MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tag: Mobile edit
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article===
''None at the moment.''


I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' has a separate article for its 3 glitches ([[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]]), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong#Glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'']], [[Super Mario Strikers#Glitches|''Super Mario Strikers'']], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)#Glitches|''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch)]], and, most glaringly, [[Wario Land 3#Glitches|''Wario Land 3'']] have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.
==New features==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:
I have several pitches for you.
*4 of them have glitches merged into the main article: [[Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2#Glitches|''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'']], [[Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'']], [[Donkey Kong Land#Glitches|''Donkey Kong Land'']], [[Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle#Glitches|''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle'']]
*2 of them have separate "List of glitches" articles: [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches|''Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!'']], [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches|''Super Mario Advance'']]


I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.  
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>


;Option 1: The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'', ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' (Nintendo Switch), and ''Wario Land 3'' to match that of ''Wario Land 4''.  
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
;Option 2: The minimum number of glitches should be 4. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]] would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for ''Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2'', ''Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze'', ''Donkey Kong Land'', and ''Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle''.  
;Option 3: The minimum number of glitches should be 5. [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], [[List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches]], and [[List of Super Mario Advance glitches]] would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.
;Do nothing: There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.  


I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
'''Deadline''': August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Option 1====
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


====Option 2====
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
#{{User|Technetium}} Second choice.
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


====Option 3====
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
#{{User|Technetium}} First choice. I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Do nothing====
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
 
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
====Comments====
From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why [[List of Fortune Street quotes]] is split into [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (A–J)|Dragon Quest characters (A-J]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Dragon Quest characters (K–Z)|K-Z)]] and [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (A–M)|Super Mario characters (A-M]] / [[List of Fortune Street quotes by Super Mario characters (N–Z)|N-Z)]] and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
:Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge [[List of Wario Land 4 glitches]], but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --[[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)


==New features==
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
===Add the Thanks extension===
The [[mw:Extension:Thanks|Thanks]] extension is a way to personally thank a contributor without sending them a message directly. It's a kind gesture to show that you appreciate certain edits from someone, such as if they add more content to an article you made or fix grammatical errors. This saves the effort of having to manually message your appreciation if you wanted to give a quick Thanks to the user, though this proposal in no way seeks to replace that; it provides another option for thanking a user.


However, a requirement to installing Thanks is the [[mw:Extension:Echo|Echo extension]], which is used by Wikipedia, MediaWiki, and many other major wikis. The Echo extension had embedded features of its own, and it could get annoying for some if it gives a message for every 100, 200, 500, or so milestone edits that someone makes (even though it is possible that some may want to keep track of their milestones). Point is, if the Thanks extension is allowed, be wary of changes that the Echo extension would bring. The echo notification also replaces the new message box with a new messages notification at the top right of the screen. Perhaps it is possible to disable some of the default features of Echo, but the point is that this proposal is mainly about allowing Thanks.
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''


On a sidenote, if this passes, the courtesy policy will be updated to prohibit spamming the use of it for consecutive edits made by a user or someone who personally does not wish to have their edits thanked.
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
'''Deadline''': August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario shroom}} As a Wikipedia editor, I support.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Greenlit by Steve, and I massively support this.
#{{User|Sparks}} Yes! The element of kindness (AKA Fluttershy) in Mario Wiki form. I support! Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Wonderful idea.
#{{User|YoYo}} sure, there's no harm in this
#{{User|Mario}} Validation is always nice. [[File:Kindness Stamp MP3.png|50px]]
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} I absolutely love to thank people for kindnesses, especially because so many people have helped me in the past! And this would make it so much easier. I totally support this, and who cares about the side effects-- all I want is to be able to spread kindness, no matter what the cost.


====Oppose====
====Option Zero====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} No thank you.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.  


====Comments====
====Option One====
I've always wanted this for years now, but I feel this sort of thing requires at least confirming with Steve first. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:27, August 16, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
:{{@|Mario}} Maybe someone could ask him. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:39, August 16, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.
:{{@|Mario}} I asked on [[User_talk:Porplemontage#Echo_and_Thanks_extension|his talk page]], and the proposal is allowed. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:09, August 17, 2024 (EDT)


==Removals==
====Option Two====
===Allow each Poké Ball Pokémon only one representative artwork or screenshot and remove lists of Poké Ball and stage-exclusive Pokémon on ''Smash Bros.'' game pages===
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
This proposal's a short one because there's not much to say about it. The [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items#Poké Ball Pokémon|Poké Ball Pokémon]] section of the List of ''SSB'' series items page is cluttered enough. They have little to no relation to ''Super Mario'' other than their interactivity with ''Super Mario'' fighters, but that goes for all fighters in general (that's my understanding as to why the list pages exist). A while ago, there was a majority consensus of [[Talk:Pokémon|over 20 users]] who agreed to delete the {{fake link|Pokémon}} page, giving images of Poké Ball Pokémon even less of a purpose to be on the wiki. Poké Ball Pokémon are not nearly as intrinsic to the ''Smash Bros.'' games as moves, stages, items, and, of course, fighters; they are a mechanic part of the Poké Ball item.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


Now I already think that for a wiki on ''Super Mario'', a table listing Poké Ball Pokémon and giving an image of each one is enough of a stretch as is, but further discussion on that is for a possible future proposal. For this proposal, if it passes, only '''one''' artwork (or screenshot, if there is no artwork) per each Poké Ball Pokémon will be used, of their latest or only appearance in ''Smash Bros.'' only, and '''all other screenshots and artwork''' of Poké Ball Pokémon '''will be deleted'''. Several of them have been in [[Special:UnusedFiles]] for months. In the case that a Pokémon has both a screenshot and artwork, prioritize the artwork but delete the screenshot, consistent with how infoboxes are used. The playable fighters representing ''Pokémon'' and Rayquaza (a boss in ''Brawl'') will not be affected by this proposal, nor will any of the trophy images of Poké Ball Pokémon, which would be better subject to a different proposal.
====Option Three====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


'''Edit:''' Passing this proposal will also remove any standalone Poké Ball Pokémon lists on the ''Smash Bros.'' game pages and list the Pokémon (though not their functions) within the Poké Ball description under the Items heading. To be consistent, this will also remove the Saffron City cameos on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' article, since they're more or less the same by virtue of Poke Ball Pokemon, except they spawn from the stage environment.
====Option Four====
 
'''Second edit:''' A separate option ("Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists") has been added for those who want only the Poké Ball Pokémon list removed (at least from this proposal). This is for others who think that stage hazards should stay put on the game pages but not Poke Ball Pokemon, or for those who want the status of ''Pokémon'' and other non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards to be for consideration in a future proposal altogether. Even in this case, an individual image for stage hazard Pokémon would be kept, even if they later became Poké Ball Pokémon, but on the game pages only, NOT on the [[List of Super Smash Bros. series items]] page for the reason that they are/were not Poké Ball Pokémon under this context.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Remove both Poké Ball and stage Pokémon lists====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} A little Pokemon coverage could still be contained in the Smash Bros item list because you can interact with them while playing as a Mario character, but all the tiny Saffron City cameos and specific mechanics of these assist Pokemon on the parent Super Smash Bros. game pages are excessive, and so are the dozens of images related to these things. Nuke 'em. Last I checked, this site is called "mariowiki.com".
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} We've got Smash Wiki and Bulbapedia to cover the Pokémon in Super Smash Bros. Also, RPG has made better points than Doc in the comments.
 
====Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary.
 
====Remove nothing====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - No reason for this. Note how I made [[Super Smash Bros.#Poké Ball Pokémon|the Pokemon table]] for the ''[[Super Smash Bros.]]'' (N64) page; there should be representation of each aspect for each "game" page, even aspects that link to another site - and the only way to so that in the way you're wanting would be to have images from other games in the series, which is an absolute no. EDIT: With the addition to the proposal's goals, this is now aiming to prioritize [[List of Assist Trophy characters#Gray Fox|Gray Fox]] and [[Whispy Woods]] over Pokemon that have the same role (assist summon and stage hazard, respectively, such as Chansey and Venusaur on both counts) just because the latter are from Pokemon. This is completely counterintuitive and seems to have no basis other than a personal disdain for Pokemon images. ''Why do the former two (especially the foremost, who's not even a Nintendo character and has not appeared in any media with Mario other than Smash) get prioritized?'' Even if you "plan to take care of that in a later proposal," that still leaves things inconsistent until the hypothetical scenario of that happening and passing.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Doc, this doesn't feel like a logical limitation of scope to stay Mario-focused so much as a random and arbitrary restriction that hinders completeness. It also seems strange to me to single out Pokémon out of everything in Smash as the one thing not Mario-relevant enough to warrant this treatment - it doesn't make sense to do this for the Poké Ball summons but not the non-Mario Assist Trophies, or for the Pokémon stage hazards but not the other non-Mario stage hazards.
#{{User|Metalex123}} Per Doc


====Comments====
====Comments====
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} The Pokemon on the SSB64 page can just be mentioned under the Poké Ball description of the Items section. The description already says "a random Pokémon." That's vague. Which ones? But if mentioning the Pokémon in that description, then it will show which of them there are without making a separate subsection of something that doesn't directly invoke ''Super Mario'', unlike items, moves, fighters, and stages, which all have at least one thing related to ''Super Mario'' in them. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:58, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:...in saying that, you openly admit you ''want'' it to be more vague. The non-Pokeball Pokemon are instead listed in the stage element sections, anyway. When it comes to this sort of section, we should not pick-and-choose what is and is not "relevant" to the ''Mario'' games, as there are too many edge cases; like the Bumpers, for instance, which despite being ''Smash''-based appear as a permanent obstacle in the primary ''Mario'' stage. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::It's not vague. It would be summarizing Pokemon under the "Poke Ball" heading if saying "these are the Pokemon, all of them behave differently" and then either link to the list page on this wiki for more info ([[MarioWiki:Once and only once]]) or to SmashWiki. As for the Pokemon that are stage features, they could be mentioned under the respective stage descriptions. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::How would bloating a single item's section in the items table be preferable to just having a separate table? This covers everything equally without requiring extra pages or understating the importance of the individual subjects - having them as that page is is a great compromise. Attempting to remove it is suddenly just deciding some random aspect shouldn't even be alluded to properly, which is not how coverage works. The "once and only once" argument is irrelevant because that's like saying that the Fire Flower item section on that table shouldn't have a description because there's already a Fire Flower page, and the article you refer to mixes them with no regard for specific game - honestly, those list pages should be phased out in favor of having the information on the individual game pages with interwiki links, like the SSB page currently is. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:06, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::As for Bumpers, those are items, which I said is more integral to the Smash Bros. series than Poke Ball Pokemon. It's not bloating if it's listing the names of the Pokemon in the Poke Ball section only and giving a one sentence or mention that each of them function differently. Why was the Pokemon page deleted through unanimous consent? Because it lacked enough relevance to ''Super Mario''. These are components of an item that appear in a non-''Super Mario'' crossover page. This is limiting Poke Ball Pokemon info to just the list page which, as stated in the proposal, could be considered a stretch itself (but subject to different proposal or community discussion). What's an "edge case" that involves Poke Ball Pokemon and the ''Super Mario'' franchise? The argument doesn't apply to [[Fire Flower]] for the obvious reason that those are in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::As I said, limiting to the list page is the opposite of what should be done, they should be limited to the game articles as SSB's currently is. That is a much better idea, and that is my final word on that discussion. And the Fire Flower thing ''does'' matter in regards to you bringing up "once and only once." The "edge case" thing more has to do with arbitrarily deciding something doesn't need image coverage on a game article, obviously. And yes, putting a ''13-item'' list ''within'' a single cell of a table when no other cell of its column has one is ''absolutely'' bloating it - to say nothing of the later games that have even ''more''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:15, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::To me, the definition of "arbitrary" is someone deciding something based on feeling rather than elaborate consideration. Some of the guest coverage games like ''Nintendo Land'' don't list everything and just give an overview of the other minigames because those are prominent features of the game. If ''Super Smash Bros.'' were not named as such to anglophones (secondary, whilst the Japanese name is primary, being a game developed by HAL and Nintendo), the treatment of ''Smash Bros.'' coverage would almost certainly be on similar level to ''Nintendo Land'' or the recently released ''Nintendo World Championships'' game for Switch. One could make the argument that adding Pokemon descriptions within the Poke Ball is bloat, then that's something to consider, but there's no harm in listing the different Pokemon in it so then it's there in one place. It's not that hard to go to SmashWiki to read more about the Pokemon functions, just like for general Smash Bros. concepts and mechanics like special moves. Many things in Smash Bros. don't have pages here for the reason that Smash Bros. is not officially considered a component of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, and my proposal on deleting {{fake link|Trophy Tussle}} passed some months ago because it's not relevant enough, just like the Pokemon page isn't, and similar could be said for Poke Ball Pokemon. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:36, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::The main difference here is ''Nintendo Land'' is a collection of disconnected minigames, while ''Smash'' mixes everything together cohesively; it's ''much'' harder to pick it apart for only certain aspects, ''especially'' when we already cover four of the franchises included (''Super Mario'', ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'') plus some of what they list as "miscellaneous" games (''Famicom Grand Prix'', ''Wrecking Crew''). Either way, the point I am making is the ''game page'' should have full coverage as to its contents regardless of what we have on-wiki pages for, because that's leaving holes - which as I already stated, are far more egregious than what ''Nintendo Land'' has due to the differences in cohesion. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::Why does WiKirby focus on only the ''Kirby'' aspects? Why does Zelda Wiki focus on only the ''Zelda'' aspects? Why does Bulbapedia focus only on the ''Pokemon'' aspects? One could ask the same about this wiki and aspects of ''Super Mario'', for which there's already added lenience from the list pages and additional sections. ''Smash'' could not be a pun on ''Super Mario Bros.'' and still mix everything together, and the argument would still hold up that it's just as relevant to ''Super Mario'' as it is to the other franchises represented, but may incline further consideration of what stays and what goes. Picking apart the Poke Ball Pokemon section will not do a disservice to the wiki's already comprehensive and extended lenience towards coverage on these games at all. Limiting the items and stages would arguably provide less context, but this is an entire grouping of something that does not invoke ''Super Mario'' in any form. That's why I made a proposal about this. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:51, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::What other wikis do does not affect us. Either way, the current SSB page is easily something they could also do if they so felt to. But no other wiki has to juggle four franchises included in this crossover - at that point, just having it all is more efficient. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:57, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::Four franchises? They're representations of games that other ''Super Mario'' characters are protagonists of. They're ''Super Mario'' characters. A definition of four franchises would be ''Super Mario'', ''Kirby'', ''Star Fox'', and ''The Legend of Zelda'', to give an example. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::[[Super Mario (franchise)|We treat]] [[Donkey Kong (franchise)|them as]] [[Yoshi (franchise)|separate]] [[Wario (franchise)|franchises]], and so does ''Smash''; they have different icons in each game, with the Mushroom, the DK, the Egg, and the W, and different sections for trophies/stickers/music tracks/etc. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:02, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::If they truly were separate franchises, why does it all need to be covered in one place, on this wiki? Shouldn't they have their own wikis then, like other Nintendo franchises? See, it doesn't work. They are part of the ''Super Mario'' branding. In any case, this is distracting from the fact that the proposal is about the relevance of Pokemon and the Poke Ball items. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:07, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It's demonstrating that you're rather out-of-touch with how this works both on an official and wiki basis, and I mean that as gently as possible. We actually used to have a DKwiki as an affiliate, they ended up merging here. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::The first sentence is an {{iw|wikipedia|ad hominem}} and not about differing opinions on coverage on Poke Ball Pokemon. To reiterate my point, it probably merged because it didn't work separately when the wiki here covers the games in full, but that's besides the point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:18, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::The point is ''Smash'' is very cohesive with how it mixes elements, so including full coverage on the game page when ''Mario'' and related already have a disproportionately large influence on it compared to ''most'' (not all, mind you) other things included in it in a wide variety of roles makes more sense than picking-and-choosing. The prior sentence was more a warning that your arguments aren't quite as infallible as you think they are. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:27, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::Yes, but I've yet to see one reason how keeping the information benefits the ''Super Mario'' franchise directly over covering an entire page about an existing crossover game. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:32, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Efficiency. This is a multi-layered bit of coverage here, and starting to remove stuff from that page is a slippery slope that could lead to outright crippling the page (and become inconsistent with characters and items that have crossed over otherwise, if and when it gets to that point). I'd rather avoid that issue entirely - and image galleries should have full coverage anyway just on principle of their existence. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:38, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::It won't necessarily get to that point if the community does not want it to. The definition of "efficiency" here is referring to the wiki page rather than connections to ''Super Mario''. The image galleries already have excessive amounts of non-''Super Mario'' images, something that could become a focus of a different proposal. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)


To illustrate what I mean by "bloat," here's the SSB item table with the proposed changes enacted (keeping the surrounding items for comparison):
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
{|class="wikitable sortable"style="width:100%"
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
!width=12%|Image
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
!width=12%|Name
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)
!width=12%|Series
!width=64%|Description
|-
|[[File:SSBbumper.jpg|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Bumper|Bumper]]
|''Super Smash Bros.'' series
|When thrown, this item remains in the same spot. If any character, including the user, touches it, they take damage, and are pushed in a single direction.
|-
|[[File:SSBfan.jpg|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Fan|Fan]]
|''Super Smash Bros.'' series
|Because it is light, this item is good for quick attacks. But it doesn't do much damage and can't be thrown very far.
|-
|[[File:Pokeball.gif|75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Poké Ball|Poké Ball]]
|''Pokémon'' series
|When thrown, the Poké Ball opens up, and a Pokémon pops out. The Pokémon that appears is random; it performs its special skill and leaves. The Pokémon that can appear are:
*Beedrill
*Blastoise
*Chansey
*Charizard
*Clefairy
*Goldeen
*Hitmonlee
*Koffing
*Meowth
*Mew
*Onix
*Snorlax
*Starmie
|-
|[[File:SSBstarrod.jpg|75x75px]]
|[[smashwiki:Star Rod|Star Rod]]
|''Kirby'' series
|When the Star Rod is used, stars come flying out of it, hitting other characters. If used with smash, a large star flies out. The Star Rod has only a limited amount of large stars it can shoot.
|
|}
See how the vertical space for that one specific row is severely extended compared to the ones around it by making that a list within the table? Later games would have even more, and THEN starting with ''Brawl'', there's the Assist Trophies as well, and the only way to be consistent with those identically-acting items would be to have ones for that too. And then there's the Master Balls, which would need to have a redundant list for the subset that they're able to spawn.  [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I never said I wanted it as a bullet list (perhaps unless {{tem|columns}} is used). Separating by comma would be more efficient. Assist Trophies are items with franchise variety (also subject to separate discussion), unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, only concerning one franchise, are COMPONENTS of an item. It's not redundant if a Master Ball can list that it functions like a Poke Ball but gives priority to legendary Pokemon.
:{{@|Koopa con Carne}} Thank you for input. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:24, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::Then it's not a well-formatted (or general wiki-formatted) list because it's harder to tell where the separation between items is; that is the precise reason we have bulleted lists rather than comma'd lists in the first place. Also, only keeping the Assist Trophy tables just because some of them are ''Mario''-based isn't the solution either, because that's saying that Gray Fox or Jeff Andonuts in ''Brawl'' deserve more coverage than Charizard in ''Melee''. And that seems rather arbitrary to me - again to say nothing of non-''Mario'' Assist Trophies that have otherwise crossed over with Mario, like Shadow or Mr. Resetti or Dr. Wily. Also on the subject of Master Ball, we would still need to make clear ''which'' counted as "legendary" or otherwise we're leaving people to look through each Bulbapedia link themselves one-at-a-time. Which shouldn't be needed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:28, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::First, I meant like this (or comma-separated):
{{columns|count=2|
*Beedrill
*Blastoise
*Chansey
*Charizard
*Clefairy
*Goldeen
*Hitmonlee
*Koffing
*Meowth
*Mew
*Onix
*Snorlax
*Starmie}}


:::Except that's not as arbitrary based on the fact that Assist Trophies have ''Super Mario'' representation mixed in, unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, which have none at all. All relevance to ''Super Mario'' (even if considering it's a stretch) is saying "A ''Super Mario'' fighter can use this item and cause one of these Pokemon to appear from it." That's sufficient enough; anything else is bloat that can be found elsewhere in more detail in any case. The Charizard argument not hold up because he's a playable fighter in later Super Smash Bros. games, overshadowing his status as just a Poke Ball Pokemon, while Assist Trophies (again, subject to separate discussion) are part of a set that happens to have a few ''Super Mario'' characters within. Should the lists be simplified, his fighter profile can be linked to on the ''Super Smash Bros. Melee''. And if the List of SSB items page is linked to, that may not necessarily be the case. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 13:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
::::You're missing the point. Assist Trophies that have no other relevance to ''Mario'' should not have any more priority than any of the Pokémon just because some of the ''other'' Assist Trophies are ''Mario''-based, because functionally, they're the same item-by-function, just with a different pool of summons. Doing so is, indeed, quite arbitrary. (Also, on my screen at least, that columns thing manages to be even more bloated by bloating in ''two'' dimensions rather than just one.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:41, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::Basically, the game pages should not be ''Mario''-focused, they should be game-focused. For example, Jigglypuff does not need a ''page'' on the Super Mario Wiki, but the ''Super Smash Bros.'' page ''does'' need a section for Jigglypuff in the character list. This goes for every other element of the game too (including the Ball'mons and Assist Trophies in later ones), regardless of where they link, whether on-site or off-site. Outright not listing them isn't "only covering relevant things," it's hiding the fact they are there in the first place, which is a disservice in every respect. We should say what the game has, ''not'' limit it to what originated in a ''Mario''-allied game, because that's not the extent of what the game contains. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::It's a wiki on ''Super Mario''. It can balance both game-focused and ''Super Mario'' focused, which is a lot more thoughtful consideration than just "I don't know what stays what goes, let's cover it all." In that case we may as well merge SmashWiki into this wiki, something that I'm sure nobody wants. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Except that's not even remotely what I'm saying to do. I'm saying to include links off-site and just have listings, images, and descriptions for everything, not have pages for everything (and ''definitely'' not Smashwiki's overly-technical "this character's standard punch got buffed 3 points of damage since the last game, but their walking speed was nerfed by 2 points" thing that overruns that site). Just because an "affiliated" wiki covers something does not mean we are not ''allowed'' to cover it as well, that would be silly. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::Your second point basically shows that you take issue with SmashWiki, being why you want a lot of ''Smash Bros.'' content to stay here. Didn't you vote to want Smash Bros. content to have their own pages in earlier Smash Bros. proposals? So if I had to guess, this is trying to haphazardly justify the inclusion of something that is not ''Super Mario'' while at the same defend the content not having individual pages based on outcomes of earlier proposals that you presumably opposed? It's inconsistent, so the entire argument is built on "keep everything because it's arbitrary to decide what isn't ''Super Mario''" when it's clear as day that Poke Ball Pokemon are not ''Super Mario''. And of course that's silly, since both us and them both cover the ''Super Mario'' aspects of ''Smash Bros.'' because of the overlap. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:13, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::I see now you are doing the {{wp|ad hominem}} now, but either way I am allowed to think Smashwiki does things poorly, but that is not the main reason I want the game pages to cover what they do - I have already explained why I want them to. And yes, ''7 years ago'' I did vote to keep full coverage, but I'm past that now. You have no reason to bring that up now; I might as well bring up how you, less than a year ago, [https://www.mariowiki.com/Virtual_Boy?action=history attempted to forcibly remove content from console pages because it didn't directly relate to Mario], despite no one else agreeing with you to do that. I have already stated that ''currently'', I don't think everything should have a page, but its existence should be ''acknowledged'' - and yes, with a visual representation. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::And I have explained why I think it's redundant to have the Poke Ball Pokemon lists, countless times. I thought I responded directly to the points you were making? I assumed you took issue with SmashWiki being the reason for your defense, to which you responded that it isn't. The Virtual Boy example probably shows why proposals exist, so that such things are discussed before the big changes are enacted. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::In general, I am very anti-deletion because I want to keep history intact (and if possible, curated). That's why I prefer pages being turned into redirects rather than deleted outright. Turning images into redlinks on page history is directly counter to that, particularly when they aren't replaced with new ones. I find such practices destructive. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:33, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::Well, removals have happened before. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::They have. And from my perspective, if it even had a reason to be somewhere, it should be curated in some manner - this obviously doesn't count things like what's listed on the "non-Mario content" section of BJaoDN, because most of that is nonsense that doesn't even have a tenuous connection, but there is a connection here. That's hardly a novel perspective either, given that "Flashpoint" thing that was made for curating Adobe Flash-based games. While I try to keep good faith, my gut feeling on that sort of permanent, unviewable removal equates it to wanton destruction. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:00, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::If the info is unique and can't be found elsewhere, that's one thing, but no real loss is done if it's a duplication of something that can be read elsewhere. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::That's just it; it's not a "duplicate" because our coverage styles are just totally different because we are a very different community, and it's wrong to put upon another wiki like that. I guess the main reason ''Mario'' covering ''Smash'' is more valid than the other series included is that ''Mario'' is already very much multi-genre. ''Pokemon'', ''Kirby'', ''Zelda'', et al. usually keep to their core genre with very rare outliers (like an occasional pinball game or something), so their wikis tend to not have systems in place to cover that sort of thing. Of the franchises that have been represented in every ''Smash'' game since the first one, ''Mario'' has always had the most representation due to also covering those other franchises as mentioned before; in the first game, there are four ''Mario''-based fighters (Mario, Yoshi, DK, Luigi), five stages (Peach's Castle, Yoshi's Island, Congo Jungle, Mushroom Kingdom, and Meta Crystal), numerous stage gimmicks and cameos for each of those (Lakitu, Fly Guy, Goonie, Super Happy Tree, Necky, Barrel Cannon, Piranha Plant, Buzzy Beetle, Koopa Troopa, POW Block, Brick Block, and more), six usable items (Fire Flower, Star, both Shells, Hammer, Bob-omb), and one of Master Hand's attacks (Bullet Bill). ''Zelda'' gets one fighter, one stage, and one item, ''Kirby'' gets one fighter, one stage, three stage elements, and two items, ''Pokemon'' gets two fighters, one stage, several stage elements, and one item with all the appearances it spawns, ''Metroid'' gets one fighter, one stage, and one stage cameo, ''Star Fox'' gets one fighter, one stage, and a few stage elements, ''Earthbound'' gets one character and ambiguously one item depending on how you treat the Home Run Bat, and ''F-Zero'' gets a single fighter. Of these, the only one that ''approaches'' the ''Mario'' representation in amount is ''Pokemon'', and it's mostly focused on the very subject of this proposal. That is why ''Mario'' will inherently get more coverage on this, and why by that point it makes the most sense to include the rest on the game page. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:21, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::If we're going by the fact that it's not a duplication from what can be found elsewhere, it should probably present itself differently, especially by virtue of ''Super Mario''. ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong'' are not real franchises, and even if they are called franchises, they're more of collective terms referring to their starring roles in ''Super Mario'' games, regardless of distinct symbols or not (after all, ''Wrecking Crew'', starring Mario, has distinct symbol in later ''Smash Bros.'' games). And by the terms of majority representation, again, I'd expect it to apply to groupings that have at least something to do with ''Super Mario''. "Might as well cover it all" has no bearing on the fact that one grouping in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games does not have any ''Super Mario'' elements. Even groupings with ''Super Mario'' elements have been trimmed off of game pages, like how Trophy Tussle was deleted, the non-''Super Mario'' Challenges, and the trophy lists, the latter not being listed on the game pages at all. On a separate, unrelated argument, I could deem trophies, something original to ''Smash'', as being more intrinsic than the Poke Ball Pokemon. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:31, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::In each of those cases the images were still kept, though, as they should be. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Game & Watch images were deleted before for lack of relevance to ''Super Mario'', I think, in response to the outcome of a proposal restricting coverage to only ''Game & Watch Gallery'' games (with Modern remakes) and ''Super Mario''-themed variations (such as ''Ball'' in SMB Game & Watch). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:42, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Those aren't Smash Trophies or Trophy Tussle, which is what was being referred to. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::Also, yes, those are franchises, Nintendo markets them as such - the very definition of a franchise. May I remind you the original game wasn't ''Mario'', it was ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:32, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::Then from that perspective, should we start a proposal to rename this wiki to "Donkey Kong Wiki", then? I thought you told me they merged into this wiki. Something isn't adding up if we're calling them separate franchises but not covering them on separate wikis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::Why in the world would being a separately marketed franchise ''automatically require'' a different wiki, and vice-versa? That logic doesn't add up. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::For the reason why different Nintendo franchises have their own wikis. For the reason why we have Bulbapedia for Pokemon information and not the Super Mario Wiki for Pokemon information. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::::That is a very one-way approach to how this works. Nintendo doesn't have so many franchises that constantly intermingle like these ones do, but if you look at other ones, you see more of that. For instance, the ''Street Fighter'' wiki covers ''Final Fight'' just fine, because there's such significant overlap. It's not about matching the divisions, it's about doing what is the most efficient for that specific case, which is ''the entire thing I have been arguing in favor of this entire discussion''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::::The "intermingling" in this case refers to the fact that these are all ''Super Mario'' characters, unlike Link and Isabelle, even though they appear in ''Mario Kart 8''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:27, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


{{@|Super Mario RPG}} Can I just say, the proposal as it's being presented right now seems a bit misleading. The title makes it sound like you're just removing images, when your edit suggests that you're also removing the Pokemon tables in all of the ''Smash Bros.'' game articles. You should probably change the title to match that. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 13:48, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
==Removals==
:Sure. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:01, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
''None at the moment.''
 
{{@|Super Mario RPG}} I am not personally very invested in Pokémon material on the wiki, so I am abstaining for now, but if people want to represent these games on Super Mario Wiki, is there much intrinsic harm in that? I can see the benefit in having access to different sources that cover material in different ways. Otherwise we would probably need to discard all of our ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' material because that is the sole focus of our NIWA-affiliate {{iw|Ukikipedia|Main Page|Ukikipedia}}. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:05, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:I've had lots of discussion above that's probably given most points behind my argument. In one of the later messages I noted how ''Super Mario'' material in Smash Bros. is covered both here and on SmashWiki for obvious reasons, but that's because it falls under a key part of both wiki's scope. And I don't even need to say why we have a ''Super Mario 64'' on this wiki. This proposal isn't looking to completely axe any and all forms of mentioning Pokemon, but do consider how the Pokemon article was removed from unanimous consent and my point behind the grouping of Poke Ball Pokemon being 100% Pokemon and not a variety of franchise representations, like more key components of the Smash series like stages, items, and fighters. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Hewer}} There's probably a lot of ''Smash'' coverage discrepancies due to several proposals in the past, some succeeding and some not. If there's other ''Smash Bros.'' groupings without any ''Super Mario'' involvement, like non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards, which are a component of a stage, those should absolutely become the focus of a separate proposal. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:OK, but why should Venusaur be removed from the Stage Hazard list but Whispy Woods is perfectly fine (to say nothing about all the ones in later games)? It doesn't make sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::This proposal is about limiting excessive Pokemon information relating to ''Smash Bros.'' Since this proposal already covers a lot, it may make sense to run a separate concurrent proposal to remove all non-''Super Mario'' stage hazard components. The deletion of the Pokemon article in particular has set a precedent to removing excessive Pokemon coverage, and should this pass, the precedent (in a separate proposal) would be to discuss the removal of other non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards. This proposal was originally just about the Poke Ball Pokemon, but Koopa con Carne's support vote made me realize it could apply to the Saffron City hazards too. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'm going to be blunt - the current state of the Smash 64 page is how all our ''Smash'' pages should be. No more, no less. Linking to other wikis as necessary, but acknowledging the existence of what else is there in a consistent manner. ''That'' is what should be proposed. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::So in other words, deleting the non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards doesn't have a precedent yet. One could make a proposal about taking out all of the stage hazard lists, and someone could point out the inconsistency of keeping that out while keeping Poke Ball Pokemon lists. One thing at a time. It's not easy to cover all of the loose ends under a single proposal. If this passes and another proposal for deleting non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards is made, perhaps unique input would be given. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I just cannot understand why you think removing good information makes things "better." Its origin is irrelevant when it's on the page for a crossover title, not a page for those individual subjects. It's better the way it is now, the only thing that needs changed is those ridiculous series-wide "list" pages (and enemy list pages) need to be merged into the game pages. ''That'' is where the focus should be. Not on trying to "fix" what isn't broken. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::::For the reason that me and the others supporting the proposal see it as lacking relation to ''Super Mario''. Anyways, I've added another voting option to remove Poke Ball Pokemon in consideration (but not exclusively to) those who want a single future proposal that concerns non-''Super Mario'' stage hazards outright. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


*[[Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
====Support====
*[[Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
*[[Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
*[[Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the ''[[Mario is Missing!]]'' disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "''Mario is Missing!'', the '''NES''' game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("''Mario is Missing!'' ('''Nintendo Entertainment System''')").
====Oppose====
 
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
 
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (NES)}}
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (SNES)}}
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (NES)}}
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (SNES)}}
 
Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "[[Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)]]", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "{{fake link|Building World (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)}}" for consistency?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support (SNES)====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third ''Donkey Kong Country'' games.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario shroom}} too long, agree.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Let's simplify the names.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.</strike>
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.


====Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)====
====Comments====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see much of a problem with [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens|long names]], and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for 3DS)" got moved to "[[Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)|Beach Volleyball (''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' for Nintendo 3DS)]]".
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of ''every'' game--not just one random edutainment game.
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all.
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


====Comments (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)====
@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.<br>@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|way more work]] that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.<br>@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)
now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the [[LodgeNet]] article: "for the [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|SNES]], [[Nintendo 64]], and [[Nintendo GameCube]]"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
:::I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Hewer}} Okay, [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens]]' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::...Not to burst your bubble, but [[Talk:The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens#Move to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before it Happens (take two)|we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name ''last month'']]. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually ''never actually used like that in the episode''. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT)


Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT)
===Introducing the crossover article===
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


===Allow more "History of" articles under two more conditions===
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
This may be a small thing, but unlike the quotes, profiles, and even galleries, there is more restriction on which articles get to be split off into a History page. Please take note that proposal is not about amending the minimum number of bytes needed (150K) to split the History section of an article into its own page. It's about allowing more "History of" pages. The 150K guidelines already does not apply to splitting galleries, profiles, and quotes from the base article.


Should this proposal pass, more History pages would be allowed under the condition of the article either having a General information section with '''at least two subsections''' or the condition if there is a single section '''with a wikitable'''. This way, if a split were to occur, there's at least more information besides what is contained in the opening section. [[Luigi]], [[Yoshi]], [[Wario]], [[Princess Peach]], and other subjects with history pages all have something in common where their pages have well established General information sections, providing enough context about them, while the History page would serve as a comprehensive read on their individual appearances, which can be summarized on the main article. To me, it feels inconsistent that [[Wario]] and [[Bowser]] have their History pages split but not their respective partners, [[Waluigi]] and [[Bowser Jr.]], both of whom are recurring.
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.


The reason I want to give exception if the section has a wikitable is because of the [[Barrel]] page, where the barrels section is tucked all the way at the bottom, below a long History section, so it cannot be seen immediately by readers, many of whom may not see the section otherwise.
[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.


If the article has been featured in the past (e.g. [[Chain Chomp]]), a different proposal would be required before splitting it, or some other democratic matter decided upon by the community (e.g. adding a talk template and overhauling the page in accordance to community input on the talk page).
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
I offer three options:
'''Deadline''': August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


====Support====
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.


====Oppose====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
#{{User|Hewer}} These seem like very random metrics compared to the logical one of [[MarioWiki:Article size|article size]], especially since they're based on other sections of the article rather than the actual history section that's being split. History sections are split so that articles stay at reasonable sizes with reasonable loading times, not to aid presentation of the rest of the article.  (Honestly I'd rather do ''less'' splitting of history sections since it scatters information a bit, but I understand it's a practicality issue to have such huge pages worsening loading times.) If someone who wants information on the subject doesn't look at the whole of the subject's article, that's not our problem - the information on a merged page is still conveyed well, and the "issue" of having to do some scrolling to find certain sections is solved by the contents list at the top of the article that lists the sections.
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} I'd honestly rather merge a lot of the split history pages back.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per Nightwicked Bowser.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} These split history pages are longer than Waluigi's entire page. Waluigi doesn't need to split when his page isn't long enough.
#{{User|TheUndescribableGhost}} Firstly, Bowser Jr. ''does'' have his own [[History of Bowser Jr.|history page]] and secondly, I still think those pages are pretty easy to scroll through and find the information you want. This is actually the first time I learned that the article size has risen from 100kb, to 150kb, but regardless, that length makes much sense, because the articles could go on like novels at that point and the reasons for splitting articles is to make the pages load less. I'm all for more articles having their history pages split, but this is not the correct way to do it.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
I'm a bit confused, what exactly is this proposal trying to change? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:49, August 16, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
:I'll give an example of what's allowed if this proposal passes. For the first condition, [[Waluigi]] article has at least two sections under General information. With that, the <nowiki>==History==</nowiki> section of Waluigi's article can be split into {{fake link|History of Waluigi}}. For the second condition, the [[Barrel]] page would split into {{fake link|History of barrels}} so that the "[[Barrel#Types of barrels|Types of barrels]]" (which qualifies as a subsection of "General information") is more accessible to the reader for its comprehensive wikitable. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:56, August 16, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


===Require citations for names in other languages===
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
Recently, the issue of confirming names in other languages has been discussed on the wiki's Discord server. Put simply, there is a high likelihood that many of these names are fake or otherwise inaccurate, and as an English wiki, the majority of the userbase is unable to independently verify the accuracy of these names. As such, I believe it should be made mandatory for every name listed in the names in other languages sections to have a citation attached to it. Yes, this will be very, VERY difficult to do considering the sheer number of pages that will need to be gone through, but I think it is better to address this problem now rather than later. More and more games and media will release the longer we wait, only adding more to the workload.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice.


Note that for these citations, using text / quotes is just as valid as including a link or image. Unsourced names will also not be removed, but rather have the [citation needed] notice added.
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====


'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
====Crossover comments====
'''Deadline''': August 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)


====Support====
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Technetium}} As proposer. This would prevent fake names from being added. Even if a citation is not found, this proposal would let readers know to take foreign names with a grain of salt via the [citation needed] notice.
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal. Misinformation is easy to get into a record and hard to remove. Best we avoid creating [https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-a-raccoon-became-an-aardvark Brazilian aardvarks].
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Strongly agree.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. I think the opposition is overlooking that a lot of false foreign names slip through because misguided editors try to machine translate. Without proper sourcing, it's very difficult to catch when they're added and how many of them are already on the wiki. It's just not feasible to expect readers to boot up a foreign copy because they're not that accessible - correct me if I'm wrong but I think the Switch is the first console where you can pick any translation across the board? If anything, maybe we could make an exception for names that have been verified in ''easily accessible'' translations. Also, if someone does verify it for themselves, how is anyone else supposed to know a name has been verified? Yes, solving this is going to be a lot of work, but it's already a problem and it's a problem that's only going to get worse the longer we do nothing about it.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Drake Inferno}} Essentially agree with all other points here, but I also feel that a citation could probably in most cases outside of rare versions (which would be case-by-case) just be "where this comes from", rather than a fully formatted video/image/text citation. If a person Google Translates a name and adds it, that's one thing. But if the same person does that and then actually claims it came from the text of the game, that's actively lying, and also a bit of a barrier to entry encouraging people to do the work of verifying their info.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. We're a wiki; we should be striving to have accurate information, and just because it's a lot of effort doesn't mean it's "bad" or not worth it. And, as Waluigi Time points out, if we don't do something about this now, it's only going to become an even larger problem in the future. Just because the best time to start obtaining proper citations for foreign names was years ago doesn't mean it's not worth it to start now--there isn't a time limit on this!
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Waluigi Time, Drake Inferno and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Mario}} There's a lot of times I wonder where the sourced names come from, and often times, foreign names are useful bits of information to rely on especially when there's shaky North American localization involved, such as [[Pale Piranha]]'s case. A while back, there was a huge discussion in [[Talk:Mushroom World]] related to how we cover the scope of the article, and "Planeta de los Hongos" and "Kinoko no Sekai" were brought up a couple times as if they were legitimate, which added to the confusion. I queried there if there's a source for "Planeta de los Hongos" and we did get an answer and had those names removed. This proposal will help clear up and hopefully prevent future confusion in some of these discussions. It's also in the proposal's favor that we did find a lot of backward translated names in the same scope as "Planeta de los Hongos". I assume some names are relatively self evident, such as generic objects (banana) or Red Shell or Metal Mario, so they don't require a citation but there are plenty of enemy names where it's much better safe than sorry to indicate where these names were found.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} I feel like this is a ''tiny'' bit excessive, but it will help with preventing fake names from being put on the wiki, especially with foreign ones that are not Japanese (because Japanese names are relatively well-known for Mario characters, I think).
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Oppose====
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per my comments below.
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Jdtendo, this feels excessive.
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{user|Apikachu68}} Per my comments below. I don't think pages should be inundated with citations.
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Holding English and foreign in-game names to different standards will lead to more issues than that solves; if the source comes from something rare like an iQue translation, then citation makes perfect sense, but for the most part, this is trivial to retrieve nowadays provided you have a nearby save file due to the rise of region-free system languages.
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} I understand the viewpoint of the proposal, but I believe its application would be way too broad and would surely result in a sizeable amount of redundance. On the one hand, yes, a lot of non-English names either originate from volatile sources (see [[List of LEGO Super Mario set names in other languages (A–C)]], which cites product pages on LEGO.com) or obscure sources (see the myriad of references to licensed guides) and require some explicit context to justify their place here. Even names that are used directly in a game may need citing if they're obtainable in incredibly specific scenarios within that game, such as the names of [[Bath Bomb|these]] [[Toy Duck|background]] [[Hoop|objects]] that appear only 2 weeks a year in a live service game, or information deriving from those iQue translations mentioned by LinkTheLefty. On the other hand, Jdtendo raises a good point that often a source is so ubiquitous that it can just as easily be deduced from reading the article. Normally, I don't think Mario, Peach, or Bowser, or even less popular subjects such as [[Parry (character)|Parry]], [[The InterNed]], and [[Ratfael]], require such citations, simply because their non-English names are obtainable in much the same way as their English counterparts--by following their respective games with a minimum to moderate amount of attention, the only difference being that you'd need to switch the game to another language setting or, at worst, seek a different localization for it. A case-by-case treatment is in order, but I disagree with turning this treatment into a sitewide requirement.
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Arend}} I get the concern, but most of the other-language names come from the same in-game source as the English one. Sure, sometimes you get mistakes like [[Special:Diff/4227139|someone assuming the Dutch name for "Crystal Star" is "Juweelster" like how the Crystal Stars are being called the "Juweelsterren"]] without realizing that the name "[[Crystal Stars]]" is more of an outlier compared to the other languages or that the game will tell with any of them the same "You Got a Crystal Star" message when collecting them and that their actual name is in the Crystal Stars submenu, but this should be verifiable for ''anyone'' who has a copy of the Switch version of ''The Thousand-Year Door'' considering any copy can be played in ''all of the available languages''. That [[Special:Diff/4273784|only another Dutch person such as myself cares enough to correct that mistake]] is not because of a lack of verifiable sources, but more of a lack of ''care of the wiki itself'' to verify it for themselves. Like Koopa con Carne said, this is more of a case-by-case basis rather than something that should be applied for literally every multilingual name documented on the wiki. Not only will it be such a hassle to not only add a "citation needed" tag to literally any non-English name that doesn't already have a source (or worse, ''removing them entirely'' which doesn't help the wiki in the slightest), but also scour through every other-lingual copy of every single Mario game and/or manual, take a screenshot or photo (good luck if you don't have a capture card or photo scanner) and upload it all to the wiki ''just'' to verify that yes, this name is legit – ''especially'' if it's not even necessary for the English names to go through all of that too, which is just a bit unfair IMO.
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|YoYo}} per arend
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|DandelionSprout}} As someone who've added quite a lot of language names for pages related to ''[[Princess Peach: Showtime!]]'' and some WarioWare games (e.g. Gold, Touched!, Mega), I must unfortunately say that it'd be nothing short of absolutely ridiculous to implement such a policy. For PPS, uploading 10-ish screenshots for each of approximately 65 pages would be unnecessary use of server hosting space (I am ''not'' going to upload '''650''' images just for the sake of PPS levels and characters!). And for Switch games in particular, it is pretty easy to check if names are accurate, now that many games do have their JP and Korean versions integrated into the Western game releases. The European versions of most DS and 3DS games can also crosscheck all Western languages' names.
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I also work with foreign names myself, a lot -- a lot of the time I datamine them directly from the game, these are in-game names that are easy to rip. But requiring a ton of screenshots or digging through videos to hope you find one that displays the text is a huge waste of time. You can't really assume every necessary thing will be there: for example, I've only been able to find one [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIk5tHikH8Iorl1xNr6cCFdQgtaCBnNtV Dutch let's play] of ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'', and it doesn't show things like the soundtrack titles, not to mention it wasn't uploaded until two years after the game came out. It was also incredibly difficult to find a Portuguese playthrough. And for foreign playthroughs of more obscure games or ones with less coverage, it'd be even more time-consuming.
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]''). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


====Comments====
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
[[Goomther]]'s Italian name is ''Goombolone''. Source: that's his name in the Italian version of [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door|the game]]. [[Chef Soulfflé]]'s Dutch name is ''Kok Eauvain''. Source: that's his name in the Dutch version of [[Luigi's Mansion 3|the game]]. [[List of implied characters#Destiny Del Vecchio|Destiny Del Vecchio]]'s European French name is ''Allison Ledestin''. Source: that's her name in the European French version of [[The Super Mario Bros. Movie|the movie]]. In the above cases where the name is found in only one piece of media, the source would be completely redundant because it's evident that the source is the localized version of the game or movie where the character appears; that's for the same reason that we don't require citations for English names in those situations. I feel that the scope of this proposal is way too broad and should be focused on subjects for which the source is not evident. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:52, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)
:The thing is that since the majority of the wiki's userbase is English speaking, we don't have easy access to those pieces of media to double check. That's why I think having a link to say, a video showcasing the name from the piece of media is preferable, vs say the English version where users can more easily check for themselves. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 13:05, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
::Alright. How do I prove that Destiny Del Vecchio's European French name is ''Allison Ledestin''? Do I need to upload a clip of the movie (and hope that it does not get copyright-claimed)? Say that I intend to add the French names of all characters in the upcoming ''Mario & Luigi'' game. Will I need to find a Let's Play that showcases every character (even the optional characters that most let's players won't even encounter) or make a screenshot for every single character, upload them, and painstakingly link each character name to the right screenshot? What about [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Celebration_Shot&diff=4319761&oldid=4312279 names added in batches] from the internal game files? Shall we still provide a source for all of those? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:33, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
:::You bring up good points that I lack good answers to. I am fully aware of how much of a pain this proposal would be, but I can't think of any better options to prevent misinformation. I will say that as I mentioned below, existing names would not be deleted, but would simply have [citation needed] added. It is possible these citations will never be added, but I feel readers deserve to know that while the name they are seeing could very well be accurate, it is not 100% confirmed, so they should take it with a grain of salt. As for names in internal files, see my response to the comment below (assuming you are talking about the same sort of thing). [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 14:07, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
:::{{@|Jdtendo}} I would say, yes, absolutely. If you are adding a name of unclear origins, it 100% should be cited. If one is adding a valid name to the wiki, it is coming from somewhere anyways and citing that source is not an unreasonable expectation. If it is coming from a particular release of the game, then I think it is fine to cite the line of dialogue, scenario, or mission list like so: <code><nowiki><ref>"Not bad! I guess I chose the right guy to be my archenemy." – Bowser during "Darkness on the Horizon" (12 Nov. 2007). Super Mario Galaxy by Nintendo EAD Tokyo (North American Localization). Nintendo of America. Retrieved 18 May 2023.</ref></nowiki></code> This is already encouraged [[MarioWiki:Citations|in policy]], which states:
:::<blockquote>For the most part, you don't need to provide a reference for basic information taken directly from the games... However, if information is more obscure and its validity may be questioned, citing specific text found in the game (i.e. dialogue in an RPG), its manual or some other official guide book will help maintain the wiki's credibility.</blockquote>
:::Surely, non-English names that are difficult for the largely English-speaking userbase to verify can be described as "obscure and of questionable validity", especially since many foreign names are unsourced and are integrated by IP-addresses. These are very difficult to verify for anyone who is not adding it, and I do not agree that it is an unreasonable ask. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:54, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
::::If Option 1 of this proposal passes, integration like my ''Super Mario Galaxy'' example above is intuitively what I anticipated for non-English names that really do have in-game usage. I personally do not think providing videos or images is necessary, and I think internal file names can comfortably be used as a reference (like so: <code><nowiki><ref>internal file names</ref></nowiki></code>). - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:19, August 18, 2024 (EDT)


Some of the ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'' pages were taken from the datamine (examples: [[ice fan]], [[Muddy Coin]]), because when the game's service was shut down, there really is no way to verify the different languages. And thus, I felt that the datamine has accurate information because it came directly from the game. How would those be sourced? (Also unrelated to this proposal, but I would like to add is that the translation sections for those terms are incomplete.) [[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) 12:57, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
:I definitely think names taken from datamines should count as being sourced, but I'm not sure how to mark that as I am worried it would give ill-meaning editors a way to put blatantly fake names in and claim that they're correct from a datamine. I also just don't know much about datamining and if it is possible at all to have citations for those, so I'd be glad to hear anyone else's opinions on the matter. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 14:07, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
{{early notice|March 17, 2025}}
::I'm someone who [[List of Yoshi's New Island Message Block hints|mines names from files]]. They are easily sourceable, you have to source the filepath for the text data you extracted it from ie "\message\EU_Russian\menu.msbt". {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:30, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


If this proposal passes, will unsourced foreign names be removed outright or will <sup>[citation needed]</sup> be added to them? - {{user|Apikachu68}} 1:23, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
:[Citation needed] would be added, I think. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 13:29, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.
::Alright, that is good to know. However, considering option 1 passes, 237 citations would need to be added to the [[List of Mario names in other languages]] page, and if the six citations already present are included, this would give the page a total of 243 citations, almost double the number of citations present on the [[List of Super Mario 64 glitches|List of ''Super Mario 64'' glitches]] page. (126) {{Unsigned|Apikachu68}}
::If I take an unqualified guess that 7,000 pages would be affected, with an average of 5 language names per page, it would make the wiki as a whole look strange at best, and very poorly worked on to outsider readers at worst, since possibly more than 30,000 "Citation needed" suffixes would've been added to the wiki. We'd almost overnight go from being a Super Mario franchise authority, to looking no more professional than random wikias. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 18:53, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
I dont think we ''need'' direct sources like videos or screenshots for every single name in a different language, but a simple "in-game" or "manual" tag would suffice, perhaps with a bit more specificity if its a particularly hard name to find in-game (i.e. "in-game, in Mushrise Park") or something like that. My main issue is that as it stands, made up names and names that are obviously real and found in-game are indistinguishable. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:25, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
:I can go and add something like that as another voting option, since it is still early enough for me to edit the proposal. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:30, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
::Not sure these need to be separate options, current sourcing already allows for just using text when appropriate (e.g. an in-game quote or an excerpt from a strategy guide - the latter could actually get us in trouble if we ''did'' require image citations). --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:14, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
:::Yeah, I just decided to remove Option 2, as I was already getting confused between the two yesterday, and I was not aware of quotes still using the same reference syntax at the time of adding Option 2. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 12:26, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
::::With the right game you can even go so far to source the file path of the file you can extract the name data from. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:30, August 19, 2024 (EDT)


@Waluigi Time: The "how is anyone else supposed to know a name has been verified" argument applies to English names too. Expecting readers to have access to every game covered on the wiki is unreasonable regardless of language. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:16, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
:The difference is this is an English wiki, so the majority of the readerbase is familiar with and has access to the English copy of the game. Even if you don't personally have a copy of a particular game, there's more users able to verify names and be able to catch something if there's an error. That's why I don't think the "we shouldn't treat English differently from other languages" argument holds water. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:41, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


I don't know if "it's difficult for an English userbase to confirm in-game foreign language names" is all that valid anyway, considering LPs exist on YouTube and similar sites for pretty much any language the games are actually released in anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:22, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
:That doesn't seem entirely reliable. Most LPs, in my experience, don't look at every piece of text in the game, so you have to track down a gameplay video, find the portion of the game you're looking for, and then hope they didn't skip over anything. Even in games that aren't text-heavy there's things like SM64 signs, Mario Party board events etc. that can easily be skipped over. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:41, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::For text hidden away ''that'' obscurely, we sometimes cite English ones as well, so it's still not all that different. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:43, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
::As an opposer, even I directly acknowledged that some in-game stuff is obscure enough that you'd need to state where it comes from. Do it case-by-case, otherwise you end up with Mario's Japanese name suddenly requiring a citation, which... yeah, lmao. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:43, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
:They don't. ''Trust me, they don't.'' A majority of ''Princess Peach: Showtime!'' languages do not have, and will pretty likely never have, full 100% LPs for them. Finding Simplified Chinese LPs for almost any game would also be a nightmare, since most people who use that writing style rely on Bilibili and similar sites, where things get deleted all the time.[[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 18:48, August 21, 2024 (EDT)


I apologize if this sounds dismissive or harsh, but the assertions that "this would take a lot of work to implement", "I think citations would clutter the page", and "readers can verify this on their own if they want" are not substantive and fail to address the core issues raised in the proposal. The ''Super Mario'' franchise is over forty years old, and the majority of the games lack in-game bestiaries or instruction booklets that catalog all of the subjects. So the majority of article subjects on our wiki were not introduced in a period of time where video game localization was carefully documented. Yet subjects spanning across decades of media have integrated names for a variety of languages and almost none of them are cited. For example, not a single non-English name for [[Octoomba]] is cited. Did these names come from the localized ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' scripts? Data-mined from ''Dr. Mario World''? The encyclopedia? Guidebooks? Made-up? I have no idea. Nearly every single enemy and character with a "Names in other languages" section has this same exact problem. [[Fire Piranha Plant]]. [[Cooligan]]. [[Buster Beetle]]. [[Bob-omb Buddy]]. [[Spinecone]]. [[Morty Mole]]. [[Gooble]]. [[Heave-Ho]]. Some of these subjects have ''some'' of their names sourced, but none of them have all of them, and this includes subjects that have appeared once in the franchise in a pre-Switch era. Where did these come from? Why is the information not provided? A reader 100% should not be burdened with going to ''another'' source like a Let's Play Channel to try verify this information, because that is what we are suppose to be doing - providing accurate information that can be trusted. Research, citation, and curation are difficult and time-consuming. But they are an inherent part of a credible encyclopedic project regardless of field or subject matter. If we should reject this proposal because we feel it would be too much of a burden on us, then why even have this wiki if we are unwilling to do the leg work necessary to make it trustworthy? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:58, August 19, 2024 (EDT)
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
:While not the worst argumentation I've heard, the only possible outcome of it for most pages would be to add <nowiki><ref name=in-game>In-game name</ref></nowiki> to sometimes more than 10 rows in the "Names in other languages" table. And (somewhat unfortunately) knowledge of using "name" in "ref" is considered very advanced stuff for newcomers to wiki editing. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 19:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
::I've been able to test a bit now how this proposal, specifically your (Nintendo101) and (if I understood him correctly, which I may or may not have) Waluigi Time's approach, and much less drastic than how I understood Technecium's concepts, and I have concluded that the proposal does make sense for character names specifically, e.g. [[Dancer]]. Though during the same testing, I found the proposal to be mostly unnecessary for the names of levels, minigames, and very likely microgames; the games usually have easily accessible level lists, and my guess is that it's pretty hard for someone to fake a made-up level name from thin air. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 19:51, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
 
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
Just to be clear, how would enforcing this work if the source is a translated game? Will it be how Zelda Wiki does it, including English names as well? For that I think it would be better to have a general note saying all names are taken from a game if no additional citations are used. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 09:49, August 20, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
:This. I feel like that would clear up some things so that the supporting side would have the machine-translation-deterring effect that they're wanting, without clogging the references section with repeated instances of "'Quote from a game.', (language) translation of (game), (release year)". [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 18:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea
#{{User|LadySophie17}} per all. That has always bothered me.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Very good to establish consistency.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. Finally consistency.


If a subject has appeared in many forms of media, for example, [[Mario]], how would the name be cited? - {{user|Apikachu68}} 10:42, August 20, 2024 (EDT)
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====
:It's not like we need a comprehensive list of every time the name is used — one use in an official capacity is enough to establish a name as official. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 01:23, August 21, 2024 (EDT)


@DandelionSprout @Scrooge200 The proposal says that screenshots/videos aren't required and a text citation is fine. Also, for Scrooge200's point specifically, the difficulty for most users to verify this information is exactly why we ''should'' be sourcing them on-site. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:07, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments (first topic heading)====
:What would a text citation even need to be? Like, in ''Color Splash'' and ''The Origami King'', an area's name shows up as soon as you walk into it -- why would we need to source obvious in-game text like that? {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 20:20, August 21, 2024 (EDT)
::It depends on the game and where the text even is, but just pulling an example we can recall off the top of our head, the English name for [[Yakuman DS]] just puts the text from Toadsworth's trophy in Brawl (the only English name for the game, yes, really) into a quote. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:22, August 21, 2024 (EDT)


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

Latest revision as of 14:16, March 11, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, March 11st, 18:16 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. The proposal is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
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)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

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

I have several pitches for you.

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

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
  2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

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

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

Option Four

Comments

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

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

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

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think slightly slanted text is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that is there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
  4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  5. Salmancer (talk) It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
  6. Hewer (talk) The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put Template:Italic title on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer
  8. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) sure, for consistencies sake
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer, then.
  10. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  11. wildgoosespeeder (talk) Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon [[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']], unless you mean to use {{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}, which does work on the category page.
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
  13. Arend (talk) I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced by the system to be displayed in italics when they're redirects (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were all displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.

Comments

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

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

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

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

@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.
@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take way more work that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.
@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

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

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

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

frog man!
green lad!

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

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

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

I offer three options:

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

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

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

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
  13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists
  14. Mario (talk) Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
  15. OmegaRuby (talk) The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
  16. Pseudo (talk) I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
  17. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.

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

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

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 17, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards). It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.

To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one. That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.

The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion. If this proposal passes, the aforementioned page would look like this.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) per all. That has always bothered me.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Very good to establish consistency.
  9. Nelsonic (talk) Per all.
  10. Rykitu (talk) Per all. Finally consistency.

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4778780"