MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article===
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].


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.
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.


More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
*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.  
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.


;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''.
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
;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.
I offer two options:


'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
'''Deadline''': August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#'''Don't do that.'''


====Option 1====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option 2====
====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
#{{User|Technetium}} Second choice.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.


====Option 3====
====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
#{{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|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
#{{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|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Do nothing====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>


====Comments====
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
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)
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.
: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)
 
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
 
I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)
 
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)


==New features==
==New features==
===Add the Thanks extension===
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
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.
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.


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.
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.


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.
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:
 
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
 
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|Mario shroom}} As a Wikipedia editor, I support.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{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====
====Oppose====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} No thank you.
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?


====Comments====
====Comments====
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)
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|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)
:{{@|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==
If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
===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===
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)
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.


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.
@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)


'''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.
==Removals==
===Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images===
This concerns [[:File:SMS Fire Gatekeeper.png|these two]] [[:File:SMS Green-Yellow Gatekeeper.png|image files]], which are as of present unused.


'''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.
The main argument is that not only are these two images taken using a hacked version of the game, but that they aren't actually even intended in the first place; while we don't know much about how ''Sunshine'' works under the hood, the leading theory is that the object for the [[Proto Piranha]] simply borrows  the texture of whatever [[Goop]] is currently loaded. Given the resulting Proto Piranha inherits no other attributes of the goop aside from visuals, this definitely tracks. In addition, attempts to add these to TCRF were removed [https://tcrf.net/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Sunshine/Unused_Objects&diff=785172&oldid=783712 not once], [https://tcrf.net/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Sunshine/Unused_Objects&diff=787388&oldid=787192 but twice]. Given these images have been languishing for a long while with no real use, it seems more-or-less fine to remove them to us.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Remove both Poké Ball and stage Pokémon lists====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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====
====Delete====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in [[Delfino Airstrip]] and both [[Bianco Square]] and [[Bianco Hills]]. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in ''[[Super Mario World]]'' its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
#{{User|Tails777}} I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. <small>They still look cool though.</small>.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} The only thing that really kept me from nuking these images outright is because of lack of info and I'm glad that's cleared up in this proposal. Kill these.
#{{User|Technetium}} Here Ray Trace, you can borrow my FLUDD. Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Wash 'em away!
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I'm inclined to claim that this ''is'' in fact unused content, just that it's not notable enough to warrant using images from a hacked version of the game. A small, text-based note in the article and using images from the unhacked vanilla game works fine.


====Remove nothing====
====Keep====
#[[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|Fun With Despair}} To be honest, I do think these images (or at least one of them) have value in something like the Trivia section, illustrating how the enemy is coded to appear as the type of goop present in the level - including goop not normally present alongside them. It's an interesting fact, and I think rather than being labeled unused content, both that fact and one of these images would make a fun Trivia addition.
#{{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 (delete alternative proto piranha images)====
{{@|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)
i can see a case for keeping them around to illustrate how proto piranha's goo change isn't hardcoded, but i agree with the idea that a video might be better. i'll abstain for now. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 09:57, January 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):
===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
{|class="wikitable sortable"style="width:100%"
{{early notice|January 16}}
!width=12%|Image
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].
!width=12%|Name
!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)
Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.
::::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)
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'd say it's moreso the frequency of said intermingling and that in most cases they seem to inhabit the same world; ''Zelda'' and ''Animal Crossing'' only get occasional appearances. Anyway, fun fact: the wiki in the ancient days used to have a page listing everything from the ''Banjo-Kazooie'' games and ''Conker'' games because said characters made their first by-release-date appearance in ''Diddy Kong Racing''. That deletion was justified (though I'll admit its presence was the only reason I found ''Banjo-Kazooie'' again when I did after I briefly played it at a cousin's house when I was a toddler). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:52, 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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
:Sure. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:01, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


{{@|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)
====Delete (party's over!)====
: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)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.
#{{User|Drago}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of ''"Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100"'' and re-redirected the MP12 ones from ''Superstars'' to ''Jamboree'', already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


{{@|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)
====Keep (party on!)====
: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)


I know folks here care a lot about how we cover content pertaining to the ''Super Mario'' franchise. That is appreciated passion, but a lot of the discussion here has devolved into uncharitable accusations at one another, which both weakens one's points and, more importantly, is just unkind. I encourage folks to maintain {{wp|good faith}}. Even if one has trepidations about the long-term consequences of this specific proposal if it passes, there was absolutely no harm in raising it. What we have here are dueling perspectives on what type of coverage is extraneous and what is within our scope, and that is not as huge a deal as it is being made out to be. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 22:09, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
====Comments (idle party chat)====
:If you noticed I actually mentioned that very thing (ctrl+f "good faith" lol) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:35, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::Coincidentally, earlier, I wanted to say how the discussion felt as if they reached a point of spiraling in circles, or even derailed to off-topic, but was worried that statement would be deemed discourteous. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:37, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
:::Yeah no worries, we definitely have irreconcilable differences in how we view this. If you want to stop debating this directly, then I do too. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::::That's how I feel. It seems to have taken its course. With every response, we each felt compelled to respond. I think every position on each side has been exhausted, or stated on the comments above. There's people who took my side on this and others who took yours. Someone apparently read everything below in the comments as well before casting a vote. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 22:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)
::Doc von Schmeltwick: well. okey dokey, then. [[File:RosalinaPortraits3-MPSR.png]] {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:45, August 22, 2024 (EDT)


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"===
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?


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:
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.


*[[Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
*[[Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Mario is Missing!'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
*[[Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]
*[[Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)|''Wario's Woods'' (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)]]


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''')").
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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:
====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.


*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (NES)}}
====Blank Oppose====
*{{fake link|''Mario is Missing!'' (SNES)}}
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (NES)}}
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
*{{fake link|''Wario's Woods'' (SNES)}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
#{{User|Scrooge200}} A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give ''some'' reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.


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?
====Blank Comments====
I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:::My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
::::My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the  odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Mario}} I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
:In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
'''Deadline''': <s>August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)


====Support (SNES)====
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
#{{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|Mario shroom}} too long, agree.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Let's simplify the names.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.</strike>


====Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)====
{{@|Fun With Despair}} And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". <small>Which, imo, also should not be allowed.</small> [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{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)]]".
:{{@|Blinker}} If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 22:55, January 9, 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.
::I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfRosalina2007}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments (''Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters'' for SNES)====
===Organize "List of implied" articles===
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)
{{early notice|January 12}}
: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)
Here's one of those "two related proposals in one with a YY-YN-NY-NN support scheme" proposals, concerning the following articles:
::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)
*[[List of implied characters]]
*[[List of implied entertainment]]
*[[List of implied events]]
*[[List of implied items]]
*[[List of implied locations]]
*[[List of implied organizations]]
*[[List of implied people]]
*[[List of implied species]]


===Allow more "History of" articles under two more conditions===
Right now, each of these is sorted purely alphabetically, with no regards for where or when they were implied to exist. The closest thing to an attempt at organization is Locations dividing between fictional and real locations, which also happens to expose a flaw with this particular article: nearly all the implied locations are there simply because they're mentioned on the [[Globulator]], with no other substance to their entry. All of these cities are already listed on the Globulator article anyways.
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.
There are other changes I'd like to propose for some particular articles, but for now, let's leave it at these two:


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.
*'''Reorganize''': Sort each article chronologically like your average History section, divided by series and then by game. This should help lump, say, all the Marvelous Compass locations in one place, or all the celebrities namedropped in the Super Show.
*'''Deglobulize''': Remove all real world locations from [[List of implied locations]] that are there exclusively because they're mentioned in the Globulator. This would exclude entries like Brazil, who have more to discuss than merely being acknowledged. I consider Locations the article on this list that needs the most trimming, so if this half of the proposal doesn't pass, I won't bother making follow-up articles for trimming the rest.


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).
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
====Both reorganize and deglobulize====
'''Deadline''': August 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} primary choice.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Seems reasonable. I never liked how confusing these pages are.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Hmm what's the Globulator? *checks page* Oh. Oh god. Yeah that's a per proposal if I've ever seen one.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Technetium.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} '''Yipe.''' We knew the Globulator was causing issues, but we didn't expect them to be... That. And, of course, re-orgnaizing the remainder is fine.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.


====Support====
====Only reorganize====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} secondary choice.


====Oppose====
====Only deglobulize====
#{{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.
#{{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====
====Do not reorganize nor deglobulize (do nothing)====
I'm a bit confused, what exactly is this proposal trying to change? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:49, August 16, 2024 (EDT)
: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)


===Require citations for names in other languages===
====List of implied comments====
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.
If deglobulize wins, I think a disclaimer should be added to the list of implied locations (either at the top of the article or the top of the "Real locations" section) explaining that the Globulator doesn't count. Also, if reorganize wins, does the location list keep its "''Super Mario'' franchise locations" and "Real locations" sections? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:05, January 5, 2025 (EST)
:that first one is a good idea, def should be implemented. i want to say yes for the second one, but i think it depends on what the article ends up looking like when reorganized. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 16:08, January 5, 2025 (EST)


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.
==Miscellaneous==
===Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections===
Last year, I successfully proposed that the [[The Super Mario Bros. Movie#References to other media|References to other media section on ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' article]] should be split into its own article due to its length, with the same later occurring for the [[Super Mario Bros.#References in later games|References in later games section on ''Super Mario Bros.'']] On [[Talk:Super Mario Bros.#Split References in other media section|the TPP for splitting the latter section]], the user [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] supported saying "i wonder what'll be the next game to require this". That got me to realise that other articles with these sections are of similar length, and suffer the same problems that I originally pointed out in those past proposals. Select examples that I've been able to find include the following:
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 2#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 3#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario World]]'' ([[Super Mario World#References in later games|references in later games]])
*''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' ([[Super Mario Odyssey#References to other media|references to]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. Wonder#References to other media|references to]])
Again, these are just examples. There's probably more out there that are equally as long. If this proposal were to achieve support, there would have to be some sort of guideline (similar to [[MarioWiki:Galleries#Splitting galleries|splitting galleries]]) relating to a certain limit at which the section is split, possibly a maximum of 20-30 bullet points or certain number of bytes before splitting, as the sections I've cited as examples go over said amount of bullet points. Normalising this would also prevent anyone from having to make separate TPPs to suggest splitting each and every long section separately, and would also help create some consistency, as it doesn't make much sense for only a few select references to/in other media sections to be split rather than more.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|RetroNintendo2008}}<br>
'''Deadline''': August 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{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.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{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].
<s>{{User|EvieMaybe}} look ma, i'm on tv! yeah, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do</s>
#{{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====
====Oppose====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per my comments below.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support in principle, but I'm against the proposed implementation here. We already have [[MarioWiki:Article size]] for determining what to do when pages get too long, so what I would like to see is simply considering references sections as things that can get split off when that happens. Of the pages linked in this proposal, SMB2 and 3 don't even meet the minimum byte count for a split (SMB2 falls especially short at ~85k bytes). SMB didn't meet those criteria before the proposal either and I think that should be reversed. These lists aren't ''that'' long all things considered and they're kept pretty low on the page so I don't think their presence is necessarily intrusive.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Jdtendo, this feels excessive.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time; we already have policies for this, and we see no need to carve out any exceptions for the references section just yet.
#{{user|Apikachu68}} Per my comments below. I don't think pages should be inundated with citations.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time. A good idea in principal, but only if warranted on a case-by-case basis. I generally do not like splitting up pages unless necessary.
#{{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.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Waluigi Time, i hadn't considered that. i hope that if this proposal ends with Oppose bc of everyone backing WT, we still remember that we can split reference sections to trim article size
#{{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.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{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.
#{{User|YoYo}} per arend
#{{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.
#{{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.


====Comments====
====Comments====
[[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)
: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)
: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)
::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)
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)
:[Citation needed] would be added, I think. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 13:29, August 18, 2024 (EDT)
::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 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)
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)
: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)
::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)
: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)
::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)
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)
: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)
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)
: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)
: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==
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 19:38, January 11, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, January 12nd, 09:37 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. 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.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Establish a consistent table format for the "Recipes" section on Paper Mario item pages, Technetium (ended January 8, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge ON/OFF Conveyor Belt with Conveyor Belt, PopitTart (ended January 1, 2025)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style

The passing of this proposal would include the in-game missions and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from Super Mario Sunshine, objectives from Super Mario Odyssey, etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.

In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a well-established practice. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a proposal that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:

The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.

I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.

I would like us to explicitly include missions as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that Here Come the Hoppos is a level, whereas "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario within a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.

As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the Super Mario Galaxy article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.

For clarification, this proposal does not impact the names of actual levels, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.

I offer two options:

  1. Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.
  2. Don't do that.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "Mama Luigi", quotation marks in places like the list of episodes, to even the infobox of its own article, we can see a reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
  4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are useful. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D Mario platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is Super Mario Odyssey, regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.

Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the errant times they are official from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an average and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like Bowser Jr. Showdown, and missions can lack those, like with Smart Bombing. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard Power Moon names count, if SM64 stars do? what about Brothership side quests? TTYD troubles? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like Master of Disguise's first and second levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.

#Jdtendo (talk) Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

@Ahemtoday I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks around the name of a subject and assume it is literally part of the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from Paper Mario: The Origami King - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.

Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title Super Mario Galaxy on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the title screen is capitalized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)

The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of "Deep, Deep Vibes" but are not part of the title of "Happy & Sappy". Similar cases are ""Hurry Up!" Ground BGM" and ""It's-a Me, Mario!"", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many album pages (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Then why do we italicize game titles? - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in Super Mario Sunshine is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from the articles I contribute to the most that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like Final Fantasy where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the Super Mario series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
It is not that readers, necessarily, will believe that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they weren't equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? Ahemtoday (talk) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)

@Hewer I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — Nintendo101 (talk) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D Super Mario games and missions in 3D Super Mario games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of Meringue Clouds but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like Cosmic block's first sentence in it's Super Mario Galaxy section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't Spine Coasters get this treatment when they appear in Thrilling Spine Coaster and in Rock-Candy Mines? Salmancer (talk) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)

I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in Super Mario 64 is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Odyssey. The other three do: Super Mario 64 has its levels broken up into floors; Super Mario Galaxy has domes; and Super Mario Galaxy 2 has what are literally called Worlds. So if the the equivalency of the Terrace in New Super Mario Bros. U is Acorn Plains, and the equivalency of Good Egg Galaxy is Acorn Plains Way, than what is the equivalency of "A Snack of Cosmic Proportions?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an image that Odyssey is actually the sequel to Sunshine and the Galaxy games float off with 3D Land and 3D World, then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) Salmancer (talk) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an article for them. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a Spine Coaster is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D Mario games - named scenarios. The missions in Super Mario Sunshine are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to this edit summary and this edit summary the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star and the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a Bob-omb Buddy to unlock the cannons, an extra iron ball, and neither Big Bob-omb nor a Koopa Shell. (This explanation on Bob-omb Battlefield brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier Odyssey joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D Super Mario game.
For completion's sake, I should also mention that Dire, Dire Docks throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of Bowser in the Fire Sea and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. (Tick Tock Clock presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) Salmancer (talk) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)

@EvieMaybe, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D Super Mario platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to Wario: Master of Disguise or Mario & Luigi: Brothership. I am only interested in Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Mario Odyssey. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)

By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal inherently extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the mission page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)

On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. Jdtendo(T|C) 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)

New features

Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page

This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more Super Mario games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for Mario, Bowser, and many other recurring subjects.

Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.

For example, let's say for Luigi in his appearance in Mario Sports Superstars, there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:

For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see here.

The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
  3. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Oppose

  1. Mario (talk) Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?

Comments

@Hewer I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)

If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)

@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Removals

Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images

This concerns these two image files, which are as of present unused.

The main argument is that not only are these two images taken using a hacked version of the game, but that they aren't actually even intended in the first place; while we don't know much about how Sunshine works under the hood, the leading theory is that the object for the Proto Piranha simply borrows the texture of whatever Goop is currently loaded. Given the resulting Proto Piranha inherits no other attributes of the goop aside from visuals, this definitely tracks. In addition, attempts to add these to TCRF were removed not once, but twice. Given these images have been languishing for a long while with no real use, it seems more-or-less fine to remove them to us.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Delete

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in Delfino Airstrip and both Bianco Square and Bianco Hills. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in Super Mario World its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. They still look cool though..
  3. Jdtendo (talk) If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.
  4. Ray Trace (talk) The only thing that really kept me from nuking these images outright is because of lack of info and I'm glad that's cleared up in this proposal. Kill these.
  5. Technetium (talk) Here Ray Trace, you can borrow my FLUDD. Per all.
  6. Sparks (talk) Wash 'em away!
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) I'm inclined to claim that this is in fact unused content, just that it's not notable enough to warrant using images from a hacked version of the game. A small, text-based note in the article and using images from the unhacked vanilla game works fine.

Keep

  1. Fun With Despair (talk) To be honest, I do think these images (or at least one of them) have value in something like the Trivia section, illustrating how the enemy is coded to appear as the type of goop present in the level - including goop not normally present alongside them. It's an interesting fact, and I think rather than being labeled unused content, both that fact and one of these images would make a fun Trivia addition.

Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)

i can see a case for keeping them around to illustrate how proto piranha's goo change isn't hardcoded, but i agree with the idea that a video might be better. i'll abstain for now. eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 09:57, January 4, 2025 (EST)

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 16 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called Mario Party 13 (as of proposal, this leads to Super Mario Party Jamboree, which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as MP11, MP12, and MP13.

Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for Super Mario Party, Mario Party Superstars, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "God Slayer Bowser" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.

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

Delete (party's over!)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Fairly self-explanatory; unofficial title? That's a paddlin'. Unofficial title that doesn't even seem to be that widely used? That's a paddlin'.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Does anyone actually call those games Mario Party 11, 12 or 13? Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) What if games with these actual titles released? Per all.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
  6. Drago (talk) Per all.
  7. Arend (talk) The fact that a user tagged the MP13 redirects for deletion with the reason of "Jamboree would be 12, since Superstars seems to be in the same vein as Top 100" and re-redirected the MP12 ones from Superstars to Jamboree, already tells me that there doesn't seem to be a general agreement whether Mario Party 12 would be Superstars or Jamboree anyway.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Keep (party on!)

Comments (idle party chat)

I do think fan nicknames can be allowed as redirects, so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)

Changes

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?

Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.

This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Blank support

  1. Mario (talk) Per all.
  2. Ray Trace (talk) Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
  3. PopitTart (talk) (This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)
  4. Altendo (talk) (Look at the code for my reasoning)
  5. FanOfYoshi (talk)
  6. OmegaRuby (talk) While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really are just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at all. (Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)
  7. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
  8. TheDarkStar (talk) - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
  9. Ninja Squid (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Tails777 (talk) It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
  11. RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
  12. Fun With Despair (talk) I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  10. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
  11. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
  12. Killer Moth (talk) Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu
  13. Scrooge200 (talk) A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give some reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.

Blank Comments

I don't think banning "per all" or "per proposal" is feasible nor recommended. People literally sometimes have nothing else to add; they agree with the points being made, so they cast a vote. They don't need to waste keystrokes reiterating points. My proposal is aiming to just streamline that thought process and also save them some keystrokes. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:34, December 17, 2024 (EST)

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)
My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)
@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)
In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --Fun With Despair (talk) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring a written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. Salmancer (talk) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)

@Fun With Despair And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". Which, imo, also should not be allowed. Blinker (talk) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)

@Blinker If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--Fun With Despair (talk) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. Blinker (talk) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)

Organize "List of implied" articles

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 12 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Here's one of those "two related proposals in one with a YY-YN-NY-NN support scheme" proposals, concerning the following articles:

Right now, each of these is sorted purely alphabetically, with no regards for where or when they were implied to exist. The closest thing to an attempt at organization is Locations dividing between fictional and real locations, which also happens to expose a flaw with this particular article: nearly all the implied locations are there simply because they're mentioned on the Globulator, with no other substance to their entry. All of these cities are already listed on the Globulator article anyways.

There are other changes I'd like to propose for some particular articles, but for now, let's leave it at these two:

  • Reorganize: Sort each article chronologically like your average History section, divided by series and then by game. This should help lump, say, all the Marvelous Compass locations in one place, or all the celebrities namedropped in the Super Show.
  • Deglobulize: Remove all real world locations from List of implied locations that are there exclusively because they're mentioned in the Globulator. This would exclude entries like Brazil, who have more to discuss than merely being acknowledged. I consider Locations the article on this list that needs the most trimming, so if this half of the proposal doesn't pass, I won't bother making follow-up articles for trimming the rest.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Both reorganize and deglobulize

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) primary choice.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Seems reasonable. I never liked how confusing these pages are.
  3. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Technetium (talk) Hmm what's the Globulator? *checks page* Oh. Oh god. Yeah that's a per proposal if I've ever seen one.
  7. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and Technetium.
  8. Camwoodstock (talk) Yipe. We knew the Globulator was causing issues, but we didn't expect them to be... That. And, of course, re-orgnaizing the remainder is fine.
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  10. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal.

Only reorganize

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) secondary choice.

Only deglobulize

Do not reorganize nor deglobulize (do nothing)

List of implied comments

If deglobulize wins, I think a disclaimer should be added to the list of implied locations (either at the top of the article or the top of the "Real locations" section) explaining that the Globulator doesn't count. Also, if reorganize wins, does the location list keep its "Super Mario franchise locations" and "Real locations" sections? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:05, January 5, 2025 (EST)

that first one is a good idea, def should be implemented. i want to say yes for the second one, but i think it depends on what the article ends up looking like when reorganized. eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 16:08, January 5, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections

Last year, I successfully proposed that the References to other media section on The Super Mario Bros. Movie article should be split into its own article due to its length, with the same later occurring for the References in later games section on Super Mario Bros. On the TPP for splitting the latter section, the user EvieMaybe supported saying "i wonder what'll be the next game to require this". That got me to realise that other articles with these sections are of similar length, and suffer the same problems that I originally pointed out in those past proposals. Select examples that I've been able to find include the following:

Again, these are just examples. There's probably more out there that are equally as long. If this proposal were to achieve support, there would have to be some sort of guideline (similar to splitting galleries) relating to a certain limit at which the section is split, possibly a maximum of 20-30 bullet points or certain number of bytes before splitting, as the sections I've cited as examples go over said amount of bullet points. Normalising this would also prevent anyone from having to make separate TPPs to suggest splitting each and every long section separately, and would also help create some consistency, as it doesn't make much sense for only a few select references to/in other media sections to be split rather than more.

Proposer: RetroNintendo2008 (talk)
Deadline: January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.

EvieMaybe (talk) look ma, i'm on tv! yeah, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do

Oppose

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) I support in principle, but I'm against the proposed implementation here. We already have MarioWiki:Article size for determining what to do when pages get too long, so what I would like to see is simply considering references sections as things that can get split off when that happens. Of the pages linked in this proposal, SMB2 and 3 don't even meet the minimum byte count for a split (SMB2 falls especially short at ~85k bytes). SMB didn't meet those criteria before the proposal either and I think that should be reversed. These lists aren't that long all things considered and they're kept pretty low on the page so I don't think their presence is necessarily intrusive.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time; we already have policies for this, and we see no need to carve out any exceptions for the references section just yet.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Waluigi Time. A good idea in principal, but only if warranted on a case-by-case basis. I generally do not like splitting up pages unless necessary.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Waluigi Time, i hadn't considered that. i hope that if this proposal ends with Oppose bc of everyone backing WT, we still remember that we can split reference sections to trim article size
  5. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Comments

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4515398"