MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages===
===Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3===
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]]."
This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at [[Special:WantedCategories]], at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope|categories are kept to only 4 or more items]]. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the [[MediaBrowser]] which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''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.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
#{{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.
#{{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.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
<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====
While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is ''just enough'' to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?
@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|Camwoodstock}}<br>
:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': February 5, 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)
====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
: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)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.


@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)
====Keep at 4 (forced to 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)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
::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)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time.


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)
====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters]] then the couple characters would just go in [[:Category:Super Paper Mario]] rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of [[:Category:Game images]] rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated [[MarioWiki:Categories]]. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 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)
:Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)
 
===Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in [[MarioWiki:Good writing]]===
 
A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me ''nuts'' is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:
 
From the [[Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser]] article:
<blockquote>The group runs into [[Prince Peasley]], and after a battle ensues with a few [[Piranha Bean]]s, Captain Goomba ''humorously'' sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.</blockquote>
Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.
 
From [[Goomba Mask]]:
<blockquote>In ''[[Paper Mario: The Origami King]]'', a different Goomba Mask resembling a [[Paper Macho Goomba]] appears in the [[Shogun Studios]] storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making [[Olivia]] laugh.</blockquote>
Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the ''writer'' thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:
<blockquote>If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.</blockquote>
 
The article for [[Kruller]] has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:
<blockquote>When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (''humorously'' getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being ''humorously'' revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi ''humorously'' copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...] </blockquote>
 
''All'' of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't ''be'' an audience.
 
And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:
 
;'''Humorous/Comical/etc.''': "Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used ''only'' when a ''character'' finds something amusing.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Make categories for families===
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).


==Removals==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
===Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess ''Tour'' stuff===
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)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Shadow2}}<br>
'''Deadline''': ''May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT''


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Shadow2}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{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|Weegie baby}} Per me.
#{{User|Glowsquid}} After seeing the [[Kanaami Road]] page that was pointed out in the comments - '''yeah'''. If, for whatever reason, someone wants to read which Mario characters had their mug featured on a given Mario Kart Tour course, a textual list does not actually lose information.  
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Glowsquid. It is not "encyclopedic" to uncritically amass assets. I feel like it even degrades the quality of one's reference material.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Glowsquid.
#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Appears that proposal does try to accommodate for reservations we have so I think we're good to go. The example provided by Ahemtoday did push me to support this.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Glowsquid in particular. I'm a preservationist at heart, and I do like the idea of having all of these assets ''somewhere'', but Glowsquid has a point that a textual list doesn't lose relevant information here.
<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>


====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|Mario}} So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
#{{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|LadySophie17}} Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. <s>I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles.</s> There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. If there's too many images in the gallery, that's what making a gallery subpage is for.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't see any reason why the images shouldn't stay.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Mario and LadySophie17
#{{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|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Axis}} Per Hewer
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|ExoRosalina}} Per all, but that was a very bad idea for that.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per all. And I don’t really like the idea of grouping the Koopalings as “Bowser’s Family.”
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====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)
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 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)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 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)
:::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)
::::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)


"(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)
Each of these new categories should have at least '''five entries'''; see [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]]. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with [[:Category:Kongs]]. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count [[List of implied characters|implied characters]] (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::Even if they were to be removed from course articles, they'd still be used on tour articles, such as [[New York Tour]], to act as visual aids in their course listings. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
: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)


@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)
:Here are 5 people in each family:
: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)
:Peach’s family: [[Princess Peach]]; [[Princess Daisy]]; [[Mushroom King]]; [[Gramma Toadstool]]; [[Obā-chan]]; etc.<br>Bowser’ family: [[Koopalings]] (even more than 5); etc.<br>Donkey Kong’s family: [[Donkey Kong]]; [[Donkey Kong Jr.]]; [[Cranky Kong]]; [[Wrinkly Kong]]; [[Uncle Julius]]; etc.<br>Toad’s family: [[Toad]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Mushroom Marauder]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Jake the Crusher Fungus]]; [[Gramps]]; [[Toadette]] (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, [[Moldy]] and [[Toad's cousin|Toad’s cousin]]).
::I find I'm getting tired of people just stating that I want something removed "because I don't like it", when I provide reasoning for why it shouldn't be there in the first place (Excessive, does not provide information). That kind of argument only serves to devalue my own argument, and I do not appreciate it. Furthermore, I would like to ask again what "information" is being presented with these? I have never played Mario Kart Tour, so I don't know WHAT these icons denote. There is no information about them. All I see as a reader is an excessive amount of repeated images with different characters on them. What does that MEAN? As you quoted below "a picture is worth a thousand words", but not in this case because these images do not provide information on their own. The caption says "The course icon with Daisy (Farmer)" ...Okay? What does this mean? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 15:53, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count [[Baby Kong]]), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::What I'm trying to get at is that there is nothing objectively wrong about the inclusion of these images, since they constitute valid, relevant information, so the only arguments for their removal are that they're subjectively excessive and repetitive (i.e. boring), and I don't agree that that's a good enough reason to remove stuff. There being [[Talk:Super Mario Bros. 35#List of daily challenges|"too much" information]] to cover shouldn't be a factor in whether we cover it, we're trying to be comprehensive. What's uninteresting to you, or even to most, might not be uninteresting to everyone. As for what information they provide, you pretty much already identified it: what the icons look like, and what characters are shown on the icons for each course. Perhaps not very exciting, but valid, relevant information nonetheless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::It's not about number of people but '''entries'''. [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus]] is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]] says: "a minimum of '''five entries''' (including any subcategories' entries), however they ''should'' have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six [[Dixie Kong's Photo Album#Aquatic Attackers|Aquatic Attackers]] are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::::''I would like to request that you stop assuming my intentions in a manner that attempts to belittle my side of the argument.'' I am '''not''' suggesting we remove these just because "I don't like them", I have provided reasoning for why multiple times. I am '''not''' suggesting we remove information "because I find it boring". There is plenty of "boring" information on this site that I do not care about, but my argument is that there '''is no information''' in these images. A screenshot of a Mario Kart course provides at least some insight as to what parts of the course look like. While this can be accomplished by leaving one MKT icon per course variant, there is no additional information to be provided because this picture has Luigi instead of Mario. WHY does it have Luigi instead of Mario? Likewise, the List of Daily Challenges you presented absolutely has information, but there is none here. I have asked multiple times for you to explain what information these images present, but you have not done so. Rather, instead of denying my arguments, I would like to hear a specific reason why you think they should stay, then maybe we can get somewhere... [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add [[Toad's cousin]]. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:::::Looks heated a bit. Proceed with the discussion but let's keep cool and assume good faith, okey dokey? Not directed at either Shadow or Hewer, just making a general statement. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:20, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::::That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:::::What are you talking about? I ended my last comment by telling you the information there is here: what the icons look like, and what characters are shown on the icons for each course. Perhaps not very exciting, but valid, relevant information nonetheless. If your argument is that there is no information, then it's simply a wrong argument. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
:The Mushroom Gorge icons are relevant to the Mushroom Gorge article because they are Mushroom Gorge icons. 🧐 {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 05:37, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:: In the past we've removed uploads for being excessive, character information for being esoteric or off-puttingly detailled, trivia sections for posting blunt statement of facts that are overly specific or don't have any greater point. [[Mariowiki:Good Writing#Fan Worship|Our own good writing guidelines page]] warn about going overboad on details and while it's specifically about page writing, the same philosophy could be extended to uploads and when "comprehensive" becomes ''too much''. I'm not saying not necessarily that's the case for these icons here (though I would likely vote in favour if the ammendments Sophie suggested above were made) but we've in fact cut information before for being uninteresting/useless/irrelevant. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 12:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::I feel those good writing guidelines are more about condensing information, moving details to more appropriate places, and not reading between the lines about characters' personalities and the like to pad articles with, than they are about completely throwing out relevant information like this. If they actually are meant to be saying "feel free to not cover stuff and completely remove relevant information if you think it's boring", then I disagree with that. I'd rather cover the whole franchise (which is the point of the encyclopedia) than only covering most of it and removed what we subjectively deem to be excessive. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::"One icon for each version of the course" was what I intended with this proposal, but I may have worded it poorly. (And I miscounted how many versions of Mushroom Gorge there were) [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 15:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


Food for thought, but am not going to engage in extensive argument: Following similar line of reasoning we removed these sprites from Mario's gallery page[https://www.mariowiki.com/Talk:Mario_Kart_Tour#Course_icons_in_galleries] and the overall idea of what content to show and what content to omit on the wiki: I don't believe these points address the criticism being made. If information is available, it doesn't mean we must document it; this is why we try to limit quotes on our pages, cut down on the face sprites for favored tour courses, remove these thumbnails of Mario from the Mario page and we don't place every screenshot of Mario we have in Mario's gallery or upload every single sprite animation Luigi has in Dream Team. Following opposition's logic we would have to readd/keep these images on Mario's gallery[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery:Mario_sprites_and_models&diff=3501301&oldid=3494517]; it's an extreme example but IMO it illustrates the questionable necessity of these images. Game developers create these thumbnails to illustrate a game's interface, so they probably have to vary it by imposing stock art of characters over backgrounds. By no means we as a wiki should follow suit and try to serve as an asset dump for this information especially when these assets are repetitive (unlike, say, the swath of sprites from [[Miracle Book]], though one could question from a copyright angle the necessity of all these assets but that's another topic all together) and serve to interfere with the usability of this wiki through loading times. Every Tour page I've came across (such as [[Cat Tour (2022)]] as only one example among many) is severely bogged down by all these images that are placed in table to replicate the game UI, which is not appropriate use of table in my opinion. I do support the spirit of this proposal but we need to keep probably just ''one'' example of a thumbnail each rather than throw it all out, and from the discussion I linked early in my comment, some thumbnails may contain useful hints. I do think we should be deleting the images too after they're removed from the pages, and information relevant to the image (like if Builder Toadette on a T variant of Ghost Valley thumbnail is a required or favorited character) should just be already shown in a table. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:28, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see [[:Category:Organizations]], which includes several implied organizations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think those are very good examples, in those cases we weren't completely erasing the images, just removing them from places they were less relevant (and in the case of the face sprites thing, those weren't even galleries and the sprites were just replaced with text for better load times, whereas the purpose of a gallery section/page is to show relevant images). Deleting the images and then putting information about them in tables also seems pointless, a picture is worth a thousand words. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:Fair enough. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)
>"let's use conjectural titles instead of official ones because readers or something"<br>>"let's remove icons from historical records because readability or too utilitarian or something"<br>Yeeeaaaah, I don't like where this is going. There's this recent sentiment that users should be able to mould official material and information to create a more preferable image for the wiki at the expense of its encyclopedic mission. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:To play a bit of devil's advocate, we feel like if you wanted to ''really'' point to concurrent proposals signifying an odd pattern in proposals about not covering things as written in favor of what people want, we feel like the proposal about treating the Paper versions of characters as though they're entirely separate from their non-Paper equivalents in some 2007-esque "Extended Marioverse" nonsense is probably far more important on that end than "should we remove 27 roughly-identical icons on the Mushroom Gorge article, or move those to like, a side-gallery or something." ;P {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::Personally, I think the pattern of "Let's remove and non-standardize franchise headers in the History section" (e.g. separate and spread the Yoshi game, DK games and Wario games away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's separate the ''Super Mario Bros.'' sidescroller games from the ''Super Mario'' 3D games" (aka separate and spread the 3D ''Super Mario'' titles away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's treat ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' as an installment of the ''Super Mario'' game series" is a relatedly worrisome weird pattern in proposals, one that could throw organization of History sections in disarray in the hypothetical of them all passing. Granted, these are all from the same person, so it might not mean that much... {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::@Camwoodstock @Arend My criticism wasn't aimed at particular proposals or their authors, but the prevailing sentiment among a number of editors here that just happened to surface in proposal-adjacent discussions. I'd like if we didn't backhandedly single out one or two people on the basis of how popular or unpopular their perspective is. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:19, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::Oh okay, sorry. I was just pointing out an observation I had, based on what Camwoodstock was saying, it wasn't meant as a personal attack to Super Mario RPG. In the end, it was kinda irrelevant to your worries. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Arend}} While my response is a bit of a digression from this proposal, I wanted to say that I am accepting the fact that the three proposals are failing (one of mine I even ended opposing, the ''Super Mario'' movie. I was suggested that if one doesn't think a strong enough case for a proposal, then talk page discussion, in the case of the films.) When you listed the Icicle article on the franchise proposal, I reinstated the organization by franchise on that article (for ''Yoshi'', though I can do ''Donkey Kong'' too, just had reserves over ''Diddy Kong Racing'' being an actual ''Donkey Kong''' game, due to Diddy being used in it as a licensed character), and some other pages that I'm finding along the way. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:53, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
: "''let's remove from historical records [...] encyclopedic mission.''" I find it curious to invoke a notion of "being encyclopedic" as an argument for keeping anything and everything because that's the opposite of real encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are curated. Encyclopedias are '''condensed'''. Encyclopedias shorten quotes, obmit events and historical figures. They are selective in what they write about and what they include. You're never going to see a real encyclopedia advertise itself as listing the name of literally every single person known to be involved in World War II or including every photos know to have been taken in relation to the Nuremberg Trials. Knowing what to leave out is as important to any encyclopedia as defining what to include. Digital hoarding is not necessarily "encyclopedic". --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 19:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::I feel as though people are considering this a video game history archive, which is not this site's purpose. If people are concerned about preserving these course icons now that the game is shut down, it doesn't need to be here on this site. ({{@|Arend}}) [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::The wiki does, in fact, double as an archive and this proposal is contrary to that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
::::This proposal is about either removing these from the galleries of the course articles or simply splitting the galleries off so they don't bloat the track articles--not deleting the images outright (since those will still be on the articles for the corresponding tours as-is). The only thing that'd be "deleted" (by some definition of the word) are the various gallery entries in the most extreme scenario. Call this "pedantic" if you so desire. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 02:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I have no reason to call you pedantic. Don't know why people got so offended by my use of that word. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
::{{@|Glowsquid}} A pedantic response with a dishonest premise. If this was a real honest-to-god curated encyclopedia sold in stores, there wouldn't be a page on the history of Mario detailing every single one of his roles throughout his franchise; there wouldn't be entire gameplay sections on game articles detailing every single one of their mechanics and quirks; and there certainly wouldn't be entire repositories of images [[Gallery:Mario artwork (media)|pertaining to only one character]]. Tell me how ''any'' of that looks curated to you or how keeping a bunch of similar course icons on an article is somehow contrary to the spirit I had just described. Until now I have barely, if ever, seen an instance where this site omitted valid information (or material), no matter how inessential, for the purposes of condensing itself. Relocating said info/material, yes; removing off-putting fancruft, that's reasonable; but never in my entire experience has someone gone "you know what, Mario has too many appearances in games, we should delete the Mario Tennis sections because encyclopedias are meant to be condensed or something"--although the way things are going I can see this happen at some point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
:: I am being "pedantic and dishonest" because that's the framing you choose to use. The wiki is not subject to the exact same limitation as print encyclopedia but it still curates and condenses for reasons of legally, because server space isn't cheap or unlimited, and because on some level, people do want curation on some level even if they disagree on the specifics. Otherwise nobody would be using the stuffy and highly curated Wikipedia in favour of Everything Wiki and its lack of notability requirement for page creation.
*When we have pages on [[Rhythm Heaven Megamix]] and [[Rhythm Heaven Fever]] but only really talk about those games in how they related to the WarioWare games, we are being selective. Someone could argue that the WarioWare and Rhythm Heaven fictional universes are joined at the hip and that we are failing in the wiki's mission to chronicle ''everything'' about the Mario (and related IPs) games by not giving Rhythm Heaven full coverage. Are we?
*When we decide to not talk about fan games, remixes, cosplay ''et cetera'' detail, one could argue this stuff is equally as vital to illustrating Mario's breadth and influence as a cultural property and that sticking to only the officially-endorsed stuff is regretable. Indeed, people have passionately argued that in and outside the site! We still ultimately decide to curate and set limits on what kind of Mario stuff the website talks about.
* When we deleted our individual, long-standing pages about Smash Bros characters, items, game mechanics etc and condensed them into list or removed those, we decided to exert curation. Some could argue having separate pages on all that stuff served an encyclopedic and archival purpose. Many people did.


Point is the wiki is plenty selective and "incomplete" in what it chooses to cover and how it present its information. That is not a new development on an overeach, Framing the opposing stance on this issue as a lamebrained "Well we shouldn't because uhhhhhhhhhhh encyclopedia are meant to be short" is making a strawman. There are legitimate arguments against hosting all those images as we are - that the content is objectively repetitive (the same PNG overlaid with different low-res PNGs that are already included in their complete form elsewhere on the wiki) and only one instance is needed to illustate the information, that it drops the signal-to-noise ratio of those page's galleries by clumping unique images that illustrate different aspects of its subject with what is effectively the same picture repeated 60+ times. That it legitimately impairs the browsing experience (load time and data caps). You may disagree those considerations are worth considering but I reject any attempt to liken that to "Well we shouldn't remove the section about Mario Party 7 because encyclopedias are short lul".
What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0uXcTF3mA&t=281s that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi])? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:Oh my god, that is so disgusting. But, anyway, [[:Category:Mario and Luigi's family|there already is a category for Mario and Luigi’s family]] with baby Luigi in it, so no worries. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 14:50, January 23, 2025 (EST)


I also disagree with the idea the wiki is meant to be an ''archive'' instead of a ressource and that being selective in what we host is a overeach. Certainly we are very comprehensive in hosting models and artwork, but if someone were to upload ''every'' individual texture, sound effects and UV maps for Super Mario 64 (and Sunshine, and Odyssey), would deleting that stuff both because of the legality of it and because on some level, too much ''is'' to much, be failing that mission? --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 08:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
For the record, I don't think an old 2007 IGN article written by a columnist working for them instead of Nintendo on the brink of ''Brawl'' speculation (such as [https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case the article provided]) is anything close to official confirmation that Stanley and Mario are cousins, and so not a very verifiable source. Especially when this "confirmation" in the first sentence reads like a colloquialism or a baseless comparison. {{User:Arend/sig}} 04:21, January 25, 2025 (EST)


:{{@|Koopa con Carne}} I say this respectfully and in good faith, and I am not signaling you out, as it seems that a few active users share the same sentiment. However, the "spirit" behind that comment bothers me. If readability does not matter, what is the point of having a wiki? What is our purpose? Who is this for?
===Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories===
:I was a nerdy child. I grew up reading encyclopedias and there are quite a few behind me as I type this. All of these books were curated. They were made to be read. It is not inherently unencyclopedic to make curatorial choices on Super Mario Wiki, and if anything it is an inherent component of the craft.
{{early notice|February 1, 2025}}
:It also feels disingenuous to how things actually function on Super Mario Wiki. If folks were not making curatorial decisions and just amassing assets for a depository, we would have no need for writing guidelines, policies, proposals, etc. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:35, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
We realize this is a bit presumptuous given the proposal to split the clothing is, as of writing this, [[Talk:Clothing#Split everything here|the oldest unimplemented Talk Page Proposal]], and it isn't even ''close'' (it's the only proposal on that list from 2021!). However, we're a little surprised the badges and accessories weren't included in that proposal! Like clothing, there are multiple badges that appear across multiple games (such as remakes, but also the various Bangles from Dream Team/Brothership, Scarves and Statues in Dream Team/Paper Jam) and things different between them (did you know the base Mush Badge isn't in the Super Star remake? Only Mush Badges A and AA. you'd only know this comparing the two lists.)
::See my response to Glowsquid. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 01:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::I did. To be honest, I am a bit taken aback by how unkind it was, especially to another active user.
:::The only reason why Glowsquid, myself, or anyone else would touch upon encyclopedias is because that is the language you yourself have invoked here and in the past, so I am not sure how it is "dishonest". Proper reference material like encyclopedias are products of discrimination, curation, and interpretation, regardless of topic. To employ the same framework here on Super Mario Wiki is not inherently "unencyclopedic" or at the "expense of an encyclopedic mission".
:::I think well of your efforts on the wiki. I would appreciate it if you engaged with these comments with similar care. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 02:18, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
::::There wasn't anything unkind in my message. I did not insult his person, I merely addressed his argument. It's pedantic because it tries to lecture a proper definition of encyclopedias whilst being dishonest for ignoring all the other inherent aspects of this wiki that do not fulfill that definition. Actual encyclopedias are expressly defined as summations of many kinds of information, sure, but Mario Wiki (being an online encyclopedia) hasn't got all the strictures and trappings of one, and has proven to afford going into much more detail and use that power to document and archive virtually all official aspects of the Mario franchise. To argue that it should be distorted to fit the mould of ''real'' encyclopedias is plainly arbitrary and I'm concerned it will be further used as an excuse to trim detailed information that is otherwise observant to the wiki's current guidelines. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:29, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::::As a clarification, I don't support placing information or material anywhere with reckless abandon and having no concern as to where it's actually relevant. To me, that ought to be subject to curation--[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Split_the_tour_appearances_of_every_Mario_Kart_Tour_course|I'm a stickler for organization]] and endeavor to make content read and display well, so I understand where you're coming from. I'm just arguing that said material should still exist somewhere on the site rather than being outright removed. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)


I'd like to point out that the [[Kanaami Road]] article has only one of these images per course. If we're really not drawing a line ''anywhere'', then that article has to go up from an already massive 248 course icons to — and yes, I counted — '''''eight hundred and ninety-three'''''. I would not consider it a failure of the wiki's coverage to not have every course icon on the articles in the same way I do not consider it a failure that the Kanaami Road article does not have 893 images on it. (It isn't lost on me that the only reason I could get that number is because the course icons were on this wiki, though, so I am in favor of having them ''some''where.) [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 19:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
In addition, a few of the accessories are already split; namely, the special items from the Starbeans Cafe, like the [[Greed Wallet]] or [[Great Force]]. We don't know what exactly to do if this split doesn't happen, so we've added an extra option to retain those articles but keep things to their lists, and one that just merges everything back to the lists.
:If we may go exceedingly not-formal for a moment... '''''HOW IN THE HECK HAS THAT NOT AT THE VERY LEAST BEEN SPLIT OFF INTO ITS OWN GALLERY.''''' {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:54, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::Yeah, regardless of my stance comcerning the ''course'' galleries, the ''chainlink road'' gallery's got enough images to get its own gallery page, whether it's nearly 250 icons or nearly 900. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::The Mario gallery doesn't have every single screenshot on the wiki that happens to feature Mario in it, just enough to illustrate him in different media. By that standard, it seems reasonable to trim the Kanaami Road gallery down by a ''lot''. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 22:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
===Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections===
'''Deadline''': February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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.


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.
====Split 'em all (fire up that button pin maker!)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, of course. There's ''enough'' recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
#{{User|Arend}} Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} If this is just a confirmation of the scope of an already passed proposal, then why not <small>(provided it actually gets implemented)</small>.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


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.
====Keep badges and remaining accessories merged, but keep Starbeans items split (the status quo option!)====


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.
====Merge 'em all (those are SO out of style!)====


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.
====Comments (splittin' badges/accessories)====
I almost want to oppose this proposal until the clothing articles gets actually split. I tried cancelling that one [[Talk:Clothing#Keep the Mario & Luigi Clothing pages as list articles|six month ago]] (to no avail) and I'd really rather not want to have another proposal like it just waiting for someone to implement. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 14:43, January 25, 2025 (EST)


'''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>
The original proposal was "split everything here." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:06, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:The wording is a bit vague, admittedly. The way the proposal was archived says only clothing, but the actual article suggests all gear. Which, hey, it'd be nice to at least confirm it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 01:10, January 26, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
==Removals==
'''Deadline''': May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
===Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics===
{{early notice|January 29, 2025}}
Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every ''Mario Kart'' staff ghost where that driver is used. See [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Mario_Kart_8_Deluxe|Mario's from ''8 Deluxe'']] as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.
#'''I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character.''' Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''?<br>Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
#'''It's inconsistently applied.''' To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.
You could also make some argument that this is stretching [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|once and only once]] a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.


====Support====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Oppose====
====Support: They're out of time====
#{{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.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Ghost 'em.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
#{{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|Tails777}} Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they ''need'' to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
#{{User|MegaBowser64}}Perall!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{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|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
#{{User |Big Super Mario Fan}}I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Sparks}} Time's up!
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Oppose: Keep time====
@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)
: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.


: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)
====Comments on staff ghost proposal====


::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.
==Changes==
 
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
::''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)
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
:::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)
 
 
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)
: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)
: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'm not a CSS buff but if we have to consider editing the CSS to resolve the problem I just think introducing these subheaders is too much trouble for what it's worth. Use franchise subheaders for articles that can use them, but generally stick to just standard chronology otherwise. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:42, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles===
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.
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.


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.
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
 
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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
<s>#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.</s>
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{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.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{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.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{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.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{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.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{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.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{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.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{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|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{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|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments====
@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)
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::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)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::And the official sources say [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
: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 would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)


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 want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
: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)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::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)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::''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)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::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)
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I don't understand what you mean. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::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)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::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)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


"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)
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
: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)
::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)
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think that would work since the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series would be regarded as a part of the ''Super Mario'' mainline series. Meaning that the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series would be listed under a subheader of the ''Super Mario'' series alongside ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario 3D World'' and the like. I had thought that this was what Super Mario RPG was aiming for, instead of putting the 3D game headers in different places like you seem to be suggesting what he's talking about, since, well, the Super Mario 3D games are ''also'' mainline games, but not the same as the sidescrollers. What I was thinking would allow the ''Bros.'' games to be listed together ''and'' still be listed among the 3D titles at the same time.<br>But if what you're suggesting is what Super Mario RPG ''actually'' wanted... well that's probably just as bad, if not worse, than removing the franchise headers, as it effs up the organizing even further (because, again, the 3D ''Super Mario'' titles are just as mainline as the sidescroller ones). {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:39, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


===Move ''Super Mario Odyssey'' kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for ''Odyssey'' kingdom articles===
===Merge the Tortes===
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.
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


I propose:
The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the [[Jellyfish Sisters]], or [[Cork and Cask]]--and given they are the ''only'' Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct 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:
In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move [[Apprentice (Snifit)]] over to [[Apprentice]], and give it the <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki> template.


{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width="100%;"
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
!Horizontal box idea
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
|-
|
{| 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====
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per my proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|Hewer}} Sounds reasonable, per proposal.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as we still use the (revised horizontal) infobox in the brochure details, per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Nice idea! Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea, and I like the horizontal box.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.</s>
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.


====Oppose====
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====
#{{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====
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
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)
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:I think I'd prefer that too. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)
: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)
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)


===Create <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template===
By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against [[MarioWiki:Minor NPCs]]? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)
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:
:Not any more than [[Cork and Cask]] does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, {{@|Camwoodstock}}, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
::We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of [[Snifster]]s are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)


*<code>name</code> - The name of the DLC (italics are optional).
===Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents===
*<code>image</code> - Image(s) of the topic.
{{early notice|February 2, 2025}}
*<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]].
Trivia sections are a contentious part of the wiki. Lengthy trivia sections with wrong/stupid/pointless content were an issue in the early years of the site and while there’s been a successful effort to clean them up, they’ve retained a stigma as a dumping ground for low-effort writing. As part of it, there’s been a drive to gently discourage such sections and instead steer people toward “incorporating” trivia content in other parts of the article. It’s not a bad notiom, but I do think it’s had some unhappy results (more on that later) even if it would be absurd to suggest it is an equivalent problem


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
Somewhat counter to common wisdom, I think the problem with Trivia sections is that not that they’re not narrow and curated enough, but rather than they’re not ''broad'' enough.
'''Deadline''': May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
What I’ve noticed is that many wikis out there don’t have Trivia sections. They however, have ''Notes'' section. So say, the Transformers Wiki, might have a Notes section on their comic pages and besides the obvious Trivia fodder like “This is the only issue of the Marvel comic Optimus Prime doesn’t appear in”, they also list other information about the production or substance of the subject. Things like
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per 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|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.)
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all.


====Oppose====
*Cultural references (in case where they’re not prevalent enough to sustain a whole section


====Comments====
*Stylistic elements (characters being drawn differently or an episode having a different  animation style)  
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)
:Then do you have any better ideas than create the <code><nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki></code>? {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 11:52, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::...I don't think they were implying that a DLC infobox is a bad idea... at all. All they were saying (aside from complaining about the Smash FLC redirects) was that the Coin Rush DLC packs could implement a DLC infobox as well (which I'm unsure about, given that {{tem|NSMB2 pack infobox}} already exists), and that only ''New Super Luigi U'' doesn't need it since it's got a standalone physical release. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:03, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


===Split the Super Mario universe and the Paper Mario universe===
*Mentioning things that don't fit neatly in List of appearances (Stuff like "In a cereal commercial, Mario mentions having a pet chicken)
I think the articles about the Super Mario universe (characters, levels, worlds, etc.) should be split between the Super Mario uiverse and the Paper Mario universe. As those are 2 different universes. This is confirmed in Mario & Luigi Paper Jam for Nintendo 3DS. Also in Super Paper Mario, there is a wedding scence with Mario, Bowser & Peach in the Paper Mario universe. In the Super Mario universe there's a wedding scene in Super Mario Odyssey. Kamek and Bowser Jr. appear for the first time in the Paper Mario verse in Paper Mario: Sticker Star. In the Super Mario universe they appear earlier. Bowser Jr. in Super Mario Sunshine and Kamek in Yoshi's Island. For example there would be an article about Mario and a seperate article about Paper Mario from the Paper Mario series. This would be a pretty big, important change for this wiki, to be even better, more accurate. And I think that's what matters. To make the Super Mario wiki more organiced and easier to use for Mario Fans. Thanks!


'''Proposer''': {{User|Big Super Mario Fan}}<br>
*Narrative elements (a character behaving differently for a single installment or having some speech quirk they only have in that specific installment. Pointing out that a comic issue was the introduction of some plot element that would become prominent in further installments of the franchise, etc etc. ''That kind of thing'')
'''Deadline''': May 19, 2024, 23:59


====Support====
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} Per my proposal.
If you need a clearer idea, https://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers_(issue)#Notes is an example of what Notes sections are used for. It's not a perfect comparison because TFWiki is a different wiki that does things differently, and some of the thing they put in their notes we would put in more specialized sections like Appearances, Personality, Development etc on here. Still, I think it gives an idea of where I'm going at. There are noteworthy things that can’t be smoothly inserted into plot and content descriptions. I think covering such content is an area the wiki is currently weak in. I also feel it would lead to better flow.  


====Oppose====
A few years ago, I tested the waters and put Notes sections on a bunch of a pages I created. Most editors didn’t get what I was going for and either renamed them to Trivia or tried to incorporate them somewhere in the rest of the article. I’ll bring up  [[La nuit des vivants-morts]] as an example: it’s a skit from the funny French Donkey Kong variety show, and since that show loves its hack comedy, there’s a running gag where the zombie characters draw out the “aaaaaaa”s in their speech. It's a noteworthy element of the skit’s humour, but it’s not relevant to the “plot” of it. I made a notes section to describe it, but another editor removed the section and instead  stuck the bit at the end of the lead, which just looks awkward as hell: it’s worth a mention, but is not something so vital and unique that it warrants being on there.  
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/44#Deal with the duplicate Paper subjects in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam|the proposal that split the Paper Jam characters]] and my comments [[Talk:Paper Mario (series)#Paper Mario Universe|here]]. I will also again point out [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]].
#{{User|Hewer}} Paper Jam does not confirm that the Paper Mario games happened in a different universe, it merely confirms that there is another universe with paper versions of the characters based on those from Paper Mario. To extrapolate from that that Paper Mario and everything else are set in different universes is a forbidden speculative reading between the lines, as described in [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] and [[MarioWiki:Chronology]]. And speaking of the latter, you can't also deem things as occurring earlier or later in a timeline, because there isn't one, and games in the franchise are allowed to contradict each other's stories as much as they please without requiring us to reshuffle everything and speculate about how they connect (doesn't Mario meet the Lumas for the first time in both of the Galaxy games?). This would very much not make the wiki "more organiced and easier to use", but rather be perhaps the biggest organisational disaster to ever befall the wiki.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Not sure what a "universe" is.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer. The fact is, prior to Paper Jam, the Paper Mario series is not treated as any kind of separate world and this seems to hold even in the later Paper Mario games. This would be a huge mess and wouldn’t help anyone navigate anything on the wiki.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This is a reading that literally only makes sense in the context of ''Paper Jam'' and no other video games--both ones before it and after it. There's a reason [[Paperfolk]] was deleted on-the-spot, without proposal; treating the Paper versions of characters as being different from their not-Paper versions outside of the context of the one video game where they basically had to do that out of necessity is a complete and utter nightmare.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Yeah no. And if it weren't for Paper Mario and Luigi acting so different from the normal Mario and Luigi, I'd prefer we merged these characters outright since the counterparts are almost always seen together and have the same personalities (ie with the Peaches, the Kameks, the Bowsers, and the Juniors)
#{{User|Mario}} Not a good idea. Per Nightwicked Bowser.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
The scene mentioning the paper Koopalings seems like it's foreshadowing ''Color Splash'', but other than that, there's little hard evidence. If we can compile quotes from interviews and other promotional materials, there '''might''' be something to work with, but I've more or less given up on this one. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:00, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:The games didn't really start acting like the ''Paper Mario'' games had their own continuity until ''Sticker Star'', but even then it was just some throwaway lines and a multitude of dialogue-based paper jokes (as opposed to the solely visual gag-based ones from before). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:41, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::I'd argue that the first ''Paper Mario'' - conceived as the direct sequel of ''Super Mario RPG'' - almost feels like an intentionally separate continuity to that game in its finalized form. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 15:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::[[Paper Mario (character)]] has as much right to be his own article as [[Rabbid Mario]] in my view, as do the other Paper/Rabbid characters. And for the record, Paper Kamek is fought at one point without the normal Kamek. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 11:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::He is. But his role could have just as easily gone to normal Kamek, because aside from the art style, they are exactly the same. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:11, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::::But it didn't. We're covering the game as it is, not as it hypothetically could be. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::::That's not the point. The point is they are completely interchangeable. If it were written on one article, it would flow more organically and be more concise. Contrast that with the Rabbid characters Keyblade brought up, who have their own very distinct wacky personalities and differently specialized abilities. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::::::But it would be less accurate to how they're presented in the game as two distinct characters, even if their roles are similar. If a game has two very similar but separate characters, then by all means, we should have two very similar but separate articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::[[Yellow Toad and Blue Toad]] are now merged. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:36, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Fair point but they're never seen apart and share all of their appearances whereas the paper characters are Paper Jam-only, so they have much fewer appearances than their counterparts, and they have at least some separation even in Paper Jam whereas Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are always exactly identical and even considered a single character in NSMBU Deluxe. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:45, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


So yeah, I propose to blanket rename all Trivia sections to “Notes” and tolerate a wider variety of content on them. Another potential benefit I see is that it could potentially reduce the amount of stereotypical bad Trivia content: it just seems to me that in some people, the word “Trivia” activates the monke brain of us that wants to just Say Stuff no matter how overspecific and uninteresting, where “Notes” is more boring and stuffy and might not encourage such urges.


@LinkTheLefty,
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
@Docvon Schmeltwick,
'''Deadline''': February 9, 2025, 23:59 GMT
@NightwickedBowser,
@Hewer:


If you read this article from the official Nintendo website. It clearly states that there are two diffrent universes.
====Support (change trivia to notes)====
#{{User|Glowsquid}} I think this "Glowsquid" guy has the right idea!
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I think this is a good idea that will give us a healthier relationship with these sections.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} A thousand times yes! A trivia rework has been ''long'' overdue, and we think a shift in scope is just what we need to keep the article's flow intact, while providing a proper space for information that doesn't fit snugly into other parts of the articles.
#{{User|Sparks}} Definitely the right idea!
#{{User|Mario}} I do like to see a solid guidelines for what should entail in these notes sections. I do think they're great places for information that isn't handled in existing spots in our articles. I'd like to see more examples being done, but I can try to help here. For recurring characters, section such a section can deal with trivia found in promotional events or merchandise, such as a hypothetical commercial that reveals Mario being a cockatiel owner. The [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō|Lily Franky stuff]] that I'm not going to go into detail, for instance, describes a shocking depiction Mario and friends (reenacted with plushies it seems) that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment nor can it be in his personality section due to it clearly being off-color and one-note (not even a bullet point; this sort of thing is so minor it's so much better off as, well, a trivia point. For smaller articles like the La nuit des vivants-morts, this is definitely where such a section should be useful without taking undue prominence in the lead summary of the page. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to these just being souped up trivia sections like in some wikias (god forbid we have a bullet point that's like "''Dark Samus is the only character in Smash Bros who is an evil echo of an existing character who has a pink alt and floats during an idle animation.''") but we should at least try this first.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all, especially Mario. '''''Note:''' SolemnStormcloud is the first user in this proposal to use the phrase "Per all" as their reasoning.''
#[[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) Looks like a good idea, and I am for it.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I still worry about drive-by edits - there are legitimate pieces of information that work better within the body paragrpahs. But this seems like an improvement and more critically well-defined.
#{{User|Tails777}} I personally have always seen the Trivia section as a "fun facts" kind of section where the information there doesn't fit into any other sections. And I feel this could also help prevent drawing out sections with random details that just end up starting their own paragraphs, especially opening sections. I'm willing to give this idea a solid shot.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per everyone. Never liked the "trivia" title.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is the kind of forward-thinking, wide-reaching proposals i like to see. per all!
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} As long as it doesn't become a dumping ground of a barely-coherent string of consciousness like some fandom wikis treat their trivia sections, I like this idea. <small>And might I say, it's good to see a familiar purple-name glowing again.</small>
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Nice to see a proposal that singlehandedly fixes my two biggest gripes with the Trivia section. This would keep users from feeling obligated to move every point from there to other places where they don't belong, ''and'' the new name stops readers from dismissing the points that remain as minutia.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Rehabilitating trivia sections genuinely sounds like a great idea, since there's often information that doesn't cleanly fit into any section. I'm all for this!
#{{User|Ray Trace}} I've made a Marioboards topic about this all the way back if [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/42301/ you want my choice thoughts on this.]
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} I agree that Trivia needs reworking, particularly the part about encouraging that information be incorporated into parts of articles where it doesn't properly fit, and I think this proposal offers a good solution.


https://www.nintendo.com/en-za/Games/Nintendo-3DS-games/Mario-Luigi-Paper-Jam-Bros-1026143.html
====Oppose (leave Trivia as it currently is)====
 
~~ Big Super Mario Fan
:While it does say "two universes collide", that still only matters for this one game and should not impact this wiki's organisation. I think that argument has been countered enough at this point. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 21:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Consider ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' as an installment of the ''Super Mario'' series===
Now this may seem like an unusual proposal, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does not pass, but there's something that could be worth considering: ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Movie]]'' actually being part of the mainline [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]]. <s>There are homages to the ''Super Mario'' series (like the [[Training Course (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)|Training Course]]), [[Lumalee]] makes an appearance, and there's a scene where [[Donkey Kong]] uses a [[Fire Flower]], and another where [[Princess Peach]] uses an [[Ice Flower]]; these two power-ups are most commonly associated with the ''Super Mario'' series.</s>
 
One of the key factors of consideration is [[Shigeru Miyamoto]]'s involvement in this film, as well as in the sequel. <s>''[[zeldawiki:The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild|Breath of the Wild]]'', developed around the same time as ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', had its proper sequel, ''[[zeldawiki:The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom|Tears of the Kingdom]]'' (''Zelda'' was also created by Miyamoto), released around the time when ''Super Mario Bros. Movie'' premiered in theaters and had home release.</s> While there's no established connection between ''Super Mario Odyssey'' and ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'', the fact that Miyamoto co-produced this film, and [[Untitled The Super Mario Bros. Movie follow-up|will be doing the next]], makes me think he wants to diversify the ''Super Mario'' mainline series with more media formats, no longer confining it to just video games.
 
Edit: Crossed out weak points irrelevant to the proposal.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
<s>#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.</s>
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Actually, since the movie is getting a sequel, the proposal could be its own series by then, or just another film within the ''Super Mario'' series.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Unless we're gonna consider the 1993 movie, the Valiant comics, the various anime and manga, and the DiC cartoons as part of it as well, I don't see why we should specifically do this one.
#{{User|Hewer}} ...What? The Super Mario series is a video game series, none of Nintendo's official lists of entries have any non-game stuff, the entire franchise has homages to the Super Mario series (the Fire Flower has far more appearances than just the platformers), and Miyamoto wasn't involved in Mario Odyssey or either of those Zelda games as far as I'm aware (not that that's relevant anyway). And why did you vote for both options when that's functionally the same as not voting at all (and I don't think is even allowed for a two-option proposal)? Is this a month-late April Fools' proposal? EDIT: It's also telling that, now that the weak points have been crossed out, the proposal has pretty much no arguments left.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - The ''Super Mario'' series of games is just that--a series of video games. This would make about as much sense as saying the ''Donkey Kong Country'' cartoon counts as a part of the ''Donkey Kong'' series of games.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all. I understand why one would want to establish a more concrete classification system, but this seems diluting and unhelpful.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} That really doesn't belong there.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Uh, is Super Mario RPG allowed to vote for ''both'' options? Rule 2 states that "Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with ''more than two choices''." I think that implies that when there's only two options, you can only choose one of them.<br>I could've sworn there was also a rule that states you're not allowed to choose for ''all'' options, even in multi-choice proposals where you're allowed to vote for more than one option, but I couldn't really find one like that quickly. Still, the implication that you can only choose one option in a two-options in a two-choice proposal would also imply that you can choose all but one option in a multi-choice proposal, I think. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:57, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
A concern of mine is that in several places on this wiki — particularly the [[Mario Kart (series)]] article, since I used to edit those tables frequently back in the day — the "notes" header is used for footnotes put on a table. I'm a little concerned about the shared terminology there. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:28, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:There's no restriction on how many options you can vote for in a proposal with more than two choices, it's just pointless to vote for all of them because it doesn't change the ratio of how many voters each option has, so it has no effect (I guess besides adding to the minimum required votes to not get no quorum). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
:Renaming those sections "footnotes" should solve that. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:51, January 26, 2025 (EST)


{{@|Hewer}} No, it's a real proposal. It was something I had on mind for a while and wanted to get off of my chest to see if films really were being inducted into the series or if it was just my own headcanon. I crossed out my support and will let the proposal run its course. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 11:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@Mario: "that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment" - huh? Plenty of non-game content is covered in history sections, from cartoons to movies to manga. Why should this be an exception? Is it for being obscure? If so, why should that matter? I disagree with the idea that we should be deeming appearances "major" or "minor" and giving the "minor" information less prominence, that's just asking for subjectivity and bias to come into play. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:39, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:What I mean is that the Lily Franky thing isn't a game, movie, or a cartoon. It's supplementary promotional material, a virtual magazine akin to Nintendo Power. We don't really cover it in Mario's history page due to information from a magazine simply not being appropriate for history that focuses on narrative works (we don't have merchandise in the history section); the same goes for, say, a guidebook 4-koma where Luigi "size" shames Mario. I provided additional context for my argument using the "pet cockatiel from a commercial" sort of example, which wouldn't really fit anywhere in Mario's page except in a trivia section. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:57, January 26, 2025 (EST)
::It is a narrative work though, crude as that narrative may be, and it's not tied to a particular game like a guidebook would be (so we can't just cover it in another game's section). If it can have its own page on the wiki, I don't see why it can't get a section in a history page. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)
:::Agreed with Hewer that Lily Franky giving Mario an "off-color" depiction and being "too obscure to be noted" are not proper reasons to omit coverage on Mario's article. Those broadcasts have some narrative qualities to them and are part of the character's history in media licensed by Nintendo, so I'd rather the wiki abstain from relegating those into a <s>Trivia</s> Notes section. Besides, there's some precedent of covering things related to neither gameplay nor story as part of a character's history: the "History of Wario" page [[History of Wario#Nintendo Kids Space|runs over a host of appearances of Wario in promotional web content]], which were explicitly brought up (and unchallenged) at the parent article's [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/N2/Wario|feature nomination]]. Make of that what you will. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)


I feel like we need to have a broader discussion on what criteria we even look for when categorizing subjects as siblings within the same "franchise" or "series". To me, it does not really matter how involved Shigeru Miyamoto is with a particular project because: (1) Miyamoto has a history of involving himself with a wide diversity of projects both within and outside of ''Mario'' just to provide development guidance or maintain brand integrity with external parties (like Illumination Studios); and (2) I generally feel like published works should be interpreted independently for their own criteria for classification. Nintendo did not always consider ''[[Super Mario Land]]'' a mainline ''Super Mario'' series game, a game that saw almost no involvement from Miyamoto, but I always considered it so because there are no objective reasons within the game itself for it to be excluded. It is nice to see that Nintendo themselves have come to that same perspective. Additionally, the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'', in all languages, explicitly states that the remakes of mainline series games, like ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', are not literal parts of the ''Super Mario'' series (pp. 238 - 255; note the star key on 238). Offhand, I am inclined to think a separation like that is very silly. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:50, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I wouldn't oppose broader coverage of trivia (look at Shedinja's [[bulbapedia:Shedinja#1 HP trivia|dedicated trivia section]], which is already very long), but I am a bit wary of changing the title to "notes" as the name "trivia" indicates fun, unimportant facts that wouldn't fit into the page proper, while "notes" feel more like formal stuff that could be added into pages proper.
:Miyamoto's involvement has never been considered as a factor in anything at all to my knowledge, not sure why this proposal brought it up. Whole development teams for games can change while still being in the same series, e.g. [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|Donkey Kong Country]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:59, May 12, 2024 (EDT)


I would also be fine adding a secondary "notes" or "development" (games)/"behind the scenes" (films) section to pages, on top of keeping the Trivia section. This could be added separately, or in the Trivia section, like the origin/name origin in the Pokémon pages in Bulbapedia. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 20:40, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:Lots of games already have "development" sections. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)


===Merge Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. into Main series===
All my joking aside, I remember when [[Cackletta]]'s article was a Spotlight focus in Issue 203 of ''The 'Shroom'' for having an overly long trivia section. A trivia point on the final battle with Cackletta's soul bearing similarities to the final boss from [[AlphaDream]]'s first game, ''Koto Battle: Tengai no Moribito'', was integrated into [[Cackletta#Bowser's Castle|the boss section proper]], but it feels very inelegant to suddenly start describing a boss from a different, non-''Super Mario'' game in the middle of the article. Is it fine to move that point back once this proposal passes? {{User:SolemnStormcloud/sig}} 12:08, January 28, 2025 (EST)
 
:Oh yeah. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm pushing for. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 18:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)
I think the Main series Ganes and Remakes, Ports, Remasters, Collections etc. should be merged. For example in the Super Mario series. But also for every other Mario Spin off series. Especially when those are considered mainline by Nintendo, like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, etc. It would be way simpler to just make 2 categories. 1st Mainline (New Games and Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. inclided) 2nd Other Games or Spin offs. It wouldn't matter if they are old or new games. Of course in would still be written in the description if its a Remake or a Port, a Collection, Remaster etc. Thank you!
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Big Super Mario Fan}}
'''Deadline''': May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}}Per my proposal.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Putting remakes and ports in a seperate list from original games helps further distinguish them.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I don't see how it's simpler at all to put effectively the same game on the same list twice.
 
====Comments====


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

Latest revision as of 00:01, January 30, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, January 30th, 05:01 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
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)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 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)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 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)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 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)
Split Mario Toy Company general information into new article, CyonOfGaia (ended January 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT)

Writing guidelines

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

This was spurred by the introduction of the to-do bar. Thanks, to-do bar! Anyways, if you look at Special:WantedCategories, at the moment, it's all entries with 3 or fewer items each; this makes sense, given we have a policy that suggests categories are kept to only 4 or more items. However, for a good portion of the 3-itemers, these are all fairly featured images from sources like various short flash advergames, or more niche subjects like the MediaBrowser which came in a series of, well, 3 web browsers. In comparison to the 1-or-2 entry, well, entries, these have a bit more substance to them, basically waiting for a fourth image to be taken at some point; and while in some cases, that image can come up, in others... Well, what are the odds a fourth MediaBrowser is releasing when they went bust back in 2001, y'know?

While we don't feel strongly about what happens to the 1 or 2 entry categories, we do think there is just enough to these 3-entry categories to warrant a closer look our current policies are not providing. Should we lower the cutoff to 3? Or is 4 the magical number for categories?

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
  2. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. It's a popular number!
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Three is a magic number.

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple in the comments, image categories don't have this restriction so the proposal seems moot otherwise. I don't see a benefit to reducing this limit across the board, and I'm very hesitant to support without a clearer picture of the implications. (The assertion in the comments that this wouldn't have immediate impact was based on the list on Special:WantedCategories - there weren't any categories there besides image ones because that would require mainspace articles to have redlinked categories that would go against policy if you made them. Obviously, that wouldn't fly.)
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Porplemontage and Waluigi Time.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Honestly, five would be a better restriction so that it's a well rounded number.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for Category:Super Paper Mario characters then the couple characters would just go in Category:Super Paper Mario rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of Category:Game images rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated MarioWiki:Categories. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)

New features

Make categories for families

I've made a similar proposal a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin「¹」 (unrelated, but meh).

Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Hewer (talk) Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
  2. Weegie baby (talk) Per me.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles. There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
  3. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Mario and LadySophie17
  5. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  6. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  7. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  8. Daisy4Days (talk) Per all. And I don’t really like the idea of grouping the Koopalings as “Bowser’s Family.”
  9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Weegie baby You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, I forgot, thanks. Weegie baby (talk) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Each of these new categories should have at least five entries; see MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--Platform (talk) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with Category:Kongs. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count implied characters (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)
Here are 5 people in each family:
Peach’s family: Princess Peach; Princess Daisy; Mushroom King; Gramma Toadstool; Obā-chan; etc.
Bowser’ family: Koopalings (even more than 5); etc.
Donkey Kong’s family: Donkey Kong; Donkey Kong Jr.; Cranky Kong; Wrinkly Kong; Uncle Julius; etc.
Toad’s family: Toad; Mushroom Marauder; Jake the Crusher Fungus; Gramps; Toadette (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, Moldy and Toad’s cousin).
I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count Baby Kong), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. Weegie baby (talk) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
It's not about number of people but entries. Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope says: "a minimum of five entries (including any subcategories' entries), however they should have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six Aquatic Attackers are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--Platform (talk) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add Toad's cousin. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. Weegie baby (talk) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)

@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see Category:Organizations, which includes several implied organizations. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)

Fair enough. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)

What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi)? LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)

Oh my god, that is so disgusting. But, anyway, there already is a category for Mario and Luigi’s family with baby Luigi in it, so no worries. Weegie baby (talk) 14:50, January 23, 2025 (EST)

For the record, I don't think an old 2007 IGN article written by a columnist working for them instead of Nintendo on the brink of Brawl speculation (such as the article provided) is anything close to official confirmation that Stanley and Mario are cousins, and so not a very verifiable source. Especially when this "confirmation" in the first sentence reads like a colloquialism or a baseless comparison. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 04:21, January 25, 2025 (EST)

Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 1, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

We realize this is a bit presumptuous given the proposal to split the clothing is, as of writing this, the oldest unimplemented Talk Page Proposal, and it isn't even close (it's the only proposal on that list from 2021!). However, we're a little surprised the badges and accessories weren't included in that proposal! Like clothing, there are multiple badges that appear across multiple games (such as remakes, but also the various Bangles from Dream Team/Brothership, Scarves and Statues in Dream Team/Paper Jam) and things different between them (did you know the base Mush Badge isn't in the Super Star remake? Only Mush Badges A and AA. you'd only know this comparing the two lists.)

In addition, a few of the accessories are already split; namely, the special items from the Starbeans Cafe, like the Greed Wallet or Great Force. We don't know what exactly to do if this split doesn't happen, so we've added an extra option to retain those articles but keep things to their lists, and one that just merges everything back to the lists.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split 'em all (fire up that button pin maker!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, of course. There's enough recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
  2. Arend (talk) Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Hewer (talk) Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Jdtendo (talk) If this is just a confirmation of the scope of an already passed proposal, then why not (provided it actually gets implemented).
  9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Keep badges and remaining accessories merged, but keep Starbeans items split (the status quo option!)

Merge 'em all (those are SO out of style!)

Comments (splittin' badges/accessories)

I almost want to oppose this proposal until the clothing articles gets actually split. I tried cancelling that one six month ago (to no avail) and I'd really rather not want to have another proposal like it just waiting for someone to implement. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 14:43, January 25, 2025 (EST)

The original proposal was "split everything here." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:06, January 26, 2025 (EST)

The wording is a bit vague, admittedly. The way the proposal was archived says only clothing, but the actual article suggests all gear. Which, hey, it'd be nice to at least confirm it. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 01:10, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Removals

Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 29, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every Mario Kart staff ghost where that driver is used. See Mario's from 8 Deluxe as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.

  1. I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character. Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe?
    Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
  2. It's inconsistently applied. To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.

You could also make some argument that this is stretching once and only once a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: They're out of time

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Ghost 'em.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
  3. Tails777 (talk) Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they need to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
  7. Sparks (talk) Time's up!
  8. Daisy4Days (talk) Per all.
  9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Keep time

Comments on staff ghost proposal

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the Super Mario franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what happened here. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, like here, and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.

If this proposal passes, only the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.

This proposal falls directly in line with MarioWiki:Courtesy, which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Shadow2 (talk) Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally any other platform that has ever existed gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
  3. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per Shadow2's comment.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) per WT
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove any conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal and Waluigi Time. No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
  8. LinkTheLefty (talk) Agreed with N101.
  9. Paper Plumm (talk) While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
  11. Daisy4Days (talk) Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.

Nintendo101 (talk) It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.

Comments

@Nintendo101 Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)

I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — Nintendo101 (talk) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
@Nintendo101 The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, not others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. Technetium (talk) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Technetium (talk) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)

Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you are allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings. So why is it so much more locked-down here? Shadow2 (talk) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?"
It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from removing it if they should so choose. Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is still there, even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)

I want to make something clear: under the current policy for user talk pages, "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? Jdtendo(T|C) 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)

No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Super Mario RPG receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." Shadow2 (talk) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I believe users should have some fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. link:User:Sparks Sparks (talk) link:User:Sparks 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 What are some specific examples? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Examples of what? Shadow2 (talk) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they don't want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. Shadow2 (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Technetium That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by @Mario) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)

@Mario So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed? Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)

Toadlose.gif Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do not fall under "unimportant fluff". Shadow2 (talk) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
@Shadow2 have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they don't want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. Shadow2 (talk) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? Shadow2 (talk) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Shadow2 (talk) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)

This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ MHA Super Mushroom:) at 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)

Merge the Tortes

Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:

The argument is fairly simple; the Chef and Apprentice Tortes are just a duo never seen separate from one another, like the Jellyfish Sisters, or Cork and Cask--and given they are the only Tortes we see in the game, it seems only fair to merge that article as well. This is only particularly unique in the amount of articles there are; 3 of them, for this one concept? The Torte article focuses mostly on their in-battle role, while the Chef Torte and Apprentice articles try to explain their duo role in two distinct articles.

In addition, if we merge Apprentice (Torte), either to Torte or to Chef Torte, we should probably move Apprentice (Snifit) over to Apprentice, and give it the {{about}} template.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
  3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
  4. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.

Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least have unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins.
  4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
  5. Paper Plumm (talk) Per all.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) I think this makes more sense, from the comments below.
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

Comments (It's... Alive???)

This can easily be four birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an {{about}}. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)

Good observation, actually! Went and added this. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)

@Doc: On that note, because of once and only once, that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)

I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)

By the way, wouldn't option 1 go against MarioWiki:Minor NPCs? --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 10:27, January 27, 2025 (EST)

Not any more than Cork and Cask does, I'd say. The main difference here is that the game already has a good name that can apply to both. Speaking of which, @Camwoodstock, would the resulting article be treated as a character or species article? The former would make more sense, in my view, but just to make sure. Blinker (talk) 10:57, January 27, 2025 (EST)
We were imagining the former, akin to the many duos of Superstar Saga, yes. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:51, January 27, 2025 (EST)
Come to think about it, it's also a little odd how Booster's main trio of Snifsters are covered on what is otherwise treated as a species article. That's a somewhat similar situation, isn't it? Blinker (talk) 10:29, January 28, 2025 (EST)

Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on February 2, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Trivia sections are a contentious part of the wiki. Lengthy trivia sections with wrong/stupid/pointless content were an issue in the early years of the site and while there’s been a successful effort to clean them up, they’ve retained a stigma as a dumping ground for low-effort writing. As part of it, there’s been a drive to gently discourage such sections and instead steer people toward “incorporating” trivia content in other parts of the article. It’s not a bad notiom, but I do think it’s had some unhappy results (more on that later) even if it would be absurd to suggest it is an equivalent problem

Somewhat counter to common wisdom, I think the problem with Trivia sections is that not that they’re not narrow and curated enough, but rather than they’re not broad enough.

What I’ve noticed is that many wikis out there don’t have Trivia sections. They however, have Notes section. So say, the Transformers Wiki, might have a Notes section on their comic pages and besides the obvious Trivia fodder like “This is the only issue of the Marvel comic Optimus Prime doesn’t appear in”, they also list other information about the production or substance of the subject. Things like

  • Cultural references (in case where they’re not prevalent enough to sustain a whole section
  • Stylistic elements (characters being drawn differently or an episode having a different animation style)
  • Mentioning things that don't fit neatly in List of appearances (Stuff like "In a cereal commercial, Mario mentions having a pet chicken)
  • Narrative elements (a character behaving differently for a single installment or having some speech quirk they only have in that specific installment. Pointing out that a comic issue was the introduction of some plot element that would become prominent in further installments of the franchise, etc etc. That kind of thing)


If you need a clearer idea, https://tfwiki.net/wiki/The_Transformers_(issue)#Notes is an example of what Notes sections are used for. It's not a perfect comparison because TFWiki is a different wiki that does things differently, and some of the thing they put in their notes we would put in more specialized sections like Appearances, Personality, Development etc on here. Still, I think it gives an idea of where I'm going at. There are noteworthy things that can’t be smoothly inserted into plot and content descriptions. I think covering such content is an area the wiki is currently weak in. I also feel it would lead to better flow.

A few years ago, I tested the waters and put Notes sections on a bunch of a pages I created. Most editors didn’t get what I was going for and either renamed them to Trivia or tried to incorporate them somewhere in the rest of the article. I’ll bring up La nuit des vivants-morts as an example: it’s a skit from the funny French Donkey Kong variety show, and since that show loves its hack comedy, there’s a running gag where the zombie characters draw out the “aaaaaaa”s in their speech. It's a noteworthy element of the skit’s humour, but it’s not relevant to the “plot” of it. I made a notes section to describe it, but another editor removed the section and instead stuck the bit at the end of the lead, which just looks awkward as hell: it’s worth a mention, but is not something so vital and unique that it warrants being on there.

So yeah, I propose to blanket rename all Trivia sections to “Notes” and tolerate a wider variety of content on them. Another potential benefit I see is that it could potentially reduce the amount of stereotypical bad Trivia content: it just seems to me that in some people, the word “Trivia” activates the monke brain of us that wants to just Say Stuff no matter how overspecific and uninteresting, where “Notes” is more boring and stuffy and might not encourage such urges.

Proposer: Glowsquid (talk)
Deadline: February 9, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (change trivia to notes)

  1. Glowsquid (talk) I think this "Glowsquid" guy has the right idea!
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) I think this is a good idea that will give us a healthier relationship with these sections.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) A thousand times yes! A trivia rework has been long overdue, and we think a shift in scope is just what we need to keep the article's flow intact, while providing a proper space for information that doesn't fit snugly into other parts of the articles.
  4. Sparks (talk) Definitely the right idea!
  5. Mario (talk) I do like to see a solid guidelines for what should entail in these notes sections. I do think they're great places for information that isn't handled in existing spots in our articles. I'd like to see more examples being done, but I can try to help here. For recurring characters, section such a section can deal with trivia found in promotional events or merchandise, such as a hypothetical commercial that reveals Mario being a cockatiel owner. The Lily Franky stuff that I'm not going to go into detail, for instance, describes a shocking depiction Mario and friends (reenacted with plushies it seems) that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment nor can it be in his personality section due to it clearly being off-color and one-note (not even a bullet point; this sort of thing is so minor it's so much better off as, well, a trivia point. For smaller articles like the La nuit des vivants-morts, this is definitely where such a section should be useful without taking undue prominence in the lead summary of the page. I'm hoping this doesn't lead to these just being souped up trivia sections like in some wikias (god forbid we have a bullet point that's like "Dark Samus is the only character in Smash Bros who is an evil echo of an existing character who has a pink alt and floats during an idle animation.") but we should at least try this first.
  6. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all, especially Mario. Note: SolemnStormcloud is the first user in this proposal to use the phrase "Per all" as their reasoning.
  7. Winstein (talk) Looks like a good idea, and I am for it.
  8. Nintendo101 (talk) I still worry about drive-by edits - there are legitimate pieces of information that work better within the body paragrpahs. But this seems like an improvement and more critically well-defined.
  9. Tails777 (talk) I personally have always seen the Trivia section as a "fun facts" kind of section where the information there doesn't fit into any other sections. And I feel this could also help prevent drawing out sections with random details that just end up starting their own paragraphs, especially opening sections. I'm willing to give this idea a solid shot.
  10. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per everyone. Never liked the "trivia" title.
  11. EvieMaybe (talk) this is the kind of forward-thinking, wide-reaching proposals i like to see. per all!
  12. LinkTheLefty (talk) As long as it doesn't become a dumping ground of a barely-coherent string of consciousness like some fandom wikis treat their trivia sections, I like this idea. And might I say, it's good to see a familiar purple-name glowing again.
  13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Nice to see a proposal that singlehandedly fixes my two biggest gripes with the Trivia section. This would keep users from feeling obligated to move every point from there to other places where they don't belong, and the new name stops readers from dismissing the points that remain as minutia.
  14. Pseudo (talk) Rehabilitating trivia sections genuinely sounds like a great idea, since there's often information that doesn't cleanly fit into any section. I'm all for this!
  15. Ray Trace (talk) I've made a Marioboards topic about this all the way back if you want my choice thoughts on this.
  16. TheFlameChomp (talk) I agree that Trivia needs reworking, particularly the part about encouraging that information be incorporated into parts of articles where it doesn't properly fit, and I think this proposal offers a good solution.

Oppose (leave Trivia as it currently is)

Comments

A concern of mine is that in several places on this wiki — particularly the Mario Kart (series) article, since I used to edit those tables frequently back in the day — the "notes" header is used for footnotes put on a table. I'm a little concerned about the shared terminology there. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:28, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Renaming those sections "footnotes" should solve that. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:51, January 26, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: "that cannot be covered in Mario's history page due to not being a game installment" - huh? Plenty of non-game content is covered in history sections, from cartoons to movies to manga. Why should this be an exception? Is it for being obscure? If so, why should that matter? I disagree with the idea that we should be deeming appearances "major" or "minor" and giving the "minor" information less prominence, that's just asking for subjectivity and bias to come into play. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:39, January 26, 2025 (EST)

What I mean is that the Lily Franky thing isn't a game, movie, or a cartoon. It's supplementary promotional material, a virtual magazine akin to Nintendo Power. We don't really cover it in Mario's history page due to information from a magazine simply not being appropriate for history that focuses on narrative works (we don't have merchandise in the history section); the same goes for, say, a guidebook 4-koma where Luigi "size" shames Mario. I provided additional context for my argument using the "pet cockatiel from a commercial" sort of example, which wouldn't really fit anywhere in Mario's page except in a trivia section. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:57, January 26, 2025 (EST)
It is a narrative work though, crude as that narrative may be, and it's not tied to a particular game like a guidebook would be (so we can't just cover it in another game's section). If it can have its own page on the wiki, I don't see why it can't get a section in a history page. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)
Agreed with Hewer that Lily Franky giving Mario an "off-color" depiction and being "too obscure to be noted" are not proper reasons to omit coverage on Mario's article. Those broadcasts have some narrative qualities to them and are part of the character's history in media licensed by Nintendo, so I'd rather the wiki abstain from relegating those into a Trivia Notes section. Besides, there's some precedent of covering things related to neither gameplay nor story as part of a character's history: the "History of Wario" page runs over a host of appearances of Wario in promotional web content, which were explicitly brought up (and unchallenged) at the parent article's feature nomination. Make of that what you will. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

I wouldn't oppose broader coverage of trivia (look at Shedinja's dedicated trivia section, which is already very long), but I am a bit wary of changing the title to "notes" as the name "trivia" indicates fun, unimportant facts that wouldn't fit into the page proper, while "notes" feel more like formal stuff that could be added into pages proper.

I would also be fine adding a secondary "notes" or "development" (games)/"behind the scenes" (films) section to pages, on top of keeping the Trivia section. This could be added separately, or in the Trivia section, like the origin/name origin in the Pokémon pages in Bulbapedia. Altendo 20:40, January 26, 2025 (EST)

Lots of games already have "development" sections. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:37, January 27, 2025 (EST)

All my joking aside, I remember when Cackletta's article was a Spotlight focus in Issue 203 of The 'Shroom for having an overly long trivia section. A trivia point on the final battle with Cackletta's soul bearing similarities to the final boss from AlphaDream's first game, Koto Battle: Tengai no Moribito, was integrated into the boss section proper, but it feels very inelegant to suddenly start describing a boss from a different, non-Super Mario game in the middle of the article. Is it fine to move that point back once this proposal passes? — Light-blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:08, January 28, 2025 (EST)

Oh yeah. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm pushing for. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:54, January 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4671412"