MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
===Expand ''Rhythm Heaven'' series coverage===
''None at the moment.''
The [[WarioWare (series)|''WarioWare'']] and [[rhythmheaven:Rhythm Heaven (series)|''Rhythm Heaven'']] series cross over with each other very frequently for various reasons. As such, this wiki currently has some [[:Category:Rhythm Heaven series|limited coverage of ''Rhythm Heaven'' games]]. I believe that this coverage should be slightly expanded. While our fellow NIWA member Rhythm Heaven Wiki is doing a great job documenting these things and linking to it when relevant works, it would still be nice for the Super Mario Wiki to have ''all'' the ''WarioWare''-related ''Rhythm Heaven'' content covered within its scope.
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


The new articles I suggest should be created are:
==Changes==
* [[rhythmheaven:Rhythm Heaven Fever|''Rhythm Heaven Fever'']] (contains the game [[rhythmheaven:Kung Fu Ball|Kung Fu Ball]], which features [[Young Cricket]] and was the first appearance of [[Cicada]], who has since appeared in more ''WarioWare'' games than ''Rhythm Heaven'' games)
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
* [[rhythmheaven:Kung Fu Ball|Kung Fu Ball]] (stars [[Young Cricket]] and [[Cicada]])
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'']].
* [[rhythmheaven:Tap Trial|Tap Trial]] (a version starring [[Ashley]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Munchy Monk|Munchy Monk]] (a version starring [[Master Mantis]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Fillbots 2|Fillbots 2]] (a version starring [[Mike]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Super Samurai Slice|Super Samurai Slice]] (a version starring [[18-Volt]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:The Clappy Trio 2|The Clappy Trio 2]] (a version starring [[Jimmy T]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Freeze Frame|Freeze Frame (Rhythm Game)]] (a version starring [[Dr. Crygor]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Catchy Tune 2|Catchy Tune 2]] (a version starring [[Kat & Ana]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')
* [[rhythmheaven:Ringside|Ringside]] (a version starring [[Wario-Man]] appears in ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'')


To be clear, these articles would ''only'' cover these subjects to the extent that they are relevant to the ''WarioWare'' series, much like how the ''[[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]]'' article is written. This is ''not'' a proposal to annex the Rhythm Heaven Wiki's coverage into our own.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|JanMisali}}<br>
====Support====
'''Deadline''': April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
====Create articles for ''Rhythm Heaven Fever'' and all Rhythm Games that feature playable ''WarioWare'' characters====
#{{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|JanMisali}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
====Only create an article for ''Rhythm Heaven Fever''====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} While we do have articles for the Mario minigames in [[Nintendo Land]], these ones are, from what I can tell, less substantial and reskins of un-Mario-related minigames, so I feel like giving articles to every one is a bit overkill and covering them like we currently do on the [[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]] page is neater and gives more purpose to those pages. Having a Rhythm Heaven Fever article but covering the main thing connecting it to Mario on a separate page would be like if we split the Super Mario Mash-up from the [[Minecraft]] page. That said, giving Rhythm Heaven Fever guest appearance status seems reasonable.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary choice
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This makes the most sense to us. While the Rhythm Game articles are a tad overkill (it'd be like making a <s>Spleef</s> "Tumble" article because of Minecraft's coverage on the wiki), given ''Rhythm Heaven Fever'' is retroactively the debut of [[Cicada]], it seems only fair to at least give that game an article as a guest appearance. After all, if ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'' <small>(our beloved)</small> can have an article as a token guest appearance because you can use Mario items, why can't Rhythm Heaven Fever when it has the debut of a ''WarioWare'' character?
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per FanOfYoshi.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Hesitant as I was at first, I think this option is fair enough. Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} After thinking about it, Cicada's debut in Fever COULD be likened to the whole ''[[Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic]]'' thing... somewhat, at least.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all


====Only create articles for the eight Rhythm Games in ''Megamix'' that have ''WarioWare'' versions====
====Oppose====
====Do nothing====
#{{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|Super Mario RPG}} First of all, we have Rhythm Heaven Wiki, which you even mentioned in your proposal. We can still practically find ways to cover all of the ''Super Mario'' content in ''Rhythm Heaven'' without going overboard, otherwise we may find ourselves with a successor to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' coverage issue. Also, when you said in your proposal that you thought it would be "nice," that's vague and based on personal opinion, since one could swap out ''Rhythm Heaven'' for anything (''Bayonetta'', ''Shin Megami Tensei'', ''Terraria'', etc.) Wiki scope should be about practicality, not whether someone thinks something is "nice."
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
@Super Mario RPG: Obviously "nice" was being used to mean "preferable given the described circumstances", not sure what gave you an impression otherwise. One could not swap out Rhythm Heaven for any other franchise as Bayonetta, Shin Megami Tensei, and Terraria have not had frequent crossovers with the WarioWare series. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)
 
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.
 
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.


@Hewer, To be fair, there ''is'' precedent for giving ''Mario'' reskins of otherwise unrelated minigames dedicated articles, namely the [[Game & Watch Gallery (series)|''Game & Watch Gallery'' series]]. I understand your point though, it might be overkill to have full coverage of all these minigames when they're already handled on the Rhythm Heaven Wiki. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 17:00, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


==Removals==
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
===Remove profiles and certain other content related to the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' from the wiki===
The wiki currently houses a sizeable number of transcriptions of information from the 2015 ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'', mainly the Japanese edition, in the form of character and enemy profiles. I stated my concern [[Talk:Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia#Copyright infringement|here]] that this practice may infringe Dark Horse/Nintendo's copyright over the product, since, to my knowledge, the book's entire selling point is to inform you on the stuff you find in Mario games through bitesized blurbs. In incorporating these blurbs within its knowledge base, the Mario Wiki, a free resource, is not just impairing the very purpose of the book, but, given that it's still in print, may negatively impact its sales. In fact, that second point is the reason this proposal concerns this book only and not similar publications like ''[[Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia]]'', which has long been out of print and has been superseded by the SMB Encyclopedia, making it highly unlikely that some big wig will send Porple a DMCA strike over something like [[Fire (100m)#Perfect Ban Mario Character Daijiten|Fire (100m)'s profile]]. When it comes to the 2015 Encyclopedia, though, that has a reasonable likelihood of happening and it's best the wiki enforces good faith.


On a similar basis, one user who engaged with the topic in the above talk page has also questioned the wiki's need to feature scans of the book's mistakes in its very article. Given the small size of each blurb, the scans are essentially taking away substantial chunks of information in a way that cannot be conceived as demonstrative or transformative under US Fair Use law.
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.


What this proposal aims to do is the following:
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
*remove encyclopedia bios listed on various articles, regardless of their source's language. [[Tryclyde#Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. bio|Here's an example]]. [[List of Yoshi profiles and statistics#Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.|Here's another]].
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*delete the scans in the "List of English translation errors and typos not from the Super Mario Wiki" section of the encyclopedia's article, as well as any other scans of the book's contents, '''unless''' said content has been displayed by Nintendo or one of their official distributors for the purpose of promoting the book. To exemplify: [[:File:Encyclopedia Error 20.png|This]], [[:File:Encyclopedia Error 6.png|this]], and [[:File:ESMB page 27.png|this]] image should be deleted if the proposal passes. [[:File:EncyclopediaSMB - Characters pt1.jpg|This]] and [[:File:EncyclopediaSMB - Characters pt2.jpg|this]] one should also be deleted, since the content depicted in these images hasn't been used by Shogakukan, Amazon, or some other official distributor to portray the Japanese edition on their online storefronts. On the other hand, the artwork shown in the article's gallery, such as [[:File:Bowser Jr Coloring Book.png|this one]], '''shouldn't''' be removed unless they depict textual information that infringes copyright.
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


A few notes:
<references/>
*Paraphrases of the encyclopedia's information will be allowed under the proposal, so the book's article may continue to describe its mistakes until further notice.
*Small quotes of the book will also be permitted (e.g.: "This text is translated from the Japanese instruction booklet.") if they do not violate this proposal's requirements, albeit it's entirely up to editors to decide how small a quote should be and whether it fits US Fair Use.
*Subject names unique to the encyclopedia are not concerned by this proposal.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Book's only 9 years old, this is worrisome.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. Having scans as "proof" of mistakes is especially odd, just use the book and page number as a source.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Well, we don't want to get sued for 34 thousand dollars in the Federal Court of Malaysia now, do we? And we probably don't want a DMCA from Dark Horse/Nintendo either. Per all of yall (collectively)
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. Good move, Koopa con Carne.
#{{User|Somethingone}} Per proposal (as someone who usually likes images like this), and I personally don't agree with the opposition. I saw plenty of DMCAs from scans like this before.


====Oppose====
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Axis}} I genuinely don't see how use of limited material from the book on pages relevant to the subject in question is by any means problematic.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Axis.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Until we know what the book itself says, I'm opposing. We can't just go, "Oh, here's this thing from 9 years ago, we can't use images of it because copyright blah blah blah." That would set a precedent that should not get set. Super Mario Pia was brought up in this proposal, as was The Art of Super Mario Odyssey in the linked talkpage, but what about others? I don't want any bad precedents being set.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Axis.</strike> On second thought, choosing to abstain, at least for the time being.
 
====Comments====
@Axis Put it another way: how legal would it be if you cut down a copyrighted movie in 30 second clips and uploaded all of them to your youtube channel? That's exactly what the wiki does, except with a book. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:03, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
:We're going to abstain from this vote (we're moreso concerned about citogenesis than we are copyright, admittedly, and dealing with the former generally implies dealing with the latter by proxy), but uh. We do kind of do ''exactly that'', as policy, for audio. Like, we know that's not what you meant, you meant uploading the ''whole thing'' in segments, but like, we do just outright have max-30 second excerpts for audio as a policy where going over that isn't allowed... ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:36, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
:There is a pretty big difference, we're not compiling every bit of information into the same page. The information is scattered across the wiki pages, it's just not comparible. By the way, I'm not opposing to removing book scans from the wiki. Maybe the proposal should have more than 2 options? [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 15:15, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
::Whether or not what the wiki is doing is 1:1 comparable to my example is irrelevant, what's relevant is that both practices are illegal and may net the owner of the site / YT channel a DMCA strike. You can theoretically read the entire SMB Encyclopedia just by using the search function on the wiki to look up each enemy's bio, and there's a chance far larger than zero that someone would be choosing to go that route instead of buying the book if the wiki actually had complete coverage of it, which is where we're headed now. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:07, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'm still not convinced, sorry. [[User:Axis|Axis]] ([[User talk:Axis|talk]]) 00:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::Yeah, I'm with Axis here. We're not having 100% coverage, just the bios, mistakes/errors/plagarism, and a gallery. Not a FULL ON EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK IS HERE! thing. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 08:38, April 24, 2024 (CST)
:::::"We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents" {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:59, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::The things actually listed on the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] article itself (to be as exceedingly unambiguous as possible, we are referring to the article we just linked to, the one where a Ctrl+F for "MIPS" currently yields no results) are literally just the errors/instances of plagiarism. We sat down and counted that, if you don't include any of the pages with overlap (e.g. Page 241 having both an error unique to the book and born out of citogenesis), we only discuss 67 of the book's 256 pages, plus or minus 4 that lack a page number and we thusly cannot verify, or roughly ≈27.5% of all pages.<br>Many of these are only single-sentence aspects of the pages, and much of these come from the citogenesis examples--it is not "the entirety of the book's contents" (the fact we can't actually prove the exact quantity alone should be proof of that). And given the majority of these are about the plagiarism anyways, we don't exactly feel like humoring the idea that we should just kind of remove these acknowledgements that the book copied from us just because the book is still being sold--that's how you get things like newbies randomly moving articles back to their conjectural titles because "the book said so", even though the book only said so because it copied our work in the first place. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:08, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::The proposal has nothing to do with what you wrote. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:20, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Admittedly, we misread on the whole removing things outright thing, that one's on us, oops. <s>we're so tired after last week y'all, this aside ''is'' entirely unrelated to the proposal.</s> However, we do feel like it is worth pointing out that the statement that we cover "the entirety of the book's contents" is inaccurate, which given that statement is directly meant to counter-act Axis' own vote, we think that is reasonably related to the proposal. And, as we mentioned earlier, we're far more concerned with the whole "risk of citogenesis courtesy of the book itself having copied various names that were meant to be conjectural" aspect of that article than we are if we should include images or not, hence why we've abstained from voting. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:26, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::The profiles concerned by this proposal are mainly from the Japanese version of the book, which of course didn't use names from the wiki. This proposal is completely unrelated to the English version having taken names from the wiki (as rare as that is for a discussion about this book). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:31, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::...'''We may be stupid''' (as we mentioned, uh, ''we're a little tired from the Everything''. apologies for just kinda barging in and evidently getting tied up in an entirely unrelated article's business... ;P) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:36, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::I feel like our argument is getting semantic. Perhaps I have my large share of blame for framing the issue in absolute terms, but whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:41, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::So basically no Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 13:43, April 24, 2024 (CST)
:::::::::::I didn't say ''anything'' of this sort. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::""We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents"". "whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full." Does that not sound like "no Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia? {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 15:39, April 24, 2024 (CST)
:::::::::::::No? "The wiki shouldn't copy so much from the book" is very different from "it should not contain even a single mention of the book". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:42, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Yeah, and let a lot of work go to waste. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 15:56, April 24, 2024 (CST)
:::::::::::::::Do you wanna get sued? Including all the bios from that book, which is ''the entirety of said book's contents'', while it is still on the market, is still justifiable grounds for a copyright strike. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:27, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Entirety? As in "Let's ignore the other stuff in this"? And what does the book itself say? {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 17:07, April 24, 2024 (CST)
:::::::::::::::::Literally what "other stuff" in the book? That's all there is. Little pictures (some of the artwork I ''do'' want us to have), and bios. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:12, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::The non-bios. Plus, you didn't answer my other question. {{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} 18:06, April 24, 2024 (CST)
 
Genuine question: why are we thinking about this nearly a decade later? This is one of the reasons why I always made it a point to keep citations to their earliest instance. However, there are still plenty of things that are unique to the book to our knowledge, like the tidbit of MIPS being Peach's pet. What happens to that info if the proposal passes? Not to mention, ''Super Mario Pia'' was released around the same time as ''Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros.'' - do those profiles not count because they don't have the same global reach? I think maybe a cutoff date needs to be established. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 13:52, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
:The proposal isn't about how the book is cited. The MIPS tidbit and citation can stay; the quote is supplementary, and if it constitutes the entirety of MIPS' description in the book, it can be handily removed with little impact on the subject's coverage and how its info is sourced. I omitted Super Mario Pia out of sheer oversight, admittedly, though given its anniversary nature I'm not sure if it's even sold anymore, and I believe official availability should be our primary cutoff, rather than the publishing date. I'd have Pia handled in another discussion. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:11, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
:''Genuine question: why are we thinking about this nearly a decade later?'' I can't speak for the proposer, but in the past week we've had Nintendo issuing a takedown request toward Valve for hosting copyrighted Nintendo assets on Garry's Mod, after 15+ years of seemingly being fine with the stuff. That alone makes this conversation ''very'' relevant. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 16:20, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
::Squiddy that's been proven to be a false-flag perpetrated by trolls. That being said, it's in-character for them. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:43, April 25, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
===Overhaul titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages===
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
With the recent release of the [[Nintendo Switch]] remake of ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]]'', we have already seen the introduction of two new worlds - [[Merry Mini-Land]] and [[Slippery Summit]], as well as their plus variants. However, while I was documenting levels for the remake, I have noticed an issue - since these worlds also change the numbering for [[Spooky House]], [[Mystic Forest]], and [[Twilight City]]'s level pages, this causes several concerns for me in regards to naming level articles with generic-named stage numberings in games where worlds are named:
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
*Right now, the level numberings for the various levels in ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' are correspondent to the GBA version. If I attempt to move those pages to match the Switch numbering (for example: "[[Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)]]" (Spooky House 4-1) to "[[Level 5-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)]]" (Spooky House 5-1, Switch version)), this can cause several issues with us cleaning up all the links to other level pages, and is especially the case for links to various Mystic Forest (5-x > 7-x) and Spooky House (4-x > 5-x) pages.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
*Related to above, the new [[Merry Mini-Land]] and [[Slippery Summit]] pages have a slightly conjectural variation of the game's title. Take a look at this for example: "[[Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)]]", aka the first stage of Merry Mini-Land.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
**As a reminder: nowhere in any circumstance has the remake been titled "''Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch''", it is simply titled "''Mario vs. Donkey Kong''". It could be seen as confusing especially as there are some [[reissue]]s of games that are officially titled the same way too (like ''[[Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS]]'').
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
**I attempted to get around this by initially naming the title of the article as "Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch))", but it caused issues with rendering the title on top of the page.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]] Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.


What I wanted to propose is to '''overhaul the titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages'''. Level articles that fall under this description are:
====Don't make a standard====
*Levels with generic numbering identifiers in worlds that are not named in any circumstance (including in-game and supplementary material like ''[[Nintendo Power]]''). Example is [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|World 1-1]] in ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]''.
*Levels with generic numbering identifiers in named worlds. Examples include [[Level 1-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)|Level 1-1 in Mario Toy Company]] (from ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong]]''), and [[World 2-3 (Super Mario Bros. 3)|World 2-3 in Desert Land/Desert Hill]] from ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]''.
*Levels with names do not count, regardless if the world is named. This is true for various levels in ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' ([[Make Eggs, Throw Eggs]]). These article names are kept as is.


Given that there are a lot of generic-named level articles that fall under this jurisdiction, this is a very '''large-scale''' proposal, and may affect most, if not all "x-x" level articles. This will require help from the wiki's higher staff, especially an administrator who can handle several article renames and moves at large. Due to this, please note that the effects of the proposal may not be always guaranteed to be '''immediate''' even if it is already passed, but I hope to get this done with everyone as soon as possible.  
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


After brainstorming for a while, these are the possible formats we're going to aim for when making level pages, see below.
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
====Option 1: "(World/Game Name) - (Level Code)"====
{{Early notice|March 6}}
This is the new page naming format for levels which is based on the naming format used for WiKirby (note for reference: levels in the ''[[wikirby:Kirby (series)|Kirby]]'' series are called "stages", while worlds are called "levels".) Examples of articles on WiKirby that follow this format are [[wikirby:Cookie Country - Stage 1|Cookie Country - Stage 1]] (Level 1-1 or Stage 1 of Cookie Country in ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]''), and [[wikirby:Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble - Lvl 7-2|Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble - Lvl 7-2]] in ''[[wikirby:Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble|Kirby Tilt 'n' Tumble]]''.
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.


This makes it easier to update a level's numbering designation should any circumstances of adding new worlds in-between happen again (like how Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit were handled in the Switch version of ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong''). It can also make it easier to identify levels from each other easily without having to look up the name of the world first. This will also ensure moving articles if new worlds are added in remakes are made easier as well. Additionally, this will prevent game name confusion from occurring, specifically my issue with the Merry Mini-Land stages using the identifier "''Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch''".
Some subjects ([[Taily]], for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely {{iw|pikipedia|Pikmin_family#Naming|Pikipedia}}, {{iw|inkipedia|Inkling#Etymology|Inkipedia}} and {{iw|bulbapedia|Bulbasaur_(Pokémon)#Name_origin|Bulbapedia}}, and push this a step further?


With this format, this is how it will work:
This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:
*For levels that use generic numbering (1-x) and are from a named world, they will be named "(World Name) - X-X". For example, in the Switch version of ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', we can call Level 5-DK and Level 8-2 as "[[Level 5-DK|Spooky House - Level 5-DK]]" and "[[Level 6-2 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)|Twilight City - Level 8-2]]".
*The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
**As a side note - if two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
*The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call [[Blooper]] by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
**Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently. For example, in ''[[Hotel Mario]]'', levels are named as "Stage #", and Super Mario Wiki refers to their level articles with the title ("Stage # (Hotel Name)"). It can be changed to be something like "[[Stage 1 (Lemmy's High-ate Regency Hotel)|Lemmy's High-ate Regency Hotel - Stage 1]]".
*Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
*For levels that use generic numbering and are in '''unnamed''' worlds (eg. ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]''), they will be named "(Game Name) - X-X". For example, take World 1-1 in ''Super Mario Bros.''. This can be named as "[[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)|Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1]]" instead. The "world" designator can be renamed to "Level/Area/Stage/Course" depending on how the game calls it.
*Internal name table, if applicable
**Some of you might be concerned with it conflicting with a certain job name in ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'' - "[[Super Mario Bros. W1-1?]]". It shouldn't conflict at all - the format of the title is seemingly close but in the end it's fairly different.
*The "names in other languages" table
*Redirects can be made based on the original names of the articles. For example, if "[[Level 6-3 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)]]" is moved to "Twilight City - Level 8-3", the former can be turned into a redirect that leads to the latter new title of the article itself, to make it easier to search for wiki readers who are more used to the old format. Another example is if "[[World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)]]" is moved to "Grass Land - World 1-2", where typing in "World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)" still leads to the article with the new name.
*Levels with names are already kept as is. If some level names from two or more games conflict due to them being the same, the name of the game should be placed in parenthesis for the associated articles, while the level of the game that is released first chronologically will keep its name as is (no game title in parenthesis after it.)
*If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.


====Option 2: "(World Name) - (Level Code)" and "(Level Code) (Game Name)"====
'''EDIT:''' If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like [[bubble]] or a literal name like [[Mayor Penguin]]), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally ''iron valiant''." name explanations.
This is a variation of the first option which incorporates itself with the old level article naming system to make it more flexible to some situations especially for tackling commonly-searched terms like "World 1-1". This is how it will go:


*Levels that use generic numbering and are from a named world will be named "(World Name) - Level X-X". Ex. [[Level 4-mm (Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)]] becomes "Merry Mini-Land - Level 4-mm".
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
**If two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
**Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently, whether it would be "Stage X-X", "Area X-X", or even simply "X-X".
**For redirects, the original names of the articles may serve as redirects, however this may be handled differently depending on certain circumstances (shifting of world number for various worlds in the ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' remake, for example).
*Levels that use generic numbering and are from worlds with no names will follow this format: "World X-X ('Game Name')". Examples of such are [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)]] and [[World 18-1]]. The game name is used to differentiate the level from other games featuring a level with the same name, as per usual.
*Levels with names are already kept as is.
*If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.


I believe that identifying generically-named levels with numbered coding from each other should be made easier, especially if we need to look up information quickly for a friend struggling to find a level or its information. Right now, the current method of using game titles in parentheses makes it hard for such information to be easily looked up, and it has become more of an issue when we tried to fix up the level number coding and the articles for the new levels when documenting the Switch remake of ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]]''. I hope this proposal serves to change this for the foreseeable future.
====Retool====
 
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
'''Proposer''': {{User|EleCyon}}<br>
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
'''Deadline''': April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
 
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section <small>(we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon.")</small>, so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
====Option 1====
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary choice.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
 
#{{User|PopitTart}} As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
====Option 2====
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|EleCyon}} - First choice, per proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} - This could help solve some level naming discrepancies.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
 
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Better organization of naming info. Can we [[Template_talk:Foreign_names#Retitle|retitle]] the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
====Keep as is====
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really get why the problem of a few worlds in Mario vs. Donkey Kong getting their numbers changed warrants a massive change to how we name levels that forgoes our usual naming and identifier rules for no apparent reason. There was never a level called "Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1", it's just known as "World 1-1". I'd compare this to the case of Mario Kart tracks: for example, we have [[Wii Rainbow Road]], but [[Rainbow Road (Mario Kart: Double Dash!!)]]. We ''could'' rename the latter "GCN Rainbow Road" to be more neat and consistent, but it's never been officially called that, so we don't. I'd rather use that same logic and stick to official naming instead of enforcing our own version. And I don't see why only newer games should get identifiers for their titles - I feel like having both get identifiers, similar to the current system where identifier-less [[World 1-1]] is a disambiguation, makes more sense.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Hewer, changing our entire level naming system just for disambiguating some MVDK worlds is overkill. However, I could see the merits of using the world name as an identifier specifically for disambiguating worlds 4 and more of MVDK (e.g., [[Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)|Level 4-1 (Merry Mini-Land)]]) and only in that specific case.
#{{User|Mario}} Hm.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. The ''MvDK (Switch)'' situation is overwhelmingly the exception, rather than the norm, so accounting for it on the levels for every single game that doesn't have this problem (so... ''basically every other Mario video game that has level articles'') is extremely overkill.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per all. I'm personally partial to how {{iw|fireemblem|Fire Emblem (concept)#Etymology and other languages|Fire Emblem Wiki}} labels them collectively though. "Etymology ''and'' other languages".
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. The proposal as written would be a lot of work for very little benefit, but implementing this for ''exclusively'' the relevant ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' stages would make those titles both less cluttered and more descriptive.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} per plexing
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all. (please note that before MB64's vote, my vote was blank)
#{{User|YoYo}} per all.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per FanOfYoshi
 
====Comments====
Personally, I fail to see how this makes it any easier. With longer titles especially, the search dropdown's just gonna get cut off and you'll have a bunch of identical copies of the game title without being able to tell which is which (unless the functionality of it has been updated without me realizing). Also, I disagree with prioritizing remake over original with this. I'm not voting right now because I consider myself too tired to do so reliably, but those are my thoughts right now. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)


I'll point out that "(''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' for Nintendo Switch)" as an identifier is supported by [[MarioWiki:Naming]]: "If two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them, the game name and console are used in this format: ({game name} for {console}). For example, [[Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii)|Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for Wii)]]." And you can tell the difference from something where it's part of the actual title like ''Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS'' thanks to the placement of the italics. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
====Do not retool (status quo)====


Given the problem is exclusively present in the MvDK levels, I feel like it makes more sense to simply use a format like [[Level 4-5 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)|Spooky House-5]] and [[Level 4-mm (Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)|Merry Mini-Land-mm]] for specifically that game and its remake, and leave the other courses and levels alone. This seems at least like an acceptable choice, given that the ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' and ''New Super Luigi U'' courses [[Stone-Eye Zone]] and [[Spike's Tumbling Desert]] are both being alternatively referred to as Layer-Cake Desert-1 in their respective articles; meaning that, if these NSMBU and NSLU courses hadn't gotten exclusive names, the wiki would've most likely went for the Layer-Cake Desert-1 format. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments in other languages====
:This seems like the best solution to me. Relying solely on parentheses for this leads to, I believe, everything after world 4 needing them because the numbers desync. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:00, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::::I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
:::::...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
::::::I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)


Jdtendo does make a good point, however. Using the world's name in parenthesis for the ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' worlds might be a better idea to go than mass renaming all the worlds to match what we're going for in the proposal. I might consider this should the proposal not pass at all, especially as I'm about to start documenting Slippery Summit levels soon. --[[User:EleCyon|EleCyon]] ([[User talk:EleCyon|talk]]) 21:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 17:17, March 2, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, March 3rd, 05:57 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
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 Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Rename Dark Horse Comics to "Dark Horse Books", Nintendo101 (ended February 26, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

I thought that was the whole proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  9. PaperSplash (talk) No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 6 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

  • The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
  • The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
  • Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
  • Internal name table, if applicable
  • The "names in other languages" table

EDIT: If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like bubble or a literal name like Mayor Penguin), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally iron valiant." name explanations.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
  5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
  7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
  10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
  11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
  13. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  14. Mario (talk) Hm.
  15. PaperSplash (talk) Per all. I'm personally partial to how Fire Emblem Wiki labels them collectively though. "Etymology and other languages".

Do not retool (status quo)

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4764945"