MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
==New features==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
I have several pitches for you.
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.


==Writing guidelines==
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages===
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the [[Mariowiki:Naming#derived names|naming]] system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "[[Talk:Hefty Goombrat|Hefty Goombrat]]," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Linking_Bull%27s-Eye_Bill&curid=429765&diff=4195153&oldid=4111331 here]. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for [[Shoot]] was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "[[surfboard vehicle|vehicle with surfboard]]."
 
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
 
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
 
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.
 
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
 
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
 
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's ''not what this site is even remotely about''
#{{User|Axis}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over ''actual names'' if they exist.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm pretty sure this all started [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]], and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
#{{User|Somethingone}} Per the arguments raised above.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Doc in the comments. If there's an official name, there's an official name, and we shouldn't just ignore it.


====Oppose====
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is '''not''' the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "[[Fire Spike]]" or "[[Wonder Hoppycat]]"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively)
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Not a good idea.
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.</s>
<br><s>#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across ''multiple'' pieces of English ''Mario'' media (i.e. ''gabon'' to Spike, ''kakibo'' to Goombrat, ''deka'' to "Big" enemies, admittedly ''kodeka'' for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have [[Hefty Goomba]]s as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. [[Sensuikan Heihō]] does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")</s>


====Comments====
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just ''begging'' to be misused. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)


I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name ''that is a name'' exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, ''these'' have plenty of potential for misleading people. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them ''explicitly'' conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)


I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese|already take some liberties with Japanese titles]] I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Option Zero====
:Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "'''Assume'''". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like [[Sniper|Sunaipā]] to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "[[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Option One====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
====Option Two====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.
====Option Three====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for a poll that is concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.


@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Option Four====
:I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments====
::Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)


For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "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." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


==New features==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==Changes==
===Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess ''Tour'' stuff===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Take a look at the gallery section of any Mario Kart race course that has been featured in [[Mario Kart Tour]], and you will find the majority of the gallery is filled with a ton of mostly-identical images of the course "icons" with various playable characters superimposed on them. Why? Why is this necessary, what positive purpose does this provide to the reader? Take [[Wii Mushroom Gorge]] for example. The gallery contains '''''seventeen''''' duplicates of the same three screenshots of the course, each with a different stock artwork of a character on top of it. [[SNES Mario Circuit 1]] has '''''thirty''''' of them. [[Tour New York Minute]] has '''''forty-five''''', which probably contributed to the page lagging as it loaded for me. This is really excessive and they don't need to be there. Nothing is gained by the reader from seeing the same screenshot with a different stock artwork over them. I propose we remove these and only leave ONE version of each icon. (IE for Mushroom Gorge, only <s>three</s> four icons would remain)
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


'''Proposer''': {{User|Shadow2}}<br>
'''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
'''Deadline''': ''May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT''


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Shadow2}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Unpopular, but I'm backing this. I really don't see what these images accomplish that, say, a textual list of characters that have been pictured on the course icon couldn't. And when I say that out loud, it sounds like unusefully nitpicky information to include, so I'm ''really'' not sure why we're dedicating swathes of the gallery to it. To be honest, if we can get the course icons with no character on them whatsoever, I'd rather put those on the pages than just picking one of the character course icons.
#{{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".
<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...?</s>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} What? It's relevant information that has every reason to be there, it not being that interesting to most is a very bad reason to single it out and remove it at the expense of the wiki's comprehensiveness, and I have no idea what the problem is with galleries having all the relevant images. Removing stuff just because you aren't interested in it feels short-sighted and way too slippery a slope.
#{{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|Koopa con Carne}} They're relevant to their pages. I don't think it's the fan encyclopedia that should take the blame for their excessiveness.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. If there's too many images in the gallery, that's what making a gallery subpage is for.
#{{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|Super Mario RPG}} I don't see any reason why the images shouldn't stay.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} A gallery is the best place for preserving images like these. That Nintendo made an excessive amount of course icon variants that each feature a different (compatible) character, is not our fault.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Changing our vote to an abstain, and figure we should ask--would it be too much to ask for a move to make gallery subpages/split these off to those over a full removal from the galleries? We don't think these should be anywhere ''near'' the main article, but we do think that a gallery subpage is a perfect fit. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:58, May 11, 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)
:What's wrong with them being on the main page, exactly? I feel like separate gallery pages for them would probably be a bit too small to be tenable, and I'm unsure what harm they're doing being treated like all the other images. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:44, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Mainly performance, as the original proposal briefly mentioned--[[Tour New York Minute]]'s excessive number of these icons caused our Firefox to genuinely lag upon loading that article. When it gets to the point where an article starts to have a noticeable pause in loading in because of the size of the gallery, we think it's only fair to at least ''consider'' moving the bulk of the images to a gallery subpage. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:59, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Fair enough, but it ought to still be on a case-by-case basis. New York Minute could be argued to have a problem, but that's probably more because of how many variants it's got (between 1, 2, 3, 4, and the R, T, and R/T versions of each, plus B), and other courses seem to have more reasonable numbers, like [[GBA Peach Circuit]]'s eight. So I don't think they all need to get their galleries split necessarily (not sure what the cutoff point would be though). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:21, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, some articles definitely don't have it as bad when it comes to these icons causing loading problems. Still, we should probably be less afraid to split off track galleries if they get quite that large in the future--though, that statement is bordering on being unrelated to this proposal entirely, so... Make of that what you will, we suppose? ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:02, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::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.
 
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>


"(IE for Mushroom Gorge, only '''three''' icons would remain)"<br>Why only ''three''? Doesn't Mushroom Gorge have ''four'' versions (normal, R, T, and R/T), like (almost) ''every other course in Mario Kart Tour''? And I wouldn't know which one you want to leave out: we've got to keep at least one version of the normal variant, R versions and T versions are somewhat on the same level, and not only is R/T the most different out of all of them, but ''there's only one icon for that one too''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:01, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
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.
:Oh, I may have made a mistake there. But yes, the point would be for one icon for each course. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:As {{User|Arend}} said, I am inclined to agree with the proposal if it is changed so that we keep one icon for each version of a course. Additionally, I'd like some clarification on where the cut images would go, as I don't want them to just be lost in the depths of the Wiki. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:49, May 11, 2024 (EDT)


@Hewer @Koopa con Carne , what exactly is the "relevant information" being presented to the reader? "This image has Mario on it, this one is the exact same but it has Luigi on it." Okay? What's the point? To me, this is on a similar level to uploading every individual sprite in Mario's walk cycle. They're different, they're from the game, but they're not important enough on their own to convey any useful information to the reader, compared to actual screenshots which DO present useful information. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
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.
:That's still information, and as I said in my vote, "I don't like this information and find it boring so let's just remove it" is an extremely slippery slope and goes against the point of the site as being a comprehensive encyclopedia about the franchise. Who are we to decide what's "useful information to the reader"? Someone might well be curious to know what characters were used for Yoshi Circuit's icons, I don't think it's ''that'' unreasonable. For the Mario walking sprite thing, [[Gallery:Mario sprites and models|we've got GIFs to accomplish that]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
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:
===Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections===
*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>
This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.
<references/>


I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify ''Yoshi's Safari'' as a ''Yoshi'' game on par with the ''Yoshi's Island'' series, and I haven't seen ''Wario's Woods'' being listed among the likes of ''Wario Land'' series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of ''Wario's Woods'', despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about ''DK'' arcade game). And ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' could either be a ''Super Mario'' game, since it stars Mario, or a ''Donkey Kong'' game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of ''Donkey Kong'', and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still ''Super Mario'' characters starring in their own games, not different than ''Captain Toad'', ''Princess Peach'', and ''Luigi's Mansion'', all of which are explicitly ''Super Mario'' games but starring different characters.
====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.


In the ''Smash Bros.'' series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.  
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} ^Yeah this tripped me up when I first started seeing that.


'''Edit:''' Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: <code> ===''Yoshi'' franchise=== ====''Yoshi's Island'' series==== =====''Yoshi's Island DS''===== </code>
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{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.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Seems like the more immediate solution here.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Makes the most sense to me. Per all.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
====Don't make a standard====
'''Deadline''': May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
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)


====Oppose====
I made {{tem|ref page}}. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 13:22, March 6, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting ''Wario Land'' and ''WarioWare'' titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with ''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'' and the other ''Donkey Kong'' platforms. ''Smash Bros.'' did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
:I somehow didn't notice, thanks! The obvious projected outcome of this proposal is to use that template, but I'll let the proposal run its course since it has only 2 days left. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:31, March 6, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
#{{User|Arend}} Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of [[Special:Diff/4174787|this edit on the Icicle page]] ([[Icicle|which is still in use btw]]). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it ''has'' a purpose, and is ''not'' entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would ''only'' make sense if we treated ''every game'' like this and have ''everything'' listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}}Perall!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.
#{{User |Big Super Mario Fan}}I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments====
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
@Nintendo101: Except the ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is not a ''Yoshi's Island'' game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
{{Early notice|March 6}}
:I would argue that ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.
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.


:What is not subjective is that ''Woolly World'' (in addition to ''Yoshi's Story'', ''Crafted World'') has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized ''Yoshi's Island'' games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the ''Yoshi'' platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Wario'' titles, as I would for ''Mario Party'' and ''Mario Kart''. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
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?


::Then there's the ''Yoshi'', ''Yoshi's Cookie'', and ''Tetris Attack'' puzzle games, supposedly with the ''Yoshi'' branding, though I think the former two are ''Super Mario'' games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the ''Super Mario'' franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.
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 [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
*Internal name table, if applicable
*The "names in other languages" table


::''Yoshi's Story'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and ''Yoshi's Crafted World'' not being part of an explicitly defined ''Yoshi'' platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
'''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.
:::I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
::::Because the same question could apply to why does [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in ''Zelda'', would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong''. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'' come after ''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'' in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' after ''Super Mario World'' (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' being a ''Yoshi's Island'' title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
:::::While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group ''Woolly World'' with ''Yoshi's Island'' because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a ''Yoshi'' franchise (also a ''Wario'', ''Donkey Kong'', etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.
:::::Are the ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'' franchises themselves not within the ''Super Mario'' franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. ''Zelda'' would inherently be outside of that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)


::::::The three you mentioned are part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, that's true. And ''Tetris Attack'', a puzzle game, is as much of a ''Yoshi'' game as ''Super Mario World 2''. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put ''Yoshi'' puzzle game, the [[Super Scope]] game ''Yoshi's Safari'', ''Yoshi's Island'', and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to ''Yoshi's Island'', which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the ''Super Mario'' franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: <code>====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Land 2====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====</code>, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: <code>WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!</code>, <code>Wario World</code>, <code>WarioWare: Twisted!</code> This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Retool====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
#{{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.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{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.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{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?
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Hm.
#{{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|Bro Hammer}} Per proposal.


The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
====Do not retool (status quo)====
:Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, [[Cog (obstacle)]] has ''[[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'' listed under "''Donkey Kong'' franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
::Except gears also appear in ''[[Mario Kart DS]]'' and ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'' thanks to [[DS Tick-Tock Clock]], the former being inbetween ''Jungle Beat'' and ''Country Returns'' (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the ''[[WarioWare: Twisted!]]'' and ''[[WarioWare Gold]]'' microgame [[Scrambled Egg]] (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::Come to think of it though, ''[[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]]'' already features gears in the microgame [[Gear Head Fred]], so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before ''Jungle Beat'' anyway. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)


On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them <font color="#444">'''a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader'''</font> could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments in other languages====
:I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, [[user:Arend/sandbox|see this sandbox]]). Not sure if it's ''entirely'' necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed '''bold'''. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:49, May 9, 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)
:::::::What is it you see? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:45, March 3, 2025 (EST)
::::::::It's talking about browser cookies. If I see that sort of message on a site that doesn't have to do with something vital, I go back, because I don't think something like a wiki has any business processing browser cookies. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:13, March 4, 2025 (EST)


===Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles===
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)
This proposal aims to allow separating the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling platformers ([[:File:SMR Notifications 2023-12-20 excerpt.jpg|it's official]]) from the ''Super Mario'' 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series separately from the ''Super Mario'' 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' itself), ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is said to be the first ''Super Mario Bros.'' game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' were released).


Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.
Will this proposal also affect media (such as the titles for ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' episodes), or just the subjects within the media? [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:57, March 3, 2025 (EST)
:i don't see why it wouldn't! media also has names and etymology, after all. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 09:54, March 4, 2025 (EST)


The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is that would mean ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', its sequel, and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' would all be disqualified from the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series. The ''Super Mario'' series is the standard/main series, and ''Super Mario Maker 2'' has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a ''Super Mario 3D World'' format. ''Super Mario Run'' is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in ''Super Mario'' series. This proposal is to help the ''Super Mario BROS.'' games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.
One more thing: isn't the first point (and sometimes the second) covered by the introductory paragraph most of the time? <s>[[MarioWiki:Once and only once|We don't want to repeat info]]</s> - huh. We're doing away with [[Special:Diff/4723954|once and only once]]? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:yeah, the idea is to move most of that info to the Names section, that way everything names-related is in the same section. the intro paragraph should probably still list other english names that aren't the current name of the article, if only for the purposes of clarifying they're the same subject. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:56, March 6, 2025 (EST)


The ''Super Mario'' name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Strikers]]'', for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "''Super Mario''", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.
===Introducing the crossover article===
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
<s>#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.</s>


====Oppose====
[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I do not support severing the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "{{wp|clade}}" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] as recently as [[:File:SuperMarioBros35thAnniversary - Game Collection.jpg|2020]]. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that ''Super Mario Land'', ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''Super Mario Run'' are not within the same series as the original ''Super Mario Bros.'' or ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
#{{User|JanMisali}} The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Nintendo101.
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101 and JanMisali. Plus, I see no point in separating proper 2D side-scroller Mario games such as ''Super Mario Land'' 1 & 2 from an ill-defined ''Super Mario Bros.'' series on the sole basis that those games lack the word "Bros." in their title.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
#{{User|Arend}} As one can see in the comments, people have vastly different views of what counts as a ''Super Mario Bros.'' game and what doesn't (e.g. Doc believes the ''Super Mario Land'' games don't count because Luigi doesn't appear in them, I think that's superficial and that the ''Land'' games should still be counted as at least related since the general gameplay is still the same otherwise). While a good idea on paper, it will lead to many arguments and disagreements until we get a definite answer from Nintendo what should count and what shouldn't... and all we get from Nintendo is that they lump every ''Super Mario'' game, from ''Bros'' to ''Land'' to ''64'' to ''Sunshine'' to ''Maker'' to ''Run'' to ''Odyssey'', as part of the same series.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, especially the fact that the Super Mario Bros. series is a subset of the Super Mario series anyway. If we separated SMB as its own thing, wouldn't that be implying the Super Mario series only contains 3D games and miscellanea like Maker? Because that's certainly not the case.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, and also the mere fact that jan Misali did in fact make a 40+ minute video on roughly this same subject, juxtaposed with the comments below. This would be an extremely strange thing to try to enforce when there's no fewer than 4 major standards for what even counts as a ''Super Mario'' game, and one of them is literally our own.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} How do we know what's mainline? Everything is senseless 'cause there's no consensus. Opening us up to even more inconsistency would just make it harder to navigate and lead to pointless back-and-forth edits on what goes where.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} While it is a good idea, there's just too many unanswered questions. So sorry, but I have to change to oppose.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.


====Comments====
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the ''Mario Maker'' (which implements ''3D World'' in a sidescrolling format) and ''Run'' titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series. This is just the starting point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:True, but only ''Mario Maker 2'' implemented ''3D World'', and ''Run'', from experience, has all the hallmarks of a ''NSMB'' game, whereas the ''Mario Maker'' games COULD be seen as related to the ''NSMB'' games due to having ''NSMBU'' as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMB3'', & ''SMW''. Otherwise that helps. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check [[Super Mario (series)#Ports, remakes, and compilations|here]], for instance, has ''Captain Toad'', ''Super Mario World 2'', ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::And the official sources say [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:We already had [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|a proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series]] somewhat recently, and it failed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]] and one for the 3D series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|here]]. ''Land'' and ''Maker'' are additional subseries, while ''Run'' is its own thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
I offer three options:
:The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
::Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has ''Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario (series)'', & ''Wrecking Crew'', but the ''Super Mario (series)'' bit is basically my main focus. I have ''Super Mario (series)'' into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the ''Super Mario'' name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same ''Super Mario Bros.'' name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, ''Super Mario Land'' (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & ''NSMB'' (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
:::''Super Mario Land'' can't be a sub-series of ''Bros.'' because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about ''Special'', but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''
::::Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of ''Bros'' because it was listed with the ''Bros.'' games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Except that list wasn't referred to as "''Super Mario Bros.'' games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::(facepalm) No, not THAT list. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:11, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Then what list? Care to link or show an image? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:30, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Look [[Super Mario Bros. 30th Anniversary#Gallery|here]]. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:24, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::That list includes the 3D platformers too. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:41, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::So? It shows that the ''Maker'' games & ''Run'' are part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMW'' & ''NSMB''. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::So this is not an example of an official source classifying the games in the same way this proposal suggests. The fact that this list includes ''Super Mario Land'' does not demonstrate that ''Super Mario Land'' is part of a specific subset of ''Super Mario'' games that includes ''Super Mario Bros.'' and excludes ''Super Mario 64''. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::No, but it proves my main point. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:01, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It proves that ''Super Mario Land'' is a mainline game, but that wasn't under question. The thing that was asked was why your list of ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, as a separate subseries, includes the ''Super Mario Land'' games as a sub-subseries. This source could also justify classifying the 3D games as a sub-subseries of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries for exactly the same reason. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:05, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Ok. 1. this lists the ''Super Mario (Bros.)'' series. 2. The ''Super Mario'' sub-series (3D games) ARE listed here, but are separate due to recent official stuff. 3. The ''Super Mario Land'' games are listed as a sub-series to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series (2D games) because, despite the different shared names, which are a reason of them being a sub-sub-series, ARE ''Super Mario Bros.'' games. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:14, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The ''Super Mario Run'' notification is ''very'' specific in how it phrases its statement. ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first "side-scrolling entry" in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years. That specificity means that there ''could'' be entries in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series which are ''not'' side-scrolling games, because otherwise there'd by no reason to specifically say "last side-scrolling entry". I believe these sources taken together ''could'' imply that at least some of the 3D games are ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, and that using "''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries" to refer to the 2D platformers is not helpful. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::They are ''not'' "Super Mario Bros." games, Luigi isn't in them. Hard to be "Bros." without the Bros. (Though again, ''Special'' is the exception due to its watered-down nature). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Luigi is ''only'' in the (early) Super Mario Bros. games because of the 2-player mode. If ''Super Mario Land'' and ''Super Mario Land 2'' had the possibility of a 2-player mode, then Luigi would obviously be added in those games (we know that Nintendo tried adding Luigi in ''Super Mario 64'' but scrapped it due to difficulties with adding multiplayer). If we ''had'' to hard-gatekeep the Mario Land games out of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries (even as a spinoff to it like ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Run'', then logically, we should do the same with ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', which features no Mario at all (and since ''New Super Luigi U'' has been released at one point as a standalone game, ''and'' we've been counting campaigns like ''[[Bowser's Fury]]'' as official entries, I think that should count).<br>To me, I think we should view the Land games, the Maker games, and Run at least as related games to the ''Bros.'' titles, since they feature basically the exact same kind of gameplay as any other ''Super Mario Bros.'' title. Hell, ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', the USA version, is more different than ''Land 1'' in terms of gameplay, yet we're counting it as an official entry. I don't think the ''Land'' games should be exempt purely because of something as superficial as "there's no Luigi in it". {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:14, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::I mean, by virtue of all those games being Super Mario games, they (along with the 3D games) should be "related" to the Super Mario Bros. series by default, right? To distinguish "related" beyond that, deciding if a game is "related" to a subseries that it shares a larger series with anyway, feels a bit hair-splitting. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The notification does also specifically say that ''Super Mario Bros.'' is a "series of side-scrolling action games", so to then say afterwards that ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling game in 11 years... I feel like their intent is pretty obvious here. I was an SMB series doubter for the longest time, but first with that quote in one of the interviews leading up to ''Wonder'', and now with this notification in-game in ''Super Mario Run'', it's definitely giving the impression that Nintendo considers Super Mario Bros. a sub-series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 21:26, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Well, it said "side-scrolling" games, & ''Maker'' is a game-maker game, while ''Run'' is like one of those auto levels but you have some control, so at that point we'll need at least one extra layer. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:25, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::''Maker'' and ''Run'' both have cameras that scroll to the side. That's the literal definition of "side-scrolling game". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:51, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::(facepalm) It said "'''''side-scrolling action games'''''", which, yes, ''Maker'' & ''Run'' fit in, but both ''Maker'' & ''Run'' also fit under other categories, whilst this notification only specifies side-scrolling action games, NOT other categories of games OR games that mix categories (like ''Maker'' & ''Run''). [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::But you admit that Run and Maker also fit the definition of "side-scrolling action games". Your idea that the classification excludes "games that mix categories" is not supported at all by the text of the notification. By that logic, would the [[New Super Mario Bros.#Minigames|minigames]] included in New Super Mario Bros. somehow disqualify it from the series too? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:35, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::No, because ''NSMB'''s minigames are not the main game. ''Maker'' being a game-maker game AND a side-scrolling game, or ''Run'' being an "automatic movement with some control" game, ARE the main game. The text of the notification ONLY says "side scrolling action game", but not anything else in terms of type of game. And I never said anything about games being disqualified, because of other official sources including games like ''NSMB'', ''Maker'', etc. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::Indeed, the notification only says "side-scrolling action games", not "side-scrolling action games except those that also feature other elements". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Has anyone considered that the reason they stated that "''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling entry in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years", because they may consider ''Super Mario Run'' and the ''Super Mario Maker'' games as ''spinoffs'' to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series? I mean, for comparison, ''[[Mario Party: The Top 100]]'' and ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'' only includes information from Mario Party 1-10, leaving out ''[[Mario Party Advance]]'', ''[[Mario Party DS]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Star Rush]]'', and in Superstars's case, ''[[Super Mario Party]]''; but these are all undoubtedly ''Mario Party'' games as well, with ''DS'' and ''Super'' in particular featuring the same basic gameplay as the first eight ''Mario Party'' titles. {{User:Arend/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Well, Super Mario Bros. for NES is the first game in both the Super Mario Bros. series and the broader Super Mario series, so anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:16, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Hewer}} That's one of the things I used for my ''Super Mario (series)'' sub-series split. Also, I don't think that this will affect ''Maker'' and ''Run'''s mainline status. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)
:I don't understand what you mean. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::You brought up [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|this]] (which the second part of my reply was directed to), & as for the 1st part, I don't really remember what that was supposed to be directed to. Seems to be directed to one of the various things you said here, but it could've been for someone else. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::For the second part, I'm aware this proposal won't directly affect Maker and Run's mainline status, but Super Mario RPG said that this "could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series", which is why I brought up that past proposal that tried to do exactly that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


"Anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right?" By that logic, with the ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]'' beginning both the ''[[Mario Bros. (series)|Mario Bros.]]'' series and the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' franchise]], shouldn't the entire mainline Mario series, being a "spinoff" of ''Mario Bros.'', all be merged under one "''Mario'' (mainline series)" header? Not only is that an organizational mess, but Nintendo has never treated it as being such.<br>While you could argue it was ambiguous before, I feel now that Nintendo has given us a very clear delineation of a separate "''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling action games" that excludes the ''Maker'' games and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' (which were released in the 11 years between ''Wonder'' and "[[New Super Mario Bros. U|the last side-scrolling entry]]"). Let me emphasize: A series of ''side-scrolling action games'', and this is a ''side-scrolling entry'' in the series of ''side-scrolling action games''. It seems like a stretch of logic to infer from this that there could be non-side scrolling and/or non-action games in a side-scrolling action series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 12:10, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
:Under the logic of the 1st 2 setences, we should merge all 4 franchises and all the series into 1 article! Also, for the last sentence, what about games that are both ''side-scrolling action games'' AND ''non-side-scrolling action games (like game-making or "automatic movement with some control" games)''? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:24, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::If a game is a side-scrolling action game, it can't also be a non-side-scrolling action game, this isn't Schrödinger's game genre. Being able to make levels in the Maker games doesn't mean their side-scrolling action elements somehow don't exist. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:I agree with you about the classification of the Super Mario Bros. series as part of the Super Mario series, my point was more that "spinoff" is a bit of a useless classification when we're dealing with sub-sub-series and what have you. However, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|I don't think we need to have a Super Mario Bros. series article separate from the main Super Mario series article]], if that's what you're suggesting. I feel like the Mario Bros. example isn't really comparable because of how obviously untenable merging most of the franchise's distinct series into a single page would be. In my opinion, series contained within series shouldn't get articles, but series contained within franchises should. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::But then what about DKL? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:28, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::What about it? It's a related yet separate series to DKC. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::It could be considered a sub-series of DKC, due to its numerous similarities (& especially DKC2/DKL2 and DKC3/DKL3), and thus wouldn't deserve an article. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:34, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::A sub-series is a series contained within another series, not a related yet separate series, which is what DKL is. Compare Mario Tennis and Mario Golf - they're similar, related series of sports games developed by [[Camelot]], but are separate as neither can be said to contain the other. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:39, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::And yet Mario Golf & Golf are part of the same overall series, which has to do with golf, and all the sports games are all part of the same overall sports series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:41, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::[[Golf (series)|Uh, no?]] {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:44, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::1, "...eventually leading to the Mario Golf series...". 2. [[NES Open Tournament Golf]] is part of both series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::Good point, but I still think it's a stretch to call them part of the same series, and that doesn't seem to be the wiki's current interpretation, with the [[Mario Golf (series)]] article referring to the "previous ''Golf'' series", and much like with DKC and DKL, "leading to" doesn't necessarily mean "containing" (though admittedly some kind of re-evaluation of the golf games might be in order since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/index.html Nintendo seems to consider Japan Course and US Course as Mario Golf games]). Anyway, to return to the topic of the Super Mario series, I still don't think there's any sub-series that need splits here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:19, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::I never said that DKC LEAD TO DKL, but DKC2 is almost the same as DKL2, and same with DKC3 & DKL3. Also, what do other people think concerning "there's any sub-series that need splits here"? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::Uh, I thought we were in agreement that DKC led to DKL, that much at least seems inarguable ([[Donkey Kong Land (series)]] article tells us "The series is based on the ''Donkey Kong Country'' series"). I just don't think that makes DKL a "sub-series" of DKC, but rather a [[Donkey Kong Country (series)#Related series|related series]], since neither series contains the other. But I digress. Anyway, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|this quite recent proposal]] dealt with splitting sub-series, and it failed by quite a margin. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said DKC led to DKL. All I was saying was that DKC2/3 are basically the same as DKL2/3. As for that linked proposal, see my comments on that proposal. <small><small><small><small>Also there are other contributions I made that are still "current", so anyone (including you) needs to reply so that they can keep going. </small></small></small></small>[[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)


Ah, wait, I think I misunderstood the proposal at first. Is this basically an extension of the proposal to get rid of "franchise" headings, to be able to separate the SMB games and other Super Mario games into different places in the History section? [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 14:45, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
:The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.


===Move ''Super Mario Odyssey'' kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for ''Odyssey'' kingdom articles===
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
It is strange that, while infoboxes for courses in ''Super Mario 64'' or ''Galaxy'' feature useful data for players (like missions and comets for galaxy articles), we don't have any of that type of info in the ''Odyssey'' Kingdom infobox (such as number of Power Moons, number of regional coins and bosses). The infobox template for ''Odyssey'' kingdoms include just the brochure data, like population and industry, but, since that is fictional and irrelevant data, we should move it to the kingdom article's brochure details section, as it ''is'' just brochure data.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


I propose:
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====
* Moving the current kindom infobox (centered on brochure info: kingdom and location taglines, population, size, locals, currency, industry and temperature) to the Brochure details section. The kingdom tagline could be displayed as the quote at the top of the article as well.
* Use the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]] instead for the opening of the article, as that is already used for the 3D games' courses and galaxies without distinction.
* Adding info for the number of Power Moons and number of regional coins into the course infobox template.


In order to maintain the layout of the Brochure details sections intact, we could make the kingdom infobox into a horizontal box like so:
====Crossover comments====
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)


{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width="100%;"
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
!Horizontal box idea
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)
|-
|
{| style="width: 80%; font-size: .9em; padding: .4em; background-color: white; margin: auto;"
|-
|rowspan=5 style="width:280px" | [[File:SMO Cap Brochure Art.png|280px]]
|colspan=2 | <big><big>'''Cap Kingdom'''</big></big><br>"''Home of Tradition, Propriety, and Hats''"
|-
|colspan=2 | <Big>Bonneton</big><br>"''A land of haberdashed dreams.''"
|-bgcolor=whitesmoke
|'''Population'''
|Middling
|'''Size'''
|Smallish
|-
|'''Locals'''
|Bonneters
|'''Currency'''
|Hat-shaped
|-bgcolor="whitesmoke"
|'''Industry'''
|Hats, Airships
|'''Temperature'''
|Average 71°F (22°C)
|}
|}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per my proposal.
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Sounds reasonable, per proposal.
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Arend}} As long as we still use the (revised horizontal) infobox in the brochure details, per all.
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Nice idea! Per all.
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea, and I like the horizontal box.
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]'').  [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


====Oppose====
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|LadySophie17}} I like the infobox as it is. It's charming and harmless. If necessary, we could just add the relevant info like number of Power Moons, Regional Coins and following/preceding kingdoms to the template itself.


====Comments====
===Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors===
Actually, given that the brochure infobox's info is already displayed in a similar table in the brochures in-game, wouldn't it be a good idea to simply just ''move'' the kingdom infobox to the article's brochure details section, instead of removing the infobox altogether? That would be the simplest way to move all the info to that section ''and'' keep both the kingdom tagline and area tagline neatly in the brochure where it already belongs in-game, instead of separating it to the top of the page. The course infobox can still take the kingdom infobox's initial placement on the article, it's not like we haven't had articles with multiple infoboxes before. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:I think I'd prefer that too. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:I guess, but that would mess up the layout used in the brochure details sections, which I personally think looks pretty nice and clean the way it is, which is why I didn't consider it (unless we made the box horizontal). You think it is worth it? {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 21:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::You've got a point there. Maybe we could try to revamp the infobox to be horizontal so it wouldn't have to mess up the layout. {{User:Arend/sig}} 22:59, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::I updated it and kept the box as you suggested. If you have any ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 23:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::::Looks great! I'd probably set the <code>colspan</code> for the Kingdom name/area name/taglines to <code>4</code> instead of <code>2</code> so it would look nice in 4:3 screens (i.e. iPad), and I'd probably try to keep the [[Template:SMO kingdom infobox/styles.css|styles]] that the infobox had as much as possible (e.g. with the dark khaki border and area tagline), but it's perfectly serviceable regardless. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)


I should probably note though, that all ''Super Mario Sunshine'' courses (e.g. [[Sirena Beach]], [[Pinna Park]]) appear to use the location infobox instead of the course infobox. Would that also have to be changed (or at least determined via another proposal)? {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the ''Mario'' franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.


===Create <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template===
As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which ''Mario'' branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.
The ''Super Mario'' DLC articles are missing a <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to create the <code><nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki></code> template. The following parameters are as follows:


*<code>name</code> - The name of the DLC (italics are optional).
As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:
*<code>image</code> - Image(s) of the topic.
*<code>game</code> - The game(s) the DLC applies to.
*<code>release</code> - The release date of DLC in all regions (use the <code>{{tem|release}}</code> template).
*<code>languages</code> - The languages the DLC is playable in (use the <code>{{tem|languages}}</code> template).
*<code>cost</code> - The cost date of DLC in all regions (use the <code>{{tem|release}}</code> template).
*<code>platforms</code> - The platforms that the DLC has been released on.
*<code>content</code> - A brief summary of the content in the DLC.
*<code>related</code> - Any subjects related to the DLC.


Once this proposal passes, the we'll be able to put the infobox on [[Mercedes-Benz x Mario Kart 8|Mercedes-Benz × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[The Legend of Zelda x Mario Kart 8|''The Legend of Zelda'' × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[Animal Crossing x Mario Kart 8|''Animal Crossing'' × ''Mario Kart 8'']], [[Donkey Kong Adventure]], the ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass]]'', [[The Tower of Doooom]], [[The Last Spark Hunter]], and [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]].
*'''infobox background:''' the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=#FFF5EE|#FFF5EE}} for ''Mario'');
*'''darker cell background:''' the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=bisque|bisque}} for ''Mario'');
*'''header:''' the navigation template's header color (e.g. {{color|#fff|bg=#CC0000|#CC0000}} for miscellaneous ''Mario'', {{color|#fff|bg=#FF2400|#FF2400}} for ''Super Mario'');
*'''border:''' {{color|#000|bg=#aac|#aac}}, {{color|#000|bg=#aca|#aca}}, {{color|#000|bg=#acc|#acc}}, {{color|#000|bg=#caa|#caa}}, {{color|#000|bg=#cac|#cac}} or {{color|#000|bg=#cca|#cca}}, depending on the most closely matching color.


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal
#{{User|Bro Hammer}}: Per my proposal
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I've always found it strange that these don't already have an infobox. Considering DLC for ''Mario'' games is getting more common lately, it definitely has a use.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}}: Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, we're surprised this hasn't been created sooner with the absolute ''deluge'' of DLC ''Mario Kart 8'' has received across literally multiple consoles, running the gambit from the Mercedes-Benz crossover to the Booster Course Pack. And if that wasn't enough, the Rabbids games' DLC campaigns show this isn't even just a Mario Kart 8-only thing. (We have a bit more to say, but we'll leave that to comments.)


====Oppose====
====Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Nintendo101
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Depending on how you choose to define "DLC", we think you could even throw in a few other things as well. Admittedly, the [[:Category:Downloadable content|DLC category]] is a little muddied at the moment with... <small>mumble grumble...</small> smash redirects, so we couldn't get the best look at this hour, but from what we saw, you could even throw in those [[Coin Rush]] packs pretty easily. We think the only real exception is ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', since that one technically did see a standalone release without the game it's DLC for, meaning we already use the game infobox for that one. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 01:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 19:08, March 6, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, March 7th, 02:32 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)
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)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for a poll that is concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.

Option Four

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "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." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

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.
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.

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.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.

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.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) ^Yeah this tripped me up when I first started seeing that.

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.
  10. LinkTheLefty (talk) Seems like the more immediate solution here.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Makes the most sense to me. Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

I made {{ref page}}. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 13:22, March 6, 2025 (EST)

I somehow didn't notice, thanks! The obvious projected outcome of this proposal is to use that template, but I'll let the proposal run its course since it has only 2 days left. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:31, March 6, 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".
  16. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.

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)
What is it you see? - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:45, March 3, 2025 (EST)
It's talking about browser cookies. If I see that sort of message on a site that doesn't have to do with something vital, I go back, because I don't think something like a wiki has any business processing browser cookies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:13, March 4, 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)

Will this proposal also affect media (such as the titles for The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! episodes), or just the subjects within the media? Apikachu68 (talk) 19:57, March 3, 2025 (EST)

i don't see why it wouldn't! media also has names and etymology, after all. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 09:54, March 4, 2025 (EST)

One more thing: isn't the first point (and sometimes the second) covered by the introductory paragraph most of the time? We don't want to repeat info - huh. We're doing away with once and only once? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

yeah, the idea is to move most of that info to the Names section, that way everything names-related is in the same section. the intro paragraph should probably still list other english names that aren't the current name of the article, if only for the purposes of clarifying they're the same subject. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:56, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

  1. See the publication of the drafted Zelda article discussed in this proposal, titled "crossovers with The Legend of Zelda." (The draft can be viewed here.)
  2. Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to Zelda on the wiki to the published Zelda article (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like Link would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future Mario Tennis or something like that).
  3. Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. Zelda info on the list of references in Nintendo video games article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published Zelda one when they reach that section of the list article).
  4. Establish a navbox for crossover articles (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
  5. Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the Super Mario franchise has crossed-over.
  6. Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the MarioWiki:Manual of Style that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
  7. Note that this framework exists on the the crossover section of our coverage policy, and provide a link directing readers to it.

The Super Mario franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, Super Mario as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. Duck Hunt, Punch-Out!!, Exictebike, Metroid, F-ZERO, Animal Crossing, Pikmin, Splatoon, etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s EarthBound, HAL Laboratory's Kirby, Game Freak's Pokémon, etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.

A lot of coverage of Super Mario references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of dedicated game articles, or in Super Smash Bros. articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and are not wholly about Super Smash Bros. anyways. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the Super Smash Bros. series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that Super Mario has made references and is referenced in many other franchises outside of Smash Bros. contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how Mario has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where Splatoon and Mario have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.

frog man!
green lad!

To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "crossover article" using The Legend of Zelda franchise as an example (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the universe articles from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the Zelda draft, consist of the following sections:

  • Overview : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to Mario. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For Zelda, this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because Mario had a lot of direct influence on Zelda as a series.
  • Recurring crossover subjects: for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside Mario-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with Mario highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with Mario.
  • History in the Super Mario franchise: a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the Super Mario franchise itself.
  • History in the subject series/franchise: a history section for the inverse, where Super Mario is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is Zelda.
  • Shared history (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the Super Smash Bros. series, Tetris series, NES Remix series, or other media.

Zelda is uniquely related to Mario and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with Super Mario within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to Super Mario or have elements inspired by it, such as Celeste, Gears of War, or Astro Bot.

I offer three options:

  1. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.
  2. Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the Super Smash Bros. series should be left alone.
  3. Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.

I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted Zelda article! It is in my "community garden" sandbox for a reason.)

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.

Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave Smash Bros. lists alone

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Sophie.
  3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Soph
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
  6. Arend (talk) Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
  7. Okapii (talk) Per Sophie.
  8. Nelsonic (talk) Second opinion.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering Zelda subjects had Link's Awakening failed!
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

I also happened to start a draft for a Pikmin series article the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... much rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--PopitTart (talk) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne thank you for the kind words! - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)

Link -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Question: One of the proposed points is to "Move details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be cleared". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?
Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through Smash Bros., such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within Smash Bros. have only crossed-over with Mario within Smash Bros., and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ARMS is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, @Arend? - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in Smash, but it would be strange to do with ARMS considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ARMS regardless, considering how most of the ARMS development team is basically Mario Kart 8 alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with Kingdom Hearts. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.
Anyway @Nintendo101, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for Mario, one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular Smash Bros. info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about Zelda in Smash Bros. and less about Zelda with Mario in Smash Bros., but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of Smash Bros., would be retained.) For example, in my Zelda draft, Ganon is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like Super Mario Maker, Mario Artist: Paint Studio, Yoshi's Woolly World, and the Super Smash Bros. series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant Zelda info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)

So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the Super Mario franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my Zelda draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the Super Smash Bros. series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how Zelda engages with Mario in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular Smash Bros. info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.
Another thing I just thought of: we already have Pushmo (series) and Just Dance (series) as guest appearances, and this proposal passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe @Kaptain Skurvy, @Nelsonic, and @Mushzoom can provide their two cents. Would you want the Pushmo, Just Dance, and Animal Crossing articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:
Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, Rhythm Heaven, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe Balloon Fight, maybe Clu Clu Land, maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would probably be redundant to split
Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles
Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken
No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts
I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
Forgot about The Legendary Starfy, that would qualify. There's also I Choose You! from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of Super Mario content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the list of references in Nintendo video games or the list of references in third-party video games. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Drill Dozer or Borderlands 2), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of Super Mario content (i.e. Punch-Out!! or Mobile Golf). Nelsonic (talk) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)

This is probably a separate proposal, but should the Link's Awakening article be outright merged with the new crossover one? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors

The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the Mario franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.

As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which Mario branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.

As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:

  • infobox background: the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. #FFF5EE for Mario);
  • darker cell background: the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. bisque for Mario);
  • header: the navigation template's header color (e.g. #CC0000 for miscellaneous Mario, #FF2400 for Super Mario);
  • border: #aac, #aca, #acc, #caa, #cac or #cca, depending on the most closely matching color.

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Bro Hammer (talk): Per my proposal
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk): Per proposer.

Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.

Comments

I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. Shadow2 (talk) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4771582"