use identifiers only for the crossover subjects, prioritize the Mario-adjacent subject

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per what I said here.
2. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm with Koopa con Carne. It makes sense to give priority to core-franchise characters over off-franchise ones, and I don't see this as anything that well-placed "about" templates can't solve.
3. SeanWheeler (talk) I think this proposal that had use removing the crossover character's surnames was the reason that we're having this problem. And I would like that overturned, especially with other proposals shortening character names failing. And even for crossover characters with just one name that weren't shortened by that proposal, it would be good to have an identifier to distinguish them from Mario subjects. Popularity is subjective. People would come here for information about the Mario games, so Mario subjects should get the simplified names while the crossover subjects should have more specific titles. That way, people looking up obscure Mario characters won't be taken to a Sonic or Smash article.

Comments

For the record, if the "most prominent subject" option passes I'd be interested in generalizing that into a formal policy, replacing the "clearly more popular" clause in MarioWiki:NAME. "Popularity" is difficult to define and cases where it's "clear" which subject is more popular are somewhat rare, but prominence is a somewhat more straightforward concept. Neither the Super Paper Mario character named Red nor the WarioWare character named Red are "clearly more popular" than Red from Pokémon (who doesn't have a dedicated article, and when he did it wasn't at "Red"), but the WarioWare character is clearly the most "prominent" in Super Mario-related media of the subjects named "Red" that have dedicated articles. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:12, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Seems sensible to me. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 12:19, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

The proposal mentions the concept of prominence in a cultural sense, less so in reference to gameplay or story. Let's say Pokemon Trainer is renamed "Red" in future Smash Bros games and the wiki uses that name on List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl; under option 2 of this proposal, the page Red (no identifier) would redirect to that character, because he is decidedly so much more culturally significant than anything else on the current disambig for Red (he was the playable avatar in the games that kicked off the biggest media franchise on the planet). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:22, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

To be clear, I do think relevance and significance to the Mario franchise should be considered, I just don't think that's as simple as everything that wasn't originally Mario automatically being less significant. Despite Supercade Knuckles being originally Mario, he's ended up less prominent in the franchise than the echidna. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I suppose that isn't exactly what I would want, but I do think that's preferable to the alternatives given here at least. Prioritizing Super Mario-ness could run into a different hypothetical future where a Mario RPG has some key item called a "link" (as in part of a chain), which would mean moving Link to "Link (character)". Or, in a contrived more extreme example, if a new character named "Wart" is introduced in a Mario-branded game, that would take priority over Wart, a character from Doki Doki Panic (which the wiki covers but does not give complete coverage, as the proposal suggests). jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:36, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I've been interpreting "most prominent" here to be used with the same meaning as "most popular" in the naming policy. Regardless of what the literal definitions of the words may be, the point is that the subject without the identifier should be the one people who search the name are most likely to be looking for, hence the policy advises considering which page is more "likely to be linked to or searched for". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:25, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

@Everyone: Would you consider it relevant if I split option 2 into an option that includes redirects (e.g. Ike (Fire Emblem)) and one that excludes them? I personally think this action would be more thorough, but I'd like to know your opinions first. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:39, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think we need to vote on making redirects, they feel like they should generally be a given. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I guess my question was poorly formulated. Should redirects to a non-Mario subject be prioritized if the corresponding subject is the most prominent, or not? For instance, the page "Ike", currently a disambig page, would be repurposed to redirect to the Fire Emblem fighter. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:05, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

Generally a subject not even significant enough to have its own page is unlikely to be the one without the identifier, but sure, I say we should continue handling that case-by-case in the same way as with articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:15, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

What would be the point of a disambiguation page between two pages, one being a redirect to section on a list page? The dog would be better off as just Ike with a {{Distinguish}} template linking to List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl#Ike. SeanWheeler (talk) 18:42, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

I guess the point would be if we really can't decide which subject should get the identifier, e.g. if they were roughly equal in likelihood of being searched for (but I'm not sure that applies to Ike). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: Popularity is how we determine what gets identifiers across the whole wiki, and that won't be changed by this proposal - option 2 passing would just make that consistent for crossover subjects as well. The idea that people are automatically less likely to be looking for something on this wiki because it didn't originate from Mario is simply incorrect - we're only covering crossover subjects because of their relevance to the Mario franchise, and I feel like barely anyone searching "Knuckles" is really looking for the Saturday Supercade character rather than the Sonic character. I also disagree that the proposal you link to is relevant to this one, especially since I specifically made it so that no crossover characters would take priority over Mario characters after being told to in the comments and not really thinking to question it at the time. Also, as an aside, I'm unsure what "other proposals shortening character names failing" you're referring to - I can only think of the Koopalings one from a couple years ago, which has since been outnumbered by successful shortenings like Professor E. Gadd, Baby DK, etc. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:48, July 7, 2024 (EDT)