MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Forgot to add the proper time)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
 
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
===Create interwiki link for RayWiki===
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
This is similar to, and inspired by the Minecraft.wiki interwiki link proposal above, but with the [https://raymanpc.com/wiki/en/ RayWiki] instead. The ''Rayman'' series has gotten relevance in the ''Super Mario'' franchise thanks to the [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]] DLC campaign for ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]''. The DLC campaign harbors a multitude of ''Rayman'' cameos and references, and currently, we can only link to articles of the most relevant wiki for ''Rayman'' using external weblinks, which... doesn't look all too great on an article, IMO.
{{early notice|February 14, 2025}}
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?


Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to ''Super Mario'' in general (e.g. [[kovopedia:Main Page|Kovopedia]], a ''Magical Vacation'' wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that ''are'' relevant to ''Super Mario'' in some way.
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.  
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.


As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like <code><nowiki>[[raymanpc:]]</nowiki></code> (from the URL domain, since the RayWiki is hosted by the Rayman Pirate Community), simply <code><nowiki>[[raywiki:]]</nowiki></code> (from the wiki name itself), or both.
This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".  


'''Proposer''': {{User|Arend}}<br>
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
'''Deadline''': February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Arend}} Per proposal
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Arend. There are plenty of Rayman references throughout the DLC. What better way than to link to RayWiki for more information?
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Thank you for making this. I strongly agree to RayWiki being added.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} <s>get bent fandom. again</s> Per proposal--we should be acknowledging these independent wikis whenever possible, and Rayman has a notable enough presence for this template to make sense.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea (also again I don't think we absolutely need proposals to effect this but just in case)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, and also, RayWiki seems to fully cover the Rabbids series, so this could be useful for other Mario + Rabbids content beyond just that DLC.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per sticking it to Fandom (and per proposal).
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time and Ahtemtoday's suggestion; as long as tallying is made easier than the original example, we see no reason to not add these.
#{{User|Swallow}} Per proposal (though for some reason I'm getting error pages when I try to search anything in that wiki)
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea for larger projects. Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Very well written wiki that deserves to be linked from here. Hell, I even found a link to us in their ''Sparks of Hope'' article! Per proposal.


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


====Comments====
====Comments on proposal proposal====
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)


===Make a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) page===
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
[[File:Luigi Runs the Nintendo 2DS Factory for a Day.jpg|thumb|200px|Pictured: How we feel after trying to make a half-comprehensive list of YouTube videos by Nintendo.]]
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here.
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)


YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does ''not'' deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds ''zero'' relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for [[Starfy]]. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a ''massive'' rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments.
==Changes==
 
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just ''some'' of the YouTube videos with articles:
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
 
*[[List of implied species]]
* [[The Cat Mario Show]] - While some of these were on the eShop, with that closed they only are present on YouTube.
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
* [[Mario Myths with Mr Miyamoto]] - Promotional video created for ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', hosted on various regional Nintendo YouTube channels.
*[[Soybean civilization]]
* [[Luigi Runs the Nintendo 2DS Factory for a Day]] - Promotional video created for a set of color-swapped ''[[Nintendo 3DS|2DS]]'' consoles.
*[[Hooroglyphs]]
* [[Know Your Nintendo]] - On the Nintendo of America channel.
* [[List of Play Nintendo videos]] - While not every video is on YouTube, a good chunk of them are.
** [[Play Nintendo#The Play Nintendo Show|The Play Nintendo Show]] - An exclusive series to the Play Nintendo YouTube Channel. Has [[Izzy]], who was even an exclusive character to it.
** [[Mario Reads Your Letters]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
** [[Baddies & Battles]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
** [[Fun Lists! Lists! Lists!]] - On the Play Nintendo channel.
*** [[WarioWare: Get It Together! on Nintendo Switch – Top 10 Reasons to Play My Game!]] - On the Play Nintendo channel, speicifcally to promote ''[[WarioWare: Get It Together]]''!
** [[Mario Party Superstars Laugh Till You Pop]] - On the Play Nintendo Channel, specifically to promote ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]''.
** [[List of Play Nintendo Shorts]] - A reasonable companion to it, just videos that were on the Youtube channel's shorts section. Has anyone actually cared about YouTube Shorts? Whatever the case, this is pretty unambigously related to YouTube.
* [[Virus Vid]] - WAS on YouTube. After ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'' went kaput, these went private. We don't know exactly why this would prevent it from being on the disambiguation, but we figured we'd at least acknowledge it.
* ''(Currently, the Nintendo Switch Parental Controls - Nintendo Switch Presentation 2017 Trailer video lacks an article as of writing--if it had one, it would be fit for here.)''
 
...Look, you get the idea. There's a ''lot'' of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like ''[[Wario Land: Shake It!]]'' or ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]''; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made ''for'' YouTube, ''by'' Nintendo, ''about'' Mario.
 
We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after ''Dr. Mario World'' went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've ''already'' missed out on that's lost to time.


'''Addendum:''' As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally.
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 4th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - You saw that list. We wouldn't have compiled this if we didn't feel as though there was potential for this to be a disambiguation page.
 
====Support (make a YouTube category)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - We think this is also fine as well, especially since as people have pointed out, there are a ''lot'' of videos that already have articles.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} If the idea is to just have all of this easily accessible from one place, a category makes more sense than a disambig that's not really a disambig.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Waluigi Time, "disambiguation" feels like a bit of a misnomer here.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} This is the truest example of the phrase "Let em cook" I've ever seen. Most of those streaming services kinda felt iffy, but a category for YouTube series feels like a better idea stemming from it all. Per all.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
How would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that [[:Category:Videos]] cannot? {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)
: ...Admittedly, we didn't think much of a category, which we realize sounds very unlike us considering recent events--we promise, we had this written ''before'' a lot of the category conundrums happened! We could potentially add an option to create a category over a disambiguation page if that'd be appreciated. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:06, January 28, 2024 (EST)
::I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'd be pro-category. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 22:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
:::Seconding this. If we were to make a disambiguation page, and then proceed to have every noteworthy Mario-related YouTube video in said page, it would be too big to not be just a category. --[[User:OmegaRuby|OmegaRuby]] ([[User talk:OmegaRuby|talk]]) 09:23, January 29, 2024 (EST)


I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
: We're a little less keen on a List article, if for no other reason than a ''lot'' of the videos have unique articles; we feel like it'd be a little silly to make a full "List of" article if almost every entry would have a "Main article:" tab at the start of it, y'know? We'd understand it more if these videos didn't already have pre-established articles, but as it stands, we feel a disambiguation just works better for a page. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].
::I was picturing more [[List of Play Nintendo skill quizzes|something like this]] type of list article, with a table and links to the individual pages. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:47, January 28, 2024 (EST)
 
I see the new option. How will [[:Category:Videos]] be affected? {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)
:...That's a category??? And we thought we had seen everything. We think there could be potential to rework "video" as a category seeing as that's such a generic term, but also considering the current state of the category as well as the state for other non-web video categories (namely film and television series), we're not sure what the best course of action is. We could maybe convert Video into something like our baseline Games category is at the moment, but we feel like that might start leaving the scope of this proposal... {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:09, January 29, 2024 (EST)
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
===Broaden the scope of the <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> template===
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
Currently, the licensing template used for photographs uploaded to the wiki is [[:Template:Promo-photo]], henceforth referred to as <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki>. All photographs uploaded to the wiki are listed under the template's corresponding category, [[:Category:Promotional photos]]. This template is supposedly only meant to be used for publicity photos "known to have come from a press kit"; however, a ''lot'' of the photos in this category, most commonly images of [[List of merchandise|merchandise]], were taken by ordinary people who have no relation to a formal organization for news or media distribution; to put it simply, many images with this template don't come from a press kit.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.


I'm convinced that <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's {{wp|Template:Non-free promotional}}, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is {{wp|Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free|far more strict}} on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki>'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it.
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====


This is what the <nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki> template currently looks like:
====Merge none (do nothing)====
<pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
</pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}


If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to:
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====
<pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
</pre>
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}


This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as [[:File:Mario Demo Statue.jpg|this statue of Mario]] (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template.
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} 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|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} I've wanted something like this for years.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} This is more accurate, per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} This looks a lot more clear than the existing template. Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
Don't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
@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)


Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)
===Split the image quality category===
:Those types of official stock photos do fall under the current description from the template, and in my opinion, they should be used whenever possible; however, take a look at [[:Category:Merchandise images]]. There's a distinction between promotional photos displayed on online storefronts that have the license to sell the product displayed (such as [[:File:Mario - SMAS Plush.jpg|this photo of a Mario plush]]), versus a photo of no official capacity taken in someone's house (such as [[:File:Banpresto SM64 Wing Mario.png|this photo]]). Sometimes the latter is necessary to use because the former doesn't exist, which is why the aim of the proposal is to broaden the template so it can cover both official and unofficial merchandise photos. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 21:41, January 28, 2024 (EST)
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.


Is there a possibility to rename the template from <code><nowiki>{{promo-photo}}</nowiki></code> to simply <code><nowiki>{{photo}}</nowiki></code>, if this proposal passes? I'm all for broadening the scope of this licensing template, but if it's going to be about photos in general of a work or product, and not specifically about ''promotional'' photos, when what's the point of keeping the ''promo'' in the template title? It would only be misleading. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
:That did cross my mind, but I wasn't sure whether it was right to advocate for it. Given the unanimous support for this proposal, though, it should be straightforward for you to make a proposal to rename the template itself. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 20:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::Wouldn't renaming the template affect every page the template is used in (which is specifically something the proposal tried to avoid)? If not, then I would imagine it's a no-brainer to just rename the template once the proposal passes, it's a natural extension of it. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 16:51, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::The proposal was trying to avoid the need to manually go through every file with the template and decide whether to change it or not. Renaming the template avoids that issue since it would be doable with a bot, so I don't think there should be any problems there. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:29, February 2, 2024 (EST)


===Decide how to format the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template and update citation guidelines accordingly===
====Split both====
Now that [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Create two specific citation templates|this proposal]] has instated the creation of a single <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template for citations, it's time to decide how this template should be formatted.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense


In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the [[MarioWiki:Citations]] page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:
====Only split screenshots====
*The first reason is to avoid [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/55#Create_a_template_for_citations|misguided claims]] of the template including excessive amounts of detail, leading to a feeling that an overly complicated format is being forced onto users.
*The second reason is so that currently existing citations can remain as they are, without the templates needing to be retroactively applied to them.


Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the ''Super Mario Sunshine'' manual) is completely different from the later citation of a ''Super Mario RPG'' guidebook:
====Only split assets====
<blockquote>"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ..." ~ ''Super Mario Sunshine'' manual, page 9.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Miller, K. 1996. ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide'', pg 13.</blockquote>


I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake.
====Leave image quality alone====


Here's ''exactly'' what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters:
====Comments on image quality proposal====
<pre>
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
{{cite
<gallery>
| author      =
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
| date        =
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
| title      =
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
| publisher  =
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
| isbn        =
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
| page        =
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
| accessdate  =
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
| quote      =
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)
| archive   =
| archivedate =
}}
</pre>
'''<u>Parameters for all citations:</u>'''<br>These parameters should always be included whenever possible.
*'''Author:''' The full name in (Lastname, Firstname) format ''or'' the username of whoever wrote the content of the source. Separate fields for the author's first name and last name are too confusing, since users could easily fill out the template as (Firstname, Lastname) by accident, not to mention the exceptions of a username or if the author is a collective (e.g. the author of an article is listed only as "Nintendo").
*'''Date:''' The date the book or page was published, e.g. "January 1, 2000".
**If the format "YYYY-MM-DD" is entered, it should be automatically converted to the preceding format, but typing plain text should also work.
*'''Title:''' The title of the source. If citing a web page, this field should also be a link to the page itself.
*'''Publisher:''' The publisher of the book, or the website on which the web page was found.
'''<u>Parameters for a specific citation type:</u>'''
*'''ISBN:''' For physical books only, the {{wp|ISBN}} of the book.
*'''Page:''' For physical books only, the page number on which the citation was found.
**Formatted as a number in code, but should be displayed in plain English, i.e. "Page 12.", for simplicity.
*'''Access date:''' For web pages only, the date at which the source was accessed, e.g. "January 1, 2000". This is to preserve the state of the web page at that time, since unlike physical media, web pages can change at any point.
'''<u>Optional parameters:</u>'''<br>These parameters should only be included if relevant to the citation.
*'''Quote:''' A brief excerpt from the book or web page providing more context to the citation. Using quotes should be encouraged because it allows readers to see evidence behind a claim quickly and directly on the wiki itself, rather than needing to seek out the evidence in question in order to prove that it has not been fabricated.
**I chose to use "&ndash;" to separate the quote and the rest of the citation, since I have ''never'' seen any quote citation on the wiki use the tilde (~), as is supposedly recommended by guidelines. If there is evidence to support using a different symbol, please let me know in the comments.
**Also, I was originally under the impression that the excerpted text in the quote should be italicized, but that is seemingly not the case in e.g. [https://guides.library.unr.edu/mlacitation/intextcitation the MLA style guide], so currently, the quoted text remains un-italicized. Again, please comment if you disagree.
*'''Archive:''' A link to a web archive of an online source. Must also include the "archive date" field if used.
**The beginning of the URL should be automatically analyzed to determine which web archive was used (Wayback Machine or archive.today), and accordingly append the archived link with either "via Wayback Machine" or "via archive.today", respectively.
*'''Archive date:''' The date at which the URL was archived.
**If given in the same format as a Wayback Machine URL (e.g. "20210309100159") or the string of text in the top right corner of an archive.today page (e.g. "13 Aug 2022 13:51:45 UTC"), it should automatically be converted to the correct format, and it should stay that way in wiki code after the page is saved, like the timestamp template ("<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>").


Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order):
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].


<pre>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
{{cite
|date=August 26, 2002
|title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet
|publisher=Nintendo
|page=7
|quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}
</pre>
<blockquote>"It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites." &ndash; (August 26, 2002). ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet. ''Nintendo''. Page 7.</blockquote>
(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.)


<pre>
====Support====
{{cite
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
|author=Campbell, Evan
|date=July 17, 2014
|title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]
|publisher=IGN
|accessdate=July 22, 2014}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Campbell, Evan (July 17, 2014). [http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]. ''IGN''. Retrieved July 22, 2014.</blockquote>


<pre>
====Oppose====
{{cite
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
|author=Nintendo
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
|date=January 14, 2015
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
|title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.
|publisher=YouTube
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all
|accessdate=April 26, 2015}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Nintendo (January 14, 2015). [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]. ''YouTube''. Retrieved April 26, 2015.</blockquote>


<pre>
====Comments====
{{cite
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)
|title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]
|publisher=Nintendo
|accessdate=June 14, 2010}}
</pre>
<blockquote>[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]. ''Nintendo''. Retrieved June 14, 2010.</blockquote>


<pre>
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
{{cite
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)
|author=Nintendo
|date=1985
|title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet
|accessdate=July 28, 2021
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf
|archivedate=20210309100159}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Nintendo (1985). [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet]. Retrieved July 8, 2021. ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf Archived] March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)</blockquote>


<pre>
what about Donkey Kong (1981)? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:39, February 9, 2025 (EST)
{{cite
:That would work for ''Donkey Kong'', but the original ''Mario Bros.'' and the arcade game of the same title were both released in 1983. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:49, February 12, 2025 (EST)
|author=Miller, Kent
|date=1996
|title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''
|page=13}}
</pre>
<blockquote>Miller, Kent (1996). ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''. Page 13.</blockquote>


Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book:
===Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes===
<pre>
So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.
{{cite
|author=Wessel, Craig
|title=''Warioland 4''
|publisher=Scholastic
|isbn=0-439-36711-5
|page=63
|quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}
</pre>
<blockquote>"I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!" &ndash; Wessel, Craig. ''Warioland 4''. ''Scholastic''. ISBN 0-439-36711-5. Page 63.</blockquote>


I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing {{wp|Twitter|Twitter / X}} posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here.
Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.


When actually using this template in an article, it should be included ''within'' the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines.
Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the ''only'' difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.


Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that '''this is not a required template'''; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags is completely okay.
This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?


Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own.
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''EDIT:''' Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter.
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.


'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
#{{User|Hewer}} I feel like this way is the most straightforward and accurate.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I mean, if it’s just the same thing and no changes (assuming it doesn’t include dates for save files), then I guess this one makes the most sense.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's the simplest, it seems reasonable enough, and is applicable across the board; while it isn't exactly in-line with how Nintendo is handling things as of the Switch era, it's reasonable ''enough'' and can easily account for pre-Switch cases very well.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all. Especially if that means that we will stop using "English (United States)" for games that use a variety of English that is not specifically American and weren't even released in America such as ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels|SMBTLL]]'' or ''[[Mario & Wario]]''.


====Support====
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Yes, thank you for making this follow-up proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice, as this seems to be Nintendo's official methodology as of the Switch; however, this ''exact'' rationale doesn't account for situations like, say, [[Mario Party 8]] and its infamous recall in the UK, which predates Nintendo's official distinguishing of NA English and UK English from the Switch era, leaving us at a bit of a loss for how to handle it exactly.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} This option could also work if date formatting is different despite the game itself using the same script for the US and UK/Australia, like Mario & Luigi: Brothership.
#{{User|Mario}} I like this idea!
#{{User|GuntherBB}} Per ThePowerPlayer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per all
#{{User|LadySophie17}} That looks very complicated but sure, I could work with that.


====Oppose====
====Option 4: Do nothing====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m actually surprised no one put anything in this option kind of like the title mentions “Do nothing.”


====Comments====
====Comments====
I know it may seem unnecessary, but can an [[wikipedia:Help:ISBN|ISBN]] be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:As an optional parameter, it sounds perfectly applicable - I've added it to the proposal. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 08:34, January 29, 2024 (EST)
 
===Consistent formatting for the Other Languages section===
Alright, so since this is starting to get really annoying, I'm going to put this proposal here. Here are two inconsistent ways that the meaning of names in the "Names In Other Languages" section are listed on the wiki:
 
1. "name" (meaning)</br>
2. ''name'' ("meaning")
 
Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Annalisa10}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Keep the formatting of Option 1====
:Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)


====Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2====
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} I prefer this option so that this way, both languages are formatted and appropriately in a distinct manner from one another.
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} Per my vote in [[Template talk:Foreign names#Adopt the de-facto format for dissecting foreign names|this proposal]] and my general distaste for the “we’ve always done it this way, which automatically makes it the right way” argument.
#{{user|PnnyCrygr}} Per All. I think, this second option is a more academic style than the first. I like the fact that the foreign name is italicized to make sense that it is foreign.
#{{user|Yook Bab-imba}} How I've always formatted it, and my preferred style.
#{{user|PhGuy12}} Per all.


====Comments====
:In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)
So, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
:I'm just writing here because I'm stuck in the middle about this. Keeping the first option would mean that we don't have to go and change the formatting of most "Names in other languages" sections (which would obviously take an incredibly long time), but on the other hand, option 2's formatting style is clearer to read. I will vote later once I decide. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 22:10, January 30, 2024 (EST)
::I'm more of a "who cares?". It's like hand wringing over if a date in a citation should have parentheses or not. I don't see the point in adopting italics or not. Either way works in this case. Just keep it consistent in one table. But across the wiki? Meh. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:16, January 30, 2024 (EST)
:::I'm in the exact same camp. I don't see a problem with either option, so I'm hesitant about ''having'' to choose which one we should use. If the proposer won't include a "Do nothing" option here for whatever reason, I would rather abstain from voting. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:37, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::There ''is'', however, a conventional and consistent way to format these things. Doing nothing would just give way to pointless edit wars with users who refuse to acknowledge that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:41, January 31, 2024 (EST)


I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the [[Wow Bud]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/Wow_Bud?action=history history]) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
Realistically even though Canadian English does use British/Commonwealth spelling most of the time, they just get US English spelling in games as Nintendo groups Canada with North America and their English is pretty similar to English in the US, so Nintendo products in Canada are just the same as in the US.  
:Oh, I didn't know that. I'll still consider this, but I may leave it up to everyone else. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 23:31, January 30, 2024 (EST)
::...honestly, the fact that this proposal is a follow-up from an edit war that the proposer was responsible for and got blocked for, and being made directly after the block had ended ''and'' being made just because they disagreed on a certain thing that made them edit war (and also seems to be a response to a previous proposal they disagreed with and didn't know about until the edit war was escalating)... makes me want to choose a side ''even less'' than I already do now (and I didn't want to choose a side to begin with). Where's the "I'm fine with either way" option? {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:48, January 31, 2024 (EST)
:::Aren't proposals with multiple/either-or answers required to have a "do nothing" option, anyways? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:25, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::Yep, rule 18 says "Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy." There definitely has to be a "do nothing" option here. [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 13:34, January 31, 2024 (EST)
:::::Okay, what should we do about this then? If the proposal setup breaks the rules, then I'm not voting until it's fixed (and honestly, I might not vote anyway, as I never edit the "Names in other languages" sections). A proposal that is set up simply because someone's upset about not getting what they want through an edit war is ''not'' something I want to get involved in. -- {{User:FanOfRosalina2007/sig}} 20:02, January 31, 2024 (EST)
::::::Isn't settling disputes like that the whole point of a proposal? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:24, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Yeah, no harm really in them creating a proposal about the matter. However, they're basically asking "should we carry out my idea in x form or y form" without even giving an option for anyone that disagrees with the idea. Would it be acceptable for a user other than the proposer to create a "do nothing" option, on the grounds that the proposal in its current form goes against the rules? [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 13:33, February 1, 2024 (EST)
::::::::Proposals are intended to settle disputes but in good faith like "we disagree on this, let's hash out with the community to see which one of us has a stronger stance". The timing of this proposal from the user's history and rhetoric in the proposal don't work in the user's favor, and I really don't want proposals to be a kind of combative medium where you fight "enemies" to "win". Sure, discussions get heated and anxiety inducing and super frustrating. But you really shouldn't be trying to attack users while writing a proposal on heels of a disagreement, it casts perception of good faith in doubt imo. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:28, February 1, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::So...couldn't anyone just add the status quo option in for the proposer? I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before. Sometimes, you know, it slips your mind, or you have other things going on where proposal developments don't have your attention. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 06:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I still feel like assuming bad faith in this case is a bit of a stretch when they didn't really "attack" anyone in the proposal, just pointed out the disagreement (and also didn't even vote in the proposal anyway). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:22, February 2, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::@LinkTheLefty yeah, I think it would be fine to add the status quo option, stuff like that has been done before. I'd be all for voting for that option when it gets added. [[User:MegaBowser64|MegaBowser64]] ([[User talk:MegaBowser64|talk]]) 14:30, February 2, 2024 (EST)


I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Remove_the_15th_infraction_for_why_a_reminder_can_be_issued_.28changing_American_spellings_and_grammar_conventions_to_British_standards.29|a previous proposal]] that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
In this case why don’t we also just group American English and Canadian English into one and call it "North American English" even if it’s moreso mainly American English? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 10:45, February 11, 2025 (PST)


===Provide more context as to ''Mario'' entities' roles in ''Minecraft''===
:I'm not quite sure exactly what point you're trying to make here, but per [[Template:Languages/doc|the documentation for the "languages" template]], the reason they're labeled the way they currently are in game infoboxes is because they're the primary markets American English and British/Commonwealth English localizations are made for. And for what it's worth, whenever Nintendo specifically labels "North American English" as a selectable language whether in-game or in internal data, they usually refer to the United States or US specifically, not North America/NA as a whole. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 16:27, February 11, 2025 (EST)
In ''[[Minecraft]]''{{'}}s ''Super Mario Mashup'', which gets (relatively) full coverage here, many familiar ''Mario'' entities get appearances replacing traditional ''Minecraft'' mobs and items, and their respective pages reflect that. The problem is, they are relegated to what amounts to a footnote of a section and do not provide any further context as to what they replace, which is unhelpful if you do not know what the original thing does in vanilla ''Minecraft''. For example,
{{quote2|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance.|current Scuttlebug page}}
Tells us nothing about how they actually act. What this proposal aims to do is, for example, make this one say
{{quote2|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance. As such, they appear primarily in overworld areas, becoming hostile in darkness. When defeated, they may drop strings or [[Tarantox]]'s eyes.|my intended Scuttlebug page}}
This should clear up any confusion readers may have on the subject.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
::I think I’m going with the fact that the English (United States) language for Nintendo is also intended for Canada (and it’s also applied onto the "Japan" and "Hong Kong/Taiwan/South Korea" regions on the Switch) despite just using American English. Kinda like with European French where although it’s just moreso referring to Standard French/French from France, it’s intended for all French-speaking regions in Europe (France, Belgium and Switzerland). [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 14:58, February 11, 2025 (PST)
'''Deadline''': February 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
If Nintendo is also still adding English (United Kingdom) for their games despite there being almost no differences from the North American English versions aside from date or other words if needed, why do they keep American spelling? Wouldn’t it make more sense for British English spelling to be used even if it’s one of the only differences between English (United States) and English (United Kingdom)? [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 22:00, February 12, 2025 (PST)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - [[Piranha Plant|HI GUYS (V)]]
#{{User|Ray Trace}} I've played zero Minecraft and I'm not interested in clicking external wiki links to get information. Context like this should be filled in; you don't need to get into too much detail but a general overview is nice. I've also went out of my way to detail what stats are in playable character pages in the wiki (eg Paratroopa is classified as a technique character, which means that her shots are accurate).
#{{user|GuntherBB}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} It feels very incomplete to say something appears in a game and then not elaborate any further on its actual role. Sure, it's just a cosmetic change, but I don't think it's horribly out of scope to expand these a little. Regardless of the outcome we at least need to get Minecraft Wiki links in all those sections, though.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. More context is needed in these sections, especially because not everyone who either browses the wiki or is a user on the wiki plays Minecraft (I don't play Minecraft at all). Those people would need more detail as to what the characters do in Minecraft. Besides, this is a ''Super Mario'' wiki; we need to cover everything that's ''Super Mario'' related in order to keep the wiki up to date.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Waluigi Time. A ''brief'' overview of what the role of these Mario-skinned enemies and objects serve in the game is nice to have. I do think the point Camwoodstock has brought up regarding the versatility of Minecraft's elements is a good point and worth considering, but I feel it's entirely possible to keep these descriptions brief. For, say, Spider Eyes, we simply describe them as an item used in various crafting recipes that are dropped by Spiders. That's enough to know, broadly, where they appear and what they do; more in-depth coverage and explanation of mechanics can be saved for another site to cover. Likewise, for blocks with a Mario skin, we simply leave it at something like "Wood planks can be obtained in the overworld or by crafting, and may be placed in the world as a building material or decoration or be used in crafting."
#{{User|Ninja Squid}} Not adding at least an overview of how they work feels incomplete and ridiculous honestly. Per all.
#{{User|Swallow}} Per all. It's not like we'd be giving Minecraft full coverage.


====Oppose====
:Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - While it's true that the first option does not talk of much, there is little relevance to ''Super Mario'' other than what the skins and contents are replaced with. This was one of the main reasons why I wanted to direct people to minecraft.wiki, so that they can read more than just what the ''Super Mario'' content replaces. What's described in the second example are not attributes exclusive to the ''Super Mario'' Mash-up Pack, except for Tarantox's eyes.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per Super Mario RPG.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} If you want info on how each NPC in Minecraft works, you go to a website that has it. If you're leery to go there, c'est la vie, not our business. A sentence-long overview of what the game itself is about is fine on Mario Wiki's [[Minecraft]] article, but further details don't belong here. Those Mario-themed skins don't affect gameplay in any way, so there's nothing worth noting here in that particular regard either; best one can do is link to the relevant NPC's Minecraft Wiki page from the character that inspired its appearance in the Mario texture pack.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per KCC in particular--we feel like it's probably just more conductive to link to, say, the Minecraft Wiki article for Spider Eyes when mentioning Tantrox's Eyes replace them, than to try and give a brief overview, for one key reason--Minecraft blocks, items, and to a lesser extent even ''mobs'' are <small>(usually)</small> incredibly versatile and variable in their use-cases. What we mean by that is that a lot of things in Minecraft are multi-purpose and can be used for a wide variety of different things, '''''especially''''' the older ones. Bringing it back to Tantrox's eyes, Spider Eyes are used in no fewer than 3 crafting recipes themselves and technically count as a food item (and apparently can be used to breed the upcoming Armadillos??? <small>were we just meant to find this out because of this proposal??? <small>''what is mojang game design nowadays''</small></small>), and one of those items it crafts is... The Fermented Spider Eye, which gets used in ''4 more potion recipes''. That's about 4 distinct uses for this one item and 4 uses for an item we'd likely have no other place to mention--even if we forcibly limited the sections to be one sentence per relevant (e.g. all the uses for Spider Eyes are one sentence and all the uses for Fermented Spider Eyes are another sentence), this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead. (Case in point, look at how long this vote is... Oops. ;P) In comparison, a quick link is all the reader needs to learn more if they're just that curious or otherwise aren't familiar with Minecraft; for those who are, then they just need the thing's name, which is presumably provided by the link itself.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per all, the ''Mario'' series content in Minecraft is just limited to the texture pack, skins, and add-on map. There's really no point in going into any further detail for mobs or items. I would even go as far as to say that claiming that Minecraft objects are "replaced" by Mario objects is misleading, as again, the ''only'' thing that changes for them is the texture. They're still named "Spider", "Spider Eyes", "Zombie", etc., and they still make their original Minecraft sounds.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Koopa con Carne and DrippingYellow.
 
====Comments====
@Camwoodstock "this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead" - The Minecraft appearances get their own sections anyway though. I don't think that "''[[Shiverian#Minecraft|In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, pandas are replaced by Shiverians.]]''" has any pacing to kill in the first place. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:20, February 4, 2024 (EST)
:In addition, this is not the level of coverage I was thinking about anyway. I want something a little bit more than "Scuttlebugs replace Spiders" but not to the extent that "spiders can be used as crafting items to spawn a bullshit item or this other bullshit item and they can drop legs that you can make a weapon out of". My sentence here also demonstrates my utter lack of Minecraft knowledge and I have zero desire to hop across external websites just to look up very generic information that can easily be corrected with a little bit more context. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 17:34, February 4, 2024 (EST)
:Yes, in some articles, like Shiverians, there is a Minecraft section... But that that's kind of the exception, not the norm. In fact, it currently looks like there ''is'' no norm or standard whatsoever. The closest we have is the list on the Minecraft article itself, but not only is that list incomplete, but just a few examples we saw from articles linked on that: In the example we gave for Tarantox (in which we'll likely have to go over the 8 uses for his eyes alone--we didn't even touch on the minutia of the mob itself), Tarantox doesn't ''have'' a Minecraft section; it's just in his article opener. Also, because Tarantox is the ''Cave'' Spider, we'd likely have to mirror a good portion of that information to [[Scuttlebug]] as well, since they replace ordinary spiders and those also drop Spider Eyes--and Minecraft is only mentioned in an "Other appearances" section for Scuttlebugs and shares this section with other games, not a bespoke header of its own; either that needs to get split, or else it ''will'' indeed clog that section with the minutia of Minecraft Spider Information. What about Spider Jockeys, just ''at all''--do they go on the article for Scuttlebugs or Dry Bones, and what do we discuss on those articles about Spider Jockeys? What about [[Nabbit]], who lacks any mention of Minecraft on his article because he replaces the Killer Bunny (an otherwise-removed mob only summonable via commands)? [[Buzzy Beetle]]s lack a section, but replace Endermites, which are used. What about blocks and items? Do we explain how to acquire froglights in the [[Snake Block]] article? Do we discuss the Trident in [[Fauster]]'s article? And then there's the Totem of Undying replacement, which we genuinely aren't even sure where you'd put that short of the Minecraft article itself.<br>We think what it boils down to is that, since our coverage of Minecraft as it is is already rather dodgy and inconsistent, whole-sale inserting these descriptions without any consideration of where to actually put them is a very poorly thought-out idea (at least in our opinion, natch.) This is the '''Mario''' Wiki--we need to consider what information pertaining to Minecraft is actually relevant to the Mario franchise and what is best suited for another wiki, because otherwise, this could get out of hand very fast, and lead to plenty of confusion down the road; and in our humble opinion, a simple acknowledgement of what's what is all that's relevant, as any details about Minecraft's gameplay are better suited for a different wiki.<br>We guess what we've been trying to say is that we would like to see some clear limit of where the coverage ends be defined, because Minecraft is ''big'', and if unchecked, you get the aforementioned issue with Spider eyes where suddenly what's supposed to be just a sentence could reasonably become much, much larger. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:50, February 4, 2024 (EST)
::For the record, each subject should have a dedicated Minecraft section in their history based on current organization. The inconsistency is mostly due to changes in policy and Minecraft's coverage status over time that haven't really been kept up with. While it's unfortunate and something that should be fixed ASAP, it's not really relevant to this proposal. (Also, I'm fairly certain the aim of this proposal isn't to cover literally everything in Minecraft, but to be more descriptive when we say "this appears in the game". The Trident and Totem examples are moot.) --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 18:59, February 4, 2024 (EST)
:::We had a feeling at least ''some'' of what we were seeing was just kind of the consequence of coverage priority shifting about, so it's good to know we're not going ''completely'' nuts <s>more than we usually are</s> on that regard. Still, it does kind of leave us with a lot of questions seeing as, even after that gets resolved, we're not quite sure where exactly the line is drawn for descriptiveness; as we mentioned, that count range from anywhere to simply listing what a Mario thing is replacing to literally just a full description of the Minecraft mob, and we're honestly a little hesitant to support when there doesn't really seem to be a cleanly defined line for ''how'' descriptive we should be aside from kinda "feeling" it based on the provided example--which works fine for mobs, but doesn't quite work good for items or blocks. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:06, February 4, 2024 (EST)


This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a ''little'' more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a ''lot'' of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST)
::Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. [[User:CarlosYoshiBoi|CarlosYoshiBoi]] ([[User talk:CarlosYoshiBoi|talk]]) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)


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

Latest revision as of 10:41, February 13, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, February 13rd, 18:44 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."

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)

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)
Merge Royal bus driver with Royal bus, Pizza Master (ended February 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 14, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as this proposal, which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see this old proposal attempt for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?

My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named poll proposals.

  • Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
  • Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
    • Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
  • Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
  • Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
  • Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.

This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".

I've written down a mockup poll proposal for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. 1468z (talk) Per all.
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Ahtemtoday's suggestion; as long as tallying is made easier than the original example, we see no reason to not add these.
  9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  10. Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea for larger projects. Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a lot more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of {{For}} and {{Against}} templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use {{User}} to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need something to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into three separate ones myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave, but I can't really envision what your other example would look like as a poll proposal. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)

well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for List of references in the Super Mario franchise, and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for Dotted-Line Block, options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from SMBW", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --PopitTart (talk) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)

Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:

Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue Hoohooros, but also Hooroglyphs and Beanstones. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in March 2007, actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, Squirpina XIV or the Flora Kingdom royalty, at most serving as the origin for Hoohooros.

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can see the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)

Split the image quality category

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

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

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

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

Split both

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

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

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

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

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

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

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

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

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

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

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

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 4: Do nothing

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Less work for something ultimately unimportant, I guess? It's not like American spelling is unintelligible to non-Americans. Anyway, what does this have to do with the proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:39, February 13, 2025 (EST)
Just came up to me somehow on the topic of American English and British English. Not as big of a problem anyways but just hit me. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 7:37, February 12, 2025 (PST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4732751"