MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Consider Super Smash Bros. series titles for recurring themes low-priority===
''None at the moment.''
Something I noticed late yesterday was that the page for "Flower Fields BGM" from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (Or just Yoshi's Island from now on for simplicity) is still titled [[Yoshi's Island (theme)]], even after Nintendo Music dropped, and then I realised that some other song titles (Most notably [[Obstacle Course]], also from Yoshi's Island) just don't make a lot of sense. Then I feel it's important to note that even though this is a Mario Wiki (What?!?!?!? Huh!?!?!?) we should also take a look at the Super Smash Bros. titles for themes from other series, with the biggest example I can think of being "Meta Knight's Revenge" from Kirby Super Star, which is actually an incorrectly titled medley of the songs "Boarding the Halberd" and "Havoc Aboard the Halberd". It's also good to look at songs Super Smash Bros. is using a different title for than us, like how it uses the Japanese titles of the Donkey Kong Country OST instead of the correct ones. Between all these facts it should be obvious the track titles in Super Smash Bros. are not something the localisation team puts a whole lot of thought or effort into (Though the original Japanese dev team also mess these up sometimes).
Going back to the original point that gave me this realisation, "Yoshi's Island" is a very nondescript track title for a random stage theme which most people would look for by searching for something like "Flower Stage" or possibly even "Ground theme" (Even though that would lead to another song but still), this is especially considering the title screen theme from the game is ALSO called Yoshi's Island, and that's not even considering the Yoshi's Island world map theme from Super Mario World, which I don't know if it even has an official title (Yet, it is coming to Nintendo Music eventually) but I would bet that's ALSO YOSHI'S ISLAND.
So I am suggesting to just make Smash Bros. a VERY low-priority source for this specific small aspect of the Wiki to avoid confusion and potentially future misinformation if things go too far.


'''Proposer''': {{User|biggestman}}<br>
==New features==
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
 
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
====Support====
#{{User|biggestman}} Did you know there's a theme titled "Per this proposal" in Super Wiki Bros. Ultimate but the original title is simply "Per Proposal"? INSANE! (Per proposal)
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - the theme names given in ''Smash'' (particularly ''Brawl'' and previous) are more just general descriptions of the contexts they play in rather than actual names. Hence why [[DK Island Swing]] became "Jungle Level."
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Doc and proposal.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. To me this feels like making a non-Mario game determine the name of a Mario-article.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} The names are from an official source whether we like them or not. Not only that, they come from within the games themselves, putting them at the top of the naming priority list. Tracks that have gone by different names more recently can use those, but those inconsistencies shouldn't invalidate the whole source. We also accept "inconsistent" names from Smash for other subjects, e.g. [[Propeller Piranha]], so it would be odd to single out music. (Also, I'd argue "Meta Knight's Revenge" isn't incorrect, but is the name of the medley rather than of either individual song. On the topic of Kirby music, I'm pretty sure "A Battle of Friends and Bonds 2" from Kirby Star Allies was first called that in Smash before the name appeared in other sources, which would suggest Smash's names aren't all bad.)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} The names used in the Super Smash Bros. series are from first-party games, are specific localizations of ''Super Mario'' specific material, and are localized by Nintendo of America. In my view, that is all that matters for citations, especially given most of these music tracks have not been officially localized into English through other channels. I similarly would not support a proposal to discredit the names for music tracks used in games like ''Mario & Sonic''. However, I do think this proposal is in the ballpark of a reality, which is that melodies that sometimes incorporate multiple compositions (like "Meta Knight's Revenge") and specific arrangements sometimes are given unique names. (This is not unique to the Smash Bros. series — a cursory view of the [https://vgmdb.net/ Video Game Music Database] or of officially published sheet music reveals Nintendo is often inconsistent with these names in the West.) In some installments, what is given a unique name for a particular arrangement (like "Princess Peach's Castle" from ''Melee'' and labeled as such in ''Super Smash Bros. for Wii U'') is attributed to just one piece in a subsequent game (in ''Ultimate'', this piece is named "Ground Theme" despite interlacing the "Underground BGM" in the piece as well, so while more simplistic for the Music List it is not wholly accurate, and I do not think "Ground BGM" should be called "Princess Peach's Castle" in any context other than this ''Melee'' piece). So I think it is worth scrutinizing how we name pieces that are "misattributed." However, I do not support a blanket downground of first-party Nintendo games just because we do not like some of the names.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If I recall from Miiverse correctly, the reason many songs are not given official public names is that naming songs does require spending very valuable developmental bandwidth, something that not all projects have to spare. (Sometimes, certain major songs have names because of how important they are, while other songs don't.) Given this, I am okay with Smash Bros. essentially forcing names for songs out early because it's interface requires named songs. Names don't have to be good to be official. My line is "we all agree this uniquely identifies this subject and is official".
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} See my comment below.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Waluigi Time
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per Nintendo101 & Waluigi Time. Some scrutiny is warranted, but let's not entirely discredit Smash Bros--a series of games published and sometimes developed in first-party capacity--as a source of information.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} These are still the most recent official names. Let's not unnecessarily overcomplicate things.
 
====Comments====
I'm not sure if this is a necessary proposal, or what it's going to accomplish in practice that isn't already handled with current organization and policy. As far as I'm aware, the ''Yoshi's Island'' examples here are just the result of no editor taking the initiative to move those pages to the new titles yet. The Nintendo Music names are the most recent and I think also fall under tier 1 of source priority, technically, so the pages should have those names, end of story. We don't need a proposal to do that.
 
Additionally, "Yoshi's Island" and "Obstacle Course" do ''not'' refer to the original themes from ''Yoshi's Island'' - they're the names of specific arrangements of those themes from the ''Smash'' games. Maybe it's not cemented into policy, but our current approach for theme articles is to use a title referring to the original theme when available. Take "[[Inside the Castle Walls]]", for instance. There's been several different names given to arrangements of this track over the years, including "Peach's Castle", "A Bit of Peace and Quiet", and most recently in the remake of ''Thousand-Year Door'', "A Letter from Princess Peach", but we haven't and most likely aren't going to move the page to any of those. (And that doesn't mean any of those games got it wrong for not calling it "Inside the Castle Walls". It's perfectly valid to give a different name to a new arrangement.)
 
Basically, I don't think this would be beneficial and could potentially cause headaches down the road. I can't think of any actual examples where we're stuck with a "worse" name from ''Smash'' based on everything else I've said here, especially with Nintendo Music being a new and growing resource for track titles in the context of the original games. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 14:17, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:Indeed, [[Ground BGM (Super Mario Bros.)|Ground BGM]] already got moved to its Nintendo Music name, despite being called "Ground Theme" in Smash (among other sources). Nintendo Music should already take priority over Smash just for being more recent. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)
 
:{{@|biggestman}} I recommend skimming through our [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policies]] for some clarity. The only reason why "[[Yoshi's Island (theme)]]" has not been moved to "Flower Fields BGM" is because no editor took the initiative yet, and another one had already turned "[[Flower Fields BGM]]" into a redirect page. That must be deleted by an admin first before the page can be moved, but that is the only reason. ''Super Smash Bros.'' and Nintendo Music are at the same tier of coverage, and because Nintendo Music is the most recent use of the piece, it should be moved. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:50, November 4, 2024 (EST)
 
@LadySophie17: What do you make of [[Propeller Piranha]], [[Fire Nipper Plant]], [[Nipper Dandelion]], etc., which are named based on what Viridi [[List of Palutena's Guidance conversations#Piranha Plant|calls them]] in Smash? And more generally, why does Smash not being strictly a Mario game matter? It's still an official game from Nintendo that uses the Mario IP, and the Mario content in it is fully covered even if it's exclusive to Smash (e.g. Mario stages and special moves all get articles). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:There's also the fact that Nintendo Music, which this proposal aims to prioritise, is not a Mario game either. It has a collection of music from various different franchises that just so happens to include Mario, much like Smash. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:10, November 5, 2024 (EST)
 
A lot of you have made good points, but one I don't understand or like is the one that those are the names of specifically the Super Smash Bros. versions, which is just painfully inconsistent. With very little exception remixes in Super Smash Bros. almost always use the original title in one of two ways, either using the name completely normally or by titling it (SONG NAME 1 HERE)/(SONG NAME 2 HERE) for remixes that are a relatively even split between two songs. Outside of this the only examples of "Well it COULD be the name of specifically the Smash version!!!" from every series represented are "Yoshi's Island", "Obstacle Course" and "Meta Knight's Revenge". Out of these Yoshi's Island and Obstacle Course theoretically COULD be original titles, but Meta Knight's Revenge is (probably) just meant to be named after Revenge of Meta Knight from Kirby Super Star, which is where both of the songs represented debuted, but was mistranslated. However I can't prove anything because none of these 3 Smash Bros. series remixes Japanese titles are anywhere online as far as I can tell so there's nothing to compare any of them to. There might also be examples from something like Fire Emblem or something idk I play primarily funny platformers. The point though is that if they were to name some remixes after the originals while making original titles for some it would just be so inconsistent I simply can't see a world where that's the intent. {{User:Biggestman/sig}} 13:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)
:I believe the Japanese name of the track was the same as the Japanese name of "Revenge of Meta Knight", but I maintain that translating it as "Meta Knight's Revenge" is not necessarily a mistake, the translators might have just thought that name was better suited for the theme specifically, especially since medleys in the Kirby series are often given different titles to the included themes ("Revenge of Meta Knight" is still not the title of either of the individual tracks included). For example, a different medley of the same two themes in Kirby's Dream Buffet is titled "Revenge of Steel Wings". Even if "Meta Knight's Revenge" is an error, though, that's one error in over a thousand track names, and one not even from the Mario franchise. One or two errors aren't enough to invalidate an entire source, especially one of this size. As for the Yoshi's Island tracks, as has already been pointed out, they should be changed anyway because Nintendo Music is the more recent source ([[Flower Field BGM]] already has been changed since this proposal was made). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:49, November 5, 2024 (EST)
::FWIW, that point isn't meant to be an argument against this specific change anyway, it's "we already shouldn't be prioritizing those names for article titles regardless of the outcome of this proposal, and here's why". --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 18:13, November 5, 2024 (EST)
Ok so now that it's been a few days I have very quickly realised that I very much said a bad reason this change should be implemented. I just realised that all of these titles have already been moved but I have since realised a somewhat more understandable reason for it. If a new Smash game came out and reused these titles then according to our rules they would need to be moved back to those titles again, wouldn't they? Would it make sense to move Flower Fields BGM back to the less descriptive title just because a game reused a (debatably) worse title? Overall though I don't care too much about the result, even when I started this proposal, my impatience just got to me too early. {{User:Biggestman/sig}} 11:09, November 7, 2024 (EST)
:Yes, that's how recent name policy works. We should choose what name to use based on what the most recent official source says, not what we subjectively prefer. I personally feel like "Flower Field BGM" isn't much less generic than "Yoshi's Island". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:38, November 7, 2024 (EST)
::Not a simple yes/no answer, actually. If they're just arrangements again, then no, we wouldn't move the pages. If they added the original tracks from the SNES version and used those names, then they would probably be moved. (However, you might still be able to make a decent argument for keeping the Nintendo Music names on a recency basis considering it's a live service?) --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 11:48, November 7, 2024 (EST)
 
I've actually been mulling over a proposal like this, but for names in general, not just themes. We generally don't consider out-of-franchise content as a source of a recent name if the original ''Super Mario'' franchise supersedes it; for example, Podoboo, which is still in use over Lava Bubble in ''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise. I don't see why the same thing can't be said for ''Super Smash Bros.'', especially now with its reduced coverage. For that matter, possibly breaking it down to a per-''series'' basis (like how "Gold Goomba" was the most recent name in the ''Super Mario'' series despite being "Golden Goomba" in the most recent ''Mario Party'')? It might not be a bad idea to establish a new rule over this. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
 
===Decide how to prioritize PAL English names===
As with [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Decide how to handle the "latest portrayal" section in infoboxes|my previous proposal]], this one aims at getting a consistent method of how PAL names are used alongside NTSC names. One thing that I noticed is that the priority of some of these names are inconsistent, like [{{fullurl:Mini Bowser|redirect=no}} Mini Bowser], which redirects to [[Koopa Kid]] rather than link to [[Mini Bowser (toy)|the name actually used in NTSC countries]]. Other pages, like [[Bowser Party]], are disambiguations between the ''[[Mario Party 10]]'' game mode and the ''[[Mario Party 7]]'' [[Bowser Time|event]] that is only known as "Bowser Party" in PAL regions.
 
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg This map] shows which countries use these different systems. The terms go beyond just color conversion; in terms of English, the PAL system is used in countries like the United Kingdom (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think Australia and New Zealand too), while the NTSC system is used in North America, specifically in the United States and Canada. [[MarioWiki:Naming]] says that the North American name takes priority, which means that Mini Bowser would link to the toy and Bowser Party would redirect to the section in ''Mario Party 10'', potentially among other pages, although tophats linking to pages with alternate PAL names will remain.
 
Therefore, I am proposing four options:
*NTSC>PAL, in which when linking pages, the page with the name in NTSC English or all-English takes priority over other pages sharing the same PAL name, even if it isn't as significant. If another page with the same name in PAL English exists, it can be linked to in the tophat.
*NTSC=PAL, in which pages that share the same name in both NTSC and PAL English appear in a disambiguation page regardless of whether the name is used in NTSC English multiple times or not. This is already done with [[Bowser Party]].
*NTSC<PAL, in which pages that share the same name in PAL English have the highest priority name linked to it, even if it doesn't have that name in NTSC English but the other pages does, in which case it will redirect to the higher-priority PAL name and the lower-priority NTSC (or all-English) page will be linked to in the tophat in the Redirect template. This has been done with [[Mini Bowser]].
*Do nothing - do I even have to explain this?
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Altendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====NTSC>PAL====
#{{User|Altendo}} I think that abiding by SMW:NAMING is the best option. Yes, Koopa Kid is more notable than Mini Bowser toys, but if this is an American English wiki, might as well make pages link to the one that actually are named like that in NTSC.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} I've seen courses and vehicles in ''Mario Kart Wii'' that have names that differ between the NTSC and PAL versions. If the articles to those courses and vehicles use the NTSC version, shouldn't other things use the NTSC version as well?
 
====NTSC=PAL====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think this is the best solution — completely deprioritizing the PAL names doesn't quite seem right to me.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} This is an international wiki, not an American wiki. Whilst prioritizing NTSC names for naming makes kinda sense (an article can only have one title), there's no need to prioritize a specific region when it comes to linking.


====NTSC<PAL====
I have several pitches for you.


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


====Comments====
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
can i ask for some more examples? i'm having a bit of trouble fully grasping what you mean [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 20:11, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:The Mini Bowser situation, for instance:


:*NTSC>PAL: Mini Bowser would link to the [[Mini Bowser (toy)|page actually named "Mini Bowser"]] instead of [[Koopa Kid]] (who is known as Mini Bowser in PAL English)
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
:*NTSC=PAL: Mini Bowser would be a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and the Mini Bowser toy
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)
:*NTSC{{<}}PAL: Mini Bowser would continue to redirect to Koopa Kid.
:*Do nothing: Nothing changes.


:Hope this makes more sense. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 21:07, November 4, 2024 (EST)
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
::So in the first option, "Mini Bowser (toy)" would lose its identifier? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)
:::Basically. The tophat will say, "This article is about the toy. For the characters known as "Mini Bowsers" in Europe, as Koopa Kid." I prefer abiding by SMW:NAMING by prioritizing NTSC names over PAL names. Basically, the current Mini Bowser (toy) page will be moved to Mini Bowser, which will no longer redirect to Koopa Kid. For people who have only owned NTSC copies, this is more straightforward, as many would be unaware that Koopa Kid is known as Mini Bowser without having a PAL copy. As for Bowser Party, if Option 1 passes, it will redirect to the section in ''Mario Party 10'', with a tophat leading to Bowser Time. If Option 2 passes, Mini Bowser would become a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and Mini Bowser (toy). If Option 3 passes, Bowser Party would redirect to Bowser Time and would have a tophat leading to the ''Mario Party 10'' section. If Option 4 passes, well... nothing changes, making everything remain inconsistent.


:::So, to answer your question, yes, the identifier will be removed. The only other page with the exact same name minus the identifier is simply the redirect to Koopa Kid, who is only known as "Mini Bowser" in European English, and SMW:NAMING prioritizes American English names. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 07:15, November 5, 2024 (EST)
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
::::Now that I think about it, couldn't the identifier for the Mini Bowser toy be removed anyway? There's no actual article named Mini Bowser. For that matter, I thought it was discouraged to use the terms NTSC and PAL now in regards to English, especially now that region-locking is mostly a thing of the past. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
:::::I'm pretty sure whether the identifier can be removed for that reason is what this proposal is trying to decide. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:06, November 9, 2024 (EST)


::::::Hewer: Not necessarily just that - it's to decide if NTSC or PAL names should take priority when linking to a page that might have the same name in a different coded region. If Option 1 passes, it doesn't matter if a page with the same PAL name as another page with an NTSC name is more prominent; if that name isn't used in NTSC, then the page with the actual NTSC name takes priority, and the page with the PAL name is linked to with a tophat (take my Koopa Kid and Bowser Party examples above for instance). [[SMW:NAMING]] says, and quote:
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


::::::*"The Super Mario Wiki is an English language wiki, so the name of an article should correspond to the '''most commonly used English name''' of the subject, which, given our user and visitor demographics, means the '''North American name'''. For example, the North American title of "''[[Mario Strikers Charged]]''" takes precedence over the PAL region's "''Mario Strikers Charged Football''" title."
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.


::::::If this is true for naming, why isn't it true for linking, specifically and especially for subjects in which they are the only ones with a specific name in NTSC? I don't have a problem with mentioning other English games in the top of a page, but I feel like linking to a page that is either a disambiguation page between a mode named "Bowser Party" in all regions and a gimmick only named "Bowser Party!" in PAL and as "Bowser Time!" in NTSC, as well as "Mini Bowser" linking to Koopa Kid over the actual toy even though only the latter is used in NTSC, would make extra steps for people who type it in the URL or even wiki search expecting to see the term only used in NTSC regions. Linking to these pages will also be easier, as, take the Mini Bowser case for instance, they don't have to use the identifier, which not only removes identifier space, but also visible text space. If multiple names continue to share the same NTSC name, then the most prominent one will continue to have no identifier, and if there is no dominance, then a disambiguation page will remain. For example, the Mini Mario form continues to be used because it is more prominent than the toy, and even then, the toy's name is slightly different, and both names are used in NTSC English. I understand that some people are from PAL countries and have PAL-configured systems, but seeing as this is an NTSC English wiki, and according to the quote above, how the majority of the views are from NTSC countries, whether from IPs or registered users, I feel like NTSC names should take priority over PAL names, even if the subject itself has a lower priority. I would rather give extra steps to PAL names than to NTSC names due to the fact that NTSC English viewers are more prominent and therefore would see "Mini Bowser" as the toy rather than Koopa Kid. Priority should be given to the most prominent visitor group, so the names that appear in the version shown to the majority of these visitors should be linked there instead of a more prominent character with the same name mainly used by a less prominent group.
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


::::::LinkTheLefty: Except for Nintendo Switch consoles sold in Mainland China, region-locking does not exist on the Switch, and the region is not actually set based on where the console is purchased - instead, it is configured during setup, and can be changed at anytime, unless a Nintendo Account is connected, in which case, the region for each game is set to the region the Nintendo Account is based in (it doesn't have to be based in the country of setup, it can be based in any country as long as the user has an applicable credit card using the same currency as the Nintendo eShop) per each user that plays it. Game Cards also don't have region locking (IDK if this is true for those purchased in Mainland China), and also use settings based on either system region or Nintendo Account region, not based on where the game was bought in (exceptions are likely made for region-exclusive games, for which I have none, so I cannot test this out). This does mean that setting up PAL English in NTSC regions is possible, and vice versa, but due to the fact that most people only have credit cards for currencies of their home country, it is almost always that their Nintendo Account (and therefore their game region) is set in their home country, meaning that the majority of people who view this wiki, which are Americans, have their region set to the United States, and therefore play NTSC versions of their games regardless of where the console or games were purchased. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 23:49, November 9, 2024 (EST)
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


===Do not surround song titles with quotes===
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
This is a change to [[MarioWiki:Manual_of_Style#Italicizing_titles|this section of our Manual of Style]]. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly ''does not'' do this.


The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which ''are'' text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on [[Template:DDRMM]] fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of ''several'' song titles.
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.


I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in [[:Category:Music]] do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, [[Starring Wario!]] and ''only'' Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is ''Paper Mario: The Origami King''{{'}}s music discs: [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]], [["Heartbeat Skipper"]], [["M-A-X Power!"]], and [["Thrills at Night"]]. These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs ''of'' the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, '''these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks'''.
====Option Zero====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.  


To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is [[Nintendo Music]]. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost ''lying'', frankly.
====Option One====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


So, our options:
====Option Two====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


* '''Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases.''' Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
====Option Three====
* '''Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title.''' Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
* '''Option 3: Do nothing.''' I guess this option ''includes'' Origami King's CDs.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


'''Proposer:''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
====Option Four====
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". ''[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]'' is more than just a piece of ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, and there's [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others|precedent]] for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
 
====Option 2====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.
 
====Option 3====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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 ''{{wp|The Color of Water}}''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''{{wp|Resident Alien (TV series)|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.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "[[Starring Wario!]]"
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does [https://open.spotify.com/track/433JymbpWnRMHXzp1oTRP7 Spotify] nor [https://www.amazon.com/Dont-Bother-Shakira/dp/B000BUEG9U Amazon Music]. Yet {{Wp|Don't Bother|Wikipedia still does}} because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've '''only just started working on those articles''' mate. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done {{wp|I Am the Walrus|here}}, which should be compared to {{wp|Magical Mystery Tour#Track listing|here}}). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Ray Trace}} I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)


===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: [[Mark (Mario Tennis series)|Mark (''Mario Tennis'' series)]] and [[Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)|Mark (''NES Open Tournament Golf'')]]). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means [[Color coin]] (''Super Mario Run'') and [[Colored coin]] (''Wario Land 3'') do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include [[Secret Course 1]] (''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'') and [[Secret Course 01]] (''Super Mario Run''), [[Spyguy]] (''Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis'') and [[Spy Guy]] (''Paper Mario''), and [[Rollin' Down the River]] (''Yoshi's Woolly World'') and [[Rolling Down the River]] (''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!'').
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


This proposal aims to amend [[MarioWiki:Naming]] to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)
 
Note that this proposal only covers names that are '''semantically identical''', and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. [[Buzzar]] and [[Buzzer]] have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. [[Balloon Boo]] and [[Boo Balloon]] are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposal.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with ''identical names'', not similar names.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Altendo, this is what [[Template:Distinguish]] is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
 
====Comments====
I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
==New features==
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, '''often''' real world object. Many of them fit what the [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects|guidelines]] call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:
 
*[[Hook]], which includes the object from ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]'' and the hooks on poles from ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'';
*[[Lift]], which includes the yellow lifts seen in ''Super Mario'' games, elevators from ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'', Moving Platforms from ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]'', among others, all just basic platforms;
*[[Bubble]], which includes the underwater bubble from ''[[Super Mario 64]]'', the player-carrying bubble from ''[[New Super Mario Bros. Wii]]'', the Bubble trap from ''[[Diddy Kong Racing]]'', among others;
*[[Banana]], which includes the bananas from the [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'']] series, the bananas from the [[Donkey Kong Country (series)|''Donkey Kong Country'']] games, the bananas from ''[[Yoshi's Story]]'', among others;
*[[Heart (item)|Heart]], which includes the heart item from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', the one from ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'', the one from ''[[Dr. Mario World]]'', among others.
 
They may also boil down to a similar ''fictional'' basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:
 
*[[! Block]], which includes the red blocks from the [[Yoshi's Island (series)|''Yoshi's Island'' games]] games, the block-spawning yellow blocks from ''[[Super Mario Maker 2]]'', the ! Block switches from the [[Wario Land (series)|''Wario Land'' games]];
*[[Poison Mushroom]], which includes the mushrooms from ''[[Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels]]'', the Poison Shroom item from the early [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' games]], among others;
*[[? Panel]], which includes the panels from ''[[Super Mario Kart]]'', the ones from ''[[Paper Mario: Color Splash]]'', and others.
 
Compare subjects to which this category would '''not''' apply, like [[? Block]] or [[P-Switch]], where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.
 
This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Is [[History of Mario]] a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and [[Bob Hoskins]]? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or ''Super Mario''.
 
====Comments====
My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to the articles, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 209: Line 80:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Encourage game-related "icon"-type images to have consistent file dimensions with each other when applicable to their origins===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
 
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].
[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Prioritize sprite/tile uploads that have their original file parameters (or clean divisions of them)|My last proposal]] related to this subject had too many holes in it due to being too wide to make an actual rule on the subject. Indeed, not all sprites really need the blank space, not all "icons" are sprites at all. To recap:
;this looks good:
<gallery heights=64 widths=64>
MKDD_Mario.png
MKDD_Luigi.png
ToadIcon-MKDD.png
PeachIcon-MKDD.png
MKDD_Yoshi.png
MKDD_DK.png
BowserMKDD.png
MKDD_Wario.png
</gallery>
 
;this does not:
<gallery heights=72 widths=72>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
 
Notice how half of the MPT ones (second row) are awkwardly, inconsistently stretched in various gross ways that makes some of the pixels be rectangles, and none are at a proper size relative to each other - this is an obsessive-compulsive spriter's worst nightmare. Meanwhile, the MKDD ones (first row) look crisp, clean, and are at a nice size relative to each other. Why is this? Because since they are icons, they are programmed to occupy the same type of space in select screens and player standings in-game. They're ''supposed'' to be at around the same size, which is accomplished through the small amount of empty space some have in the upper right corners - which the origin images have in the game's files. We should reflect this for the simple reason that we're only going to be putting these in galleries and table cells with each other ''anyway'', so it makes the most sense to have them take up the same amount of space here as well. They should either be at their raw parameters, or if they are cropped, cropped to the exact same size as all the others for that type in that game so as to not screw up formatting and table cell sizes (and we shouldn't be increasing the size of sprites that are at this size by default anyway). This goes for selection icons, rank icons, map icons, that sort of thing. Cropping them down needlessly leads to the grossness that the second gallery there displays.
 
This is already something of an unofficial rule on here; a majority of the games with this sort of icon have them uploaded at a consistent size already for the same pragmatic reasons I just listed. I'm just trying to make this more clear-cut. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it minorly affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. Also, I fail to see what the difference is between this and preferring screenshots be uploaded at native res rather than boosted resolution.
 
'''{{color|purple|THIS DOES NOT COVER THE RARE INSTANCES GAME ICONS ACTUALLY ''DO'' HAVE DIFFERENT SIZES AS STORED IN-GAME.}}''' Instances of that are quite rare, especially for character icons that swap locations, but they can happen. Since they aren't the same size to begin with, there's nothing to match up with. It also does not apply to ones that are extrapolated from a singular group image containing all of them.
 
'''{{color|purple|PLEASE NOTE THAT MOST IMAGES OF THIS TYPE ON THE WIKI ALREADY FOLLOW THIS RULE.}}''' Attempting to do the opposite, therefore, will take more effort for less reward.
 
'''{{color|purple|ADDITIONALLY, I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY STATING THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR NATIVE DIMENSIONS.}}''' Rather, it is saying that if you ''do'' decide to crop them, you should crop them to consistent parameters, ie, the width of the widest one and the height of the tallest one. Having to resize images on an individual basis is tedious and can lead to extra HTML bloating the page that would be a non-issue if they were uploaded at the same size to begin with.  


'''{{color|purple|EDIT:}}'''
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Here's a better illustration of why I think this is necessary:<br>
https://www.marioboards.com/attachments/49667.png
<br>Notice how with them cropped to content, their vertical (and horizontal if they were stacked, thanks to Klap Trap's muzzle and Diddy's hat) positions are all over the place. To someone with OCD, that's maddening. Not unlike [https://www.xkcd.com/1015/ bad kerning]. This is what this proposal hopes to avoid. And no, that's not something a "rawsize" thing can do, that's gallery-only - and this inconsistent positioning would be an even bigger issue with the images in a gallery, since those ''don't'' have positioners available. And while technically, HTML ''can'' fix the positioning on the table (but again, not in a gallery), that would require a bunch of finagling span classes that would bloat the page's byte count unnecessarily - not to mention take potentially hours of trial and error depending on the image amount - when the obvious solution is to give the images the consistent parameters they were deliberately made to have - and yes, that's deliberate in more than just "limited by sprite parameters," because they used them to position them accurately in the character/level select, as I am doing with this table.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support - consistent icons (change the few remaining icon images and make it a general rule for the future)====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - ''Icon'' haz dead, never-funny-in-the-first-place memes about fast food sandwiches?
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} - Accurate to how the graphic or texture is stored in game.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per fast food sandwiches
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|blueberrymuffin}} Per proposal.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} I don't bother cropping anything for this kind of reason. [[tcrf:The Cutting Room Floor|The Cutting Room Floor]] doesn't do something like this because of prioritizing consistency in dimensions, where possible.
 
====Oppose - who needs consistency? (do nothing)====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Rawsize exists.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} There's no sense in ''deliberately'' translating the functional limitations of a game onto a wiki. The site's educational purpose dictates that official material shown on a wiki be inherently recontextualized, and showing that material at a different scale than originally intended is in line with that idea. Even taking into account the niche interests of a sprite enthusiast (which TBH is fair, the wiki is a gateway to Mario material for anybody), the sprites in and of themselves are accurate to how they were extracted when you view them on their dedicated file pages; it's only their appearance on mainspace pages that is subject to alterations, and what to what degree that is beneficial is better scrutinized on a case-by-case basis than through a global proposal. TLDR If the sprites are too uncomfortably big just resize them, or use rawsize like Waluigi Time says.
#{{user|Lakituthequick}} Per WT.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. This can easily be taken care of by either a gallery or a table's settings, I am very sure of that. We don't need to be unnecessarily tampering with perfectly cropped files. I am not 100% sure of the technical site of the wiki but I am very sure that there are better ways to go about fixing sizing of things in tables not being adequate without just having to overhaul image uploads entirely, rather than just playing around with a table.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Seems like a huge amount of work for what is... honestly imperceptible to 99.9% of users such as in your example. Busywork for the sake of busywork.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. I see no real benefit from this.
#{{user|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We already have tools capable of representing these icons more accurately to their in-game versions as necessary without requiring deadzones or other such things to be baked into the image itself. In fact, baking it into the image itself can cause issues when attempting to use the same image on different pages not fitted for them; such as how the image on the infobox for [[Blooper (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)]] is markedly smaller because it retains the blank space for the sake of [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) bestiary|the bestiary article]]. While we should strive for accuracy, we shouldn't let it get in the way of making the information actually accessible and readable; besides, if someone wanted the raw, original images, including any blank space around them, they would likely check The Spriter's Resource, not us.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Koopa Con Carne. Zero readers care if an asset is cropped to content to dimensions in the power of 8 or if they have the ripped dimensions, especially if all said images are there to illustrate a gallery and especially if there is copious amounts of empty space just to pad the image to appropriate dimensions for a game engine. We aren't a game engine (modern game engines are perfectly capable of having textures in resolutions not in powers of 8 by the way), official websites such as the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's official website [[:File:MK8DX Baby Luigi Icon.png|crop to content]] because image editors know that it doesn't need to be in those dimensions (let's not get into how these assets are actually made, they're scaled down in the first place 100% for game engine reasons) icons should be cropped to editor's discretion without bludgeoning editors over the head about it, we should prioritize optimization and readability over faithfulness to asset dimensions. I can see cases where consistent sizes can work out, namely the character icons as listed in this proposal, but the general rule ''should'' be crop to content, but leave some in exceptions in regards to formatting tables, not the other way around.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all, especially Koopa con Carne and Ray Trace.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Some really small icons like the Super Smash Bros. series stock icons would look really bad if they were resized to be consistent with Mario Kart ranking icons.
#{{User|Mario}} The additional caveats in the proposal trying to address this issue is nice I guess but it makes the proposal much less clear in what it's trying to accomplish and it comes off as this user trying to bludgeon over their approach to these images in opposition with several other people's while tacking on qualifications and caveats after the fact. It doesn't help that the terminology of the proposal is imprecise (what is a "game-related 'icon'-type image"?? Does the proposal apply to whatever is a "game related 'non-icon' type image"?)  Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. I don't see the point in doing this.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I will reiterate what I said below: if folks want to maintain unified dimensions around certain assets, like the ones in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example, that is completely fine and okay to do. I agree it looks nice. However, folks should have the freedom to choose whether they want to do that or not with the tables and templates they have developed. To experiment. I agree with the opposition that cropping to the visual content of an asset is not inherently destructive, while recognizing there are real examples on this wiki where assets benefit from having unified dimensions outside of galleries. But those were choices made because they are visually appealing and convey information - not out of a unique reverence for how computer engines spatially store assets, and while I know this proposal is not explicitly advocating for that, it derives from similar arguments made in the previous one, and I wanted to touch upon that here. We adjust assets all the time for the sake of illustrative intent. We assemble disembodied sprites. Adjust/add colors to reflect in-game appearances (especially when they are not actually coded as such for older consoles). We pose models. We approximate lighting conditions. We crop out screenshot details for a focused view. We narrow displays to omit details that the player typically has [[:File:MagmawNSMBU.png#File history|no way of seeing]]. From my experience, none of these choices have been considered controversial, and they should not be. They are not dissimilar from {{wp|taxidermy}}, {{wp|Conservation and restoration of paintings|art restoration}}, and similar curatorial techniques that are exercised in museums worldwide. To me, cropping to visual content - the pixels that people can actually see - is no different from these methods and not an inherent problem. If folks want to keep unified dimensions around the assets they are working with or see use outside of galleries, that is fine and good. This is the opinion of some other folks in the opposition, like fellow ripper Ray Trace, as evident [[:File:WarioMASATOG.png#File history|here]]. However, if folks do not want to do that, or use tables built on the expectation that assets they are using are cropped to content, or they are cropping the content around assets that are only found in galleries, I think they should have that freedom too.
#{{User|MCD}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} No. No, both look good in their own right. Per all.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
{{@|Waluigi Time}} - Rawsize doesn't help for tabular data. Only for galleries. Only way to get it there would be to separately size each cell, and even that doesn't keep them in the correct position within the cell. Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to just have the images at the correct size rather than having to mess with the HTML each time? And we do indeed use these for tabular data, like ghost times, tennis rivals, that sort of thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:43, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:And would that not be easily solved by displaying the image at its native resolution (or at least consistent resolutions for all of them) and centering it? --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 16:51, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::No, it absolutely wouldn't. Because not all the icons are themselves centered, such as the MKDD ones above. They all come out of the lower-left corner. And that's not getting into how some games have a variant with an actual shaped background alongside clear-background ones, like ''[https://www.spriters-resource.com/wii/mariostrikerscharged/sheet/195218/ Strikers Charged]'' for example. It'd make the most sense to match those up relative to where the square bounds are for their respective size, IMO. Also, when they need shrunk for smaller tables, it's easier to do that when they have the same x-y parameters anyway so you don't have to check every. Last. One. And do the math each time. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::{{@|Waluigi Time}} - Rawsize also doesn't work for sizing images down. Only sizing them as-is or sizing them up. So it's still not a perfect solution for all occasions anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:48, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
:All of these things can be fixed using <code>text-align: center</code>, <code>vertical-align: middle</code>, and the inherent ability of tables to size columns and rows based on their contents. {{User:Lakituthequick/sig}} 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::I already said that's not true, because not all of them are centered in their origin. If you want DK's image's left border touching the left border and his right border touching the right border, and the same to go for Luigi, that will absolutely not work unless they are uploaded at their intended size. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:58, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} - I thought you didn't want math to be forced onto the site. In order to resize them consistently if they aren't uploaded at the intended consistent size, you have to go through ''every single one'' and check their sizes individually, ''then'' apply whatever size change also individually in order to be consistent. Keeping them as they are intentionally incorporated into the game is much cleaner on both counts. If mediawiki had a "50%" in addition to the pixel resizing, that wouldn't be an issue, but they don't. And applying a same-pixel-size on sprites with different base sizes is just dirty. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:04, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:You're misconstruing my point about math on the wiki. I never suggested curbing the use of math in the back end by editors (even then, I don't recall ever actually mathing my way through editing a page other than establishing sizes of things like images and charts). It was strictly in reference to the math that is displayed, for one reason or another, to readers, specifically how serviceable it is for articles to show readers more complex formulas versus simple tallies of elements in a level. I've long digressed though, lol.<br>The issues you bring up are solvable on a case-by-case basis. I like consistency and tidiness, too, however, those ought to have a healthy marriage with the wiki's primary interest to educate. [[Mario_Kart_Tour_race_points_system#Object interactions|Here]], you'll notice I purposefully enlarged the icon for the Giant Banana item relative to the regular banana peel, because it used to look about the same size, which was odd. I understand where you're coming from and I support giving a sense of scale to sprites of a certain type in a row if it would otherwise look too messy or unnatural, but I don't believe that has to be enforced among all these sprites indiscriminately. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:23, October 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 19:03, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Well this proposal isn't about "all sprites," it is specifically about icons within a particular family, ie, all MKDD character select icons are one family, all MKDD item icons are another family, all MKW select icons are yet another family, etc. etc. etc. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:30, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::I understand. That's what I meant when I said "sprites of a certain type in a row". That's a tad wordy, so I guess "sprite family" can indeed be used for the purposes of this proposal instead. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:59, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::OK so.... what is the negative you are seeing to this? It seems like you agree with what the proposal actually aims to do, so I'm not really understanding your opposition. It's like how "don't optimize images with color-changing metadata" is a rule - most people can't tell the difference, but it affects the accuracy and presentation, so that's why that rule is in place. This is also for the "accuracy and presentation" reasoning. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::What I agree with, is that assets extracted from the game shouldn't be tampered with before they are uploaded on the wiki. The native size and optimizations should still inherently be part of the asset. What I disagree with, is that such a principle should extend to their presentation on mainspace articles. An image gallery is not a sprite sheet, it's '''demonstrative'''. If you think a gallery of assets can benefit from a few fine adjustments to accommodate scale and aesthetic sensibility, by all means do it. I agree the Shy Guy icon you show in the proposal looks too large and should be scaled down a little, as I did with the giant banana I mentioned previously. Enforcing the standard you propose across a demonstrative gallery is shifting the priority on technical accuracy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:19, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::::::The actual argument of this proposal is different from the last one. This isn't specifically aiming for native dimensions, though that would still be the "easy way" imo. This allows for cropping as long as the cropping is to a consistent size for said related assets. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:40, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|UltraMario}} - You... ''do'' realize that ''cropping'' the files is where the "tampering" comes into play, right? If they're displayed as they are in the game, they are ''un''tampered with. Cropping them down is, by definition, tampering with them. I think you need to reword that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Fun With Despair}} - Except most of them are ''already'' like this - this is just making an unofficial rule we've used for years an official one for practicality. In this case, doing the ''opposite'' would be busywork. And making them consistent is busywork I am willing to ''do''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:35, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Besides, being a lot of work hasn't stopped [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|proposals that take even more work to implement]] from passing. It's a flimsy reason to oppose a change. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:02, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Not opposing because it's a lot of work, opposing because it's a lot of work in service of something that is unnoticed and not cared about by the vast majority of users. The citation proposal is a bad example because that is actually something important to the accuracy of information on the wiki. This doesn't do much of anything at all besides force small edits to many old images.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 18:33, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::That could be said about proposals in general. If it doesn't matter to you, wouldn't it make more sense to not vote at all? If I see a proposal on a subject I don't care about, I just don't vote. After all, if it matters to ''someone'', it matters in general and shouldn't just be opposed because of what amounts to "I don't care about this." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:36, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::I'd argue a majority (or at least significant number) of readers likely don't care either way about citations for names in other languages. But that doesn't mean people who do care about the change don't exist, or that it's inherently a bad change. I think "eh who cares" is also a flimsy reason to oppose a change. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:38, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
Wait, so if this is already often the way things are, will the oppose option change that? That would mean this proposal lacks a "do nothing" option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:07, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Oppose is a "do nothing." I'm not going to include an option for what I would consider a ''negative'' change. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:28, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::Wasn't suggesting you should, just got confused since you were making comments about "doing the opposite". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:31, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::That was mainly directed at the "too much work" argument. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:32, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Camwoodstock}} - Things like the TTYDr bestiary images are not covered by this proposal, only small icon sprites that are intended to be square anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:For the record, we know that wasn't exactly what the proposal was targetting, we mostly mentioned it as it's a pretty striking example of how including these transparent margins in the images themselves can backfire (besides, it's one of the most recent examples of such a thing happening.) We hope that makes sense, anyway. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:48, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::I still don't see why it's preferable to be forced to use the HTML to make them somewhat close-ish to accurate when simply letting it have the one or two columns of blank pixels that it's supposed to have on one side of it would look better for practical reasons anyway. It's a lot simpler and doesn't hurt anything to do. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:52, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::Because sometimes, you ''don't'' want them to be entirely accurate; while an original-resolution image might be wanted for, say, a gallery or a table, in an article, template, or especially in an infobox, you probably don't want the original size and would want something a lot more readily scalable, without transparent margins baked into the image that you need to futz with. At best, it would be too small to add a proper caption to; at worst, you basically gut the clarity of the image itself. For example, while not an "icon" in the sense of the original proposal, the articles for various objects from [[Super Mario Land]] upscale the images outside of their original context. Infoboxes on articles such as the [[Lift Block]] would be rendered borderline incomprehensible if the images were not enlarged like this. And the grown image size is accomplished not via baking it into the files themselves, but via using fairly basic wikiscript or HTML; that way, on the main article, they can still appear in their original format. This general philosophy applies to icons as well, which is why we bring it up.<br>Again, if someone was looking for the raw, unedited sprites, they would likely head to The Spriter's Resource and not us; our goal here is to make these images accurate, of course, but we need to make them both usable in articles and also keep them standardized between one another; baking transparent margins into the images themselves, even if technically accurate to the source material, does run counter to that latter goal. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:09, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::There are plenty of instances where we'd have to edit ripped textures anyway because they're ripped rotated or flipped. Cropping to content is similar to those nondestructive edits and I still fail to see how it's such a big issue, we don't need to preserve transparent pixels just because image editors deliberately padded out assets just for the game engine to decipher properly. Otherwise we should upload sprites without any color data and their palette data as separate entities. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:15, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:::::It's destructive to me. ._. Also, saying "zero" readers is obviously wrong if there's people supporting this. "Who cares" is never a good argument. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
::::{{@|Camwoodstock}} - Boosting them by a consistent size factor (like 50%, 200%, 300%, etc) is perfectly fine - Lift Block, for example, is sized up by 1000%. And it's a lot easier to do that when they have consistent base dimensions so you don't have to look the specific dimensions to resize them by for each image separately. Having all the 32px images display at 64px is a lot simpler than having to look through each to see which needs to be at 64, which needs to be at 62, which needs to be at 58, and so on. That's pointless, tedious, and can be prevented completely by doing what this proposal aims for. And again, non-consistent size factors, like "just make them all display at 50px!" are really messy - see the ''Mario Power Tennis'' example above, and how Shy Guy's icon is ultra pixelated while Bowser's is fairly crisp. It's grossly inconsistent, and on a table, it can't just be rawsized with a percentage (and rawsize in galleries only works for making them ''bigger'', not ''smaller''). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:45, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::I was the one who uploaded these bestiary images, and I had a few reasons. The main one is that some images like Smorg are cut off by the borders and would look strange when cropped. Also, since each of the Tattle Log images display against a border and background that I was also able to rip, I was hoping we'd be able to fit the enemy images over the background and border so it'd be more accurate to how it appears in-game. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 20:30, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
 
By the way, a striking example of ripped assets that are extremely counterpoint to this proposal are the [[Mario_Party:_Island_Tour#Spaces|Mario Party: Island Tour]] space icons. Every single one of those icons are cropped from a single texture that compiles all of them, absolutely requiring you to crop images and then crop to content because none of the options suggested that would "encourage" them cover those instances. Hence why I think it's extremely pertinent to encourage crop to content except for formatting purposes in regards to tables. In addition, icons ripped may also come with engine gamma-fixes or even be outright flipped or rotated all which require correction in display for browsing purposes. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 21:10, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
:Hence "when applicable to their origins". As that one is done differently, it is not applicable. {{file link|MK8DX-BCP audience TVV.png|This texture}} was stored in a similar manner with all eight of its frames in a single image (evenly spaced), while there's also {{file link|MKAGP audience.png|this group texture image}} that has someone sideways. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:06, October 28, 2024 (EDT)
 
Some important things to note:<br>
'''1.''' The proposal only applies to icons that have a natural similarity, such as characters, items, board spaces, badges, etc. It does not apply to textures, screenshots, logos or scanners.<br>
'''2.''' In fact, the wiki and the TSR do not have the same purpose. The wiki is not a graphics museum, nor does the TSR have informational content. But this has nothing to do with what the proposal suggests is the organizational factor.<br>
'''3.''' "Who cares?" Yes, the readers and Super Mario enthusiasts who visit the site every day may not care. But the proposal is not for them. After all, are they the ones who vote here? The proposal is for the editors, for those who submit images and create galleries. Approving this would only be a way to better organize what is already common practice.<br>
'''4.''' This prevents things like {{file link|M&S2014 Mii Costume 55.png|it}}.<br>
[[User:blueberrymuffin|blueberrymuffin]] ([[User talk:blueberrymuffin|talk]]) 17:44, October 29, 2024 (-03 UTC)
:What constitutes as an "icon" is entirely arbitrary in terms of graphics, there is technically no difference between graphics HUD of a character's disembodied head in a map and images used as flair in menus, or images of items in say Mario Party 4, or little images in the group photo in ''Mario Superstar Baseball''. As for the "who cares" statement, that's specifically why I voted to oppose: '''I''' don't care about what this proposal wants to implement, I think it's way too draconian for the purposes of this wiki, and I am having my voice heard, and there is a discernible amount of people who share that sentiment. ''Editors use this wiki too''. I also don't see the issue with the cropped Mii suits, MediaWiki has the tools to format those images should they be formatted. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 23:18, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
::"MediaWiki has the tools," does it? Please tell me how, using the <nowiki>[[File:xxxxxxx.png]]</nowiki> type of image, you can implement a resizing of, say, "50%" rather than individually going in and checking the pixel dimensions and dividing it by two yourself. As far as I am aware, you cannot, and when there's 70 or so images all with different dimensions, that's adding a needless amount of tedious work when the obvious solution is to give them the same dimensions in the first place so it only needs done for ''one'' value. And obviously, what makes an icon is determined by whether it is ''used'' as an icon. That doesn't even need said, so I don't know where you were going with that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
 
I do not know if this has been mentioned or demonstrated yet, but '''this is what the ''Mario Kart: Toadstool Tour'' icons look in a gallery when rawsize is integrated''':
<gallery class=rawsize>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
 
and this is what they look like when it is added to '''the gallery as laid out in this proposal, with heights and widths set to 72'''.
<gallery class=rawsize heights=72 widths=72>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
I do not know if this is apparent in all displays, but Donkey Kong and Bowser are smaller than they should be in the second row. This is happening because the dimensions set for the gallery (72) are smaller than the dimensions of the sprites for DK and Bowser. '''When the heights and widths are changed to 79 (the pxl height of the biggest sprite), it looks like this''':
<gallery class=rawsize heights=79 widths=79>
MarioMPT.png
Luigi MPT.png
Shy Guy MPT.png
Peach MPT.png
Yoshi MPT.png
DK MPT.png
Bowser MPT.png
WarioMPT.png
</gallery>
I do not know if has been alluded to elsewhere in the discussion or changes anything, but I just wanted to point this out. In galleries, you can use rawsize to accurately display assets to scale as long as their are no dimensions set for the gallery, or the dimensions set are larger than the largest sprite. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:04, October 29, 2024 (EDT)
:But you can't ''shrink'' them or use that outside of galleries, so it is not a solution to the primary issue of "it screws up table cell widths and heights," and "you'd need to go in and resize each individually on a table since mediawiki doesn't have a percent-based standard image-resizer, only a pixel-based one, and that's an unnecessarily large amount of work and added HTML for adding proper-sized bounding boxes separately, needlessly bloating the page's byte count when the easy, practical, and obvious solution is to just upload them with the intentional shared dimensions in the first place." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 00:26, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::I honestly feel these are valid points. I found instances where it is easier to us certain assets in tables when they are all squared in dimension, and I personally have not heard persuasive reasons why easy integration into templates or tables should always take a backseat to their presence in galleries since we are primarily a resource to be read. Not just browsed. However, this is again a case where I feel allowing users to exercise discretion would be better than a rule. For example, I agree that squaring the ''Double Dash!!'' icons is nice, but I don't know how that really benefits the display for the ''Mario & Sonic'' Mii costumes.
::For clarity, I would not support a proposal that insists we must always crop to content. I understand assets are not always restricted to galleries, and tables and templates are often setup with reliable size parameters. It is generally easier to edit an asset once rather than adjust all the tables it appears to ensure it is displayed in a preferred way, and while cropping to content is nice, I do not personally think it really "ruins" the display in a gallery if one or two assets are out of alignment with their neighbors or look smaller in preview. I at least do not think it is so unsightly that cropping to content should be prioritized over their utility outside of galleries. Users should have the ability to exercise discretion. It remains an important part of making this a communal space. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 02:28, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:::Keep in mind the proposal is not specifically about keeping the original dimensions, it's more about consistency - cropping can occur as long as that too is consistent. And if an icon is completely unique and not part of any "family" with other ones, then it doesn't matter. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:36, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I think you're missing the point the opposition here or in the previous proposal is trying to make. As far as I'm aware, no one's saying "never do this". It's already done on the wiki, and it's good when the circumstances call for it. I don't think the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example you posted is that bad but it's definitely better at the consistent dimensions, and I don't see anyone here clamoring to crop down the ''Double Dash'' icons either. What I take issue with, and I assume many of my fellow voters feel the same, is this proposal's goal to essentially enforce that across the wiki whether it's helpful and wanted for design purposes or not. The ''Mario Power Tennis'' icons you used as an example aren't currently used anywhere on the wiki where inconsistent dimensions actually matter. I assume the [[Mario_%26_Sonic_at_the_Sochi_2014_Olympic_Winter_Games#Costumes|''Mario & Sonic'' Mii costumes]] would also get caught up in this since they're technically icons, but in my opinion, consistent sizing is unnecessary and the images look worse with the extra space needed to accommodate the largest costumes. At the very least you can't say it looks objectively worse that they're not all centered in this case. You've mentioned having OCD several times in these types of discussions, so I recognize and sympathize that some of these inconsistencies can be frustrating for you, but your personal preferences and irritations aren't always going to reflect the majority of the userbase.
 
Also, the reason rawsize keeps getting brought up is because ''you'' were the one who started this proposal with a comparison of images in galleries and made it seem like a key point of your proposal. I'm not sure why you did that, and it feels misrepresentative of the situation at best since [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Expand_use_of_.22rawsize.22_gallery_class|you were the one who proposed its wider usage a few months ago]] and should've known it was an easy solution to the specific problem you were presenting. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 14:59, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:I know I proposed that addition. I mainly used a gallery as an example here because it was convenient to bang out quickly, not at an illustration that it is the only issue brought on by this. In regards to making it a rule though, please recall I am not stating here it "has" to be the native dimensions specifically. Also, we have other image upload rules that some people and/or wikis might consider "draconian" but have been around long enough here that they make perfect sense to us (don't upload non-animated .gif's, don't convert .jpg's to .png's and especially don't give them transparency, don't optimize images with metadata, and the above proposed one with currently unanimous support regarding NES palettes), so I really don't see how this ends up any different. I specifically noted in the proposal and its very title that if it straight-up doesn't work in whatever context, that it doesn't need done for it, so I don't see how it ends up as a problem anyway. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:58, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:: This unfortunately contributes to the same problem I had with the previous proposal. Your reply here makes it sound like there would be no substantive or practical difference between how folks generally handle assets already, making it unclear what would actually change if the proposal were to pass. What would change? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:::Because when I tried to enforce "how folks generally handle assets already" it was treated as me going notably out-of-line. There's always gonna be ''someone'' who uploads a .jpg -> .png image because they don't know any better or don't realize it (I'm guilty of the latter from before I knew to check with the "save image as" function), and that needs to be corrected - it is how we "generally do things," but we do it because that is a thing that needs discouraged, hence there being a rule. I see this as no different from that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:52, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::::This proposal is just going to result in a patchwork of interpretation of how to approach these assets. It's a sign of a very flawed proposal. Doesn't help that your entire bedrock of reasoning that led to this kind of proposal (that we should be encouraged to maintain the original dimensions of a ripped sprite), which I have deemed utter nonsense and I stand by it being utter nonsense, continues to be maintained. This leaves me with a not very confident impression you have any clue how these assets are created, stored, and used in a video game, that you understand ''why'' an asset is padded and has dimensions of 128x256 or something and ''why'' this doesn't mean a wiki should be necessarily maintaining these dimensions. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:33, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::I have explained time and time and time and time and time and time again that ''this'' proposal ''does NOT'' require the original dimensions. Just ''shared'' dimensions. I figured putting it at the top in '''{{color|purple|ALL-CAPS BOLDED BRIGHT PURPLE}}''' would be enough to get people to actually read and realize this, but apparently not. Please acknowledge this and stop treating it as though that is my argument here when it is ''not''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:02, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::::::Let me clarify: when I mentioned the bedrock of reasoning, I meant to contextualize the situation that led up to the proposal. It's to support my criticism of your proposal, which was made in response to the earlier one that was canceled from mounting opposition, that this follow up proposal is poorly made. Due to the timing of things, it comes off as an attempt to simultaneously continue your practices of insisting that image dimensions are important information to maintain (they are not) but with flawed solutions designed around this flawed principle. To me, this is a confusing proposal that will lead to conflicting approaches to how an asset will be handled, and the examples used don't do a great job clarifying points (this example shouldn't even be a table imo). {{User:Mario/sig}} 02:04, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::::They absolutely are, but regardless of that, if it ''wasn't'' a table and were instead a gallery, the OCD-triggering vertical position issue would be even worse. (Seriously, I'd get less feeling of disgust from an animated loop of Wario puking up an endless stream of black dioxic squid ink onto Penny than I get from this - hell, that wouldn't even be half of it. This is trypophobia-level shit here.) In regards to that edit you made to your vote, obviously non-icons are completely unrelated to this. I worded this as specifically as I could to avoid it being abused. This is for icons and icons alone, and by "game-related," I mean such as "MKDD-related" or "MPT-related" to determine which group gets which parameters. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:21, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
 
::::I think there was some misunderstanding amongst parties after the previous proposal was cancelled. I at least do not think anyone intentionally meant any harm. The impression I have is that a lack of familiarity with certain tools lead to some bad-faith interpretations of why folks did the things that they did. But regardless, I think a gentler, less heavy-handed approach to these types of things would be better going forward. I do not think this needs to be strict policy, or something staff and other users need to enforce. But generally, as a courtesy, if one wants to adjust assets that are being used in particular fashions outside of galleries, it does not hurt to reach out and ask if it would be okay to adjust their dimensions. And if a user cropped material, one should not invoke rules that do not exist as actual policy, or bring up some "innate" sprite-ripping principals that do not exist. (I understand the point of this specific proposal is to make certain rules concrete, but I am referring to some of the interactions I saw between users before this current proposal was raised.) Rather, there is no harm in explaining why it is helpful to keep certain assets at particular dimensions for tables and templates. I know some folks have mentions CSS coding, but no one has bothered explaining what that would look like, and generally, adjusting the empty space around an asset is the most user-friendly and intuitive path to take. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 01:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
 
@SeanWheeler: I believe the proposal is just for the icons within a particular "set" to be consistent with each other, not icons of different sets. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:46, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Killer Moth}} - See the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' table above and the alignment issues it had before I enacted this principle on it, and how it's much more eye-pleasing afterward? ''That'' is the point. Without it, they tend to look gross - like that table did before. If you can't see why that's an issue, then I envy you, but it really looks bad - the version with the alignment lines is how ''my'' eyes see it even when they aren't there. And I have still yet to see any actual downside to this other than people trying to cram them into signatures, which is... not what the wiki is about and that absolutely should ''not'' take priority in presentation. Same reason we don't add fake armbands to Bowser's SMB1 sprite since that's transparency. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:50, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:Again, the dominant perspective of the opposition is '''not''' "no, this is a bad idea. No one is allowed to set up assets to make them aligned as they appear in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' table." Personally, I think the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example you provided is aesthetically pleasing when the sprites are all aligned, and folks should have the freedom to do that. It is for similar reasons that I integrated organized 100x100px sizing for all images in the mainline game tables and try to ensure columns are the same width across all tables in an article. Rather, the oppositional perspective is, "no, we do not want to police this or make this a type of rule. People should have the freedom to experiment with what types of dimensions they want for the assets used in their tables, and we do not agree that cropping to visual content is inherently destructive of an asset." - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:11, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::I feel doing this is an absolute good, and if someone has the freedom to crop, I have the freedom to restore. Two-way street and all that. Also, LGM's argument from what I can tell is exactly that (which coupled by the general belligerent/caustic directing of profanity towards it) fueled most of this. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::I respect that you view a policy revision like the one advocated for in this proposal is an "absolute good," but I do not think you have made a compelling persuasive argument as to why, or at least not one to me. And I understand your concerns over a "two way streak," but we do have [[MarioWiki:Courtesy|courtesy policies]] on this wiki. Many of them seem relevant, but the one I would like to highlight is that '''users should not participate in other users' editing projects without asking them first'''. Galleries are more of a shared neutral space, but if one wants to crop to content or retain space around ones that are integrated into tables in a spatially-dependent way, it would be courteous for one to reach out to the uploader of those assets first or at least touch base with them. The ''Mario Power Tennis'' ones, for example, have only been integrated in [[Mario Power Tennis#Participants|one table]] at the time of this comment and cropping them does not seem to have impacted the layout or scaling in any perceivable way to me. There was no demonstrable harm.
:::I do not think LGM is advocating that arranging tables like the one in the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example should not be allowed, or at least that is not my reading of her comments. I believe her perspective is not dissimilar from mine. I would personally appreciate it if you reviewed what I wrote in my vote above. I think it would be clarifying.
:::I could be wrong, but I believe the curtness comes from statements you had included in the previous proposal that, from her experience as someone who also rips assets and someone who participates on this wiki very regularly, she knew were objectively false, but you were presenting them as hard facts and even invoking them to talk down to another user. This is understandably not appreciated conduct, and it is not uncommon from you. She can speak more to that if she wants to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:13, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::::The statements I made then were accurate too, our perspectives are just completely incompatible. And considering in the cases of those Mii costume images, here, the original uploader (who is supporting this proposal) explicitly wants to keep them they way they were uploaded in, which is what I reverted them to, and LGM is reverting them from. The specific thing she has said that I take issue with is her claim that the space is absolutely worthless and should be removed from everywhere it feasibly can be, which naturally I perceive to be extremely misguided. As for the ''Mario Power Tennis'' table, it only looks as good as it does thanks to my own ingenuity of hiding a cell divider bar to make two cells look like one cell - that table is ''the'' one that has given me trouble in that regard. Presumably if they are changed to a tabular form, those icons will remain useful if we start covering rivals for it like we do for the 64 game, but by then it'd be easier if they did share parameters. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::::Maintaining space needs to be done for a good reason, and having it simply because it was ripped that way ''is not a good reason''. It is okay to find an example where extra space is needed but that table provided is a heavily flawed example due to being an inappropriate use of a table and the suggestion below that does fix the issue to begin with (and probably there is a code for horizontal alignment too). As for Mario Power Tennis table, if you're referring to this one[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Mario_Power_Tennis&oldid=4392103#Participants] that's another fundamentally flawed table which was one of the many other tables that prompted criticism by multiple users and would not be my example to try to illustrate a proposal. The ''one'' example I think may work is [[:File:MK8 Mario Icon.png]] due to its use in multiple pages and being in an array with similar scaled images, which were all put in a 128x128 box. Not sure if cropping to content is going to lead to unexpected results but for the record, I don't see the point of cropping to content for these Mario Kart 8 things either, since they're already reasonably occupying the space (unlike those Mario Kart Double Dash map icons which were heavily padded); it's a case of don't fix what isn't broken. The proposal doesn't really advocate any of this. It's, what I can glean, a way to maintain aspect ratio while cropping tightly as possible without losing information, but dressed up in bad examples and imprecise wording (like the proposal does not even define what a "game-related 'icon-type' image" is, so). {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:56, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
::::::I was more referring to how the N64 Mario Tennis had a separate "partners/rivals" table before I incorporated that information into the main character table, and it used the face icons. I was saying if MPT did something similar, which it probably should if there is indeed a hard-coded system like that in the game. I don't really think I need to define the icon thing; but if you insist, I mean "icon" as in "a small image representing a subject," with "game related" simply meaning as a per-game basis (ie, MK64 icons have no bearing on MKDD icons). (Also, off-topic, but how else would the ''Diddy Kong Pilot'' example be handled if not as a table? There's other information below it that's been cropped out.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:52, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
 
The ''Diddy Kong'' example, too, can be easily fixed with aforementioned styling, in this case by using <code>vertical-align: bottom</code>. That is to say however that those sprites are of a size where it makes sense for all of them to just retain their original size, I would not crop those either. There are cases like the Mii suits from the other day where it does make sense to crop them. {{User:Lakituthequick/sig}} 17:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:Not all of them have flat bottoms in other games, of course, while that also doesn't fix the left-right issue. But yes, I digress. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:57, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
 
Another thing I want to ask the opposition: if {{file link|058-SMMMontyMole.png|this}} is to not be cropped, why should any of the other things? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:24, November 6, 2024 (EST)
:That should be cropped to content. The large blank space serves a purpose to optimize the graphic in a game, not so much here. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:06, November 9, 2024 (EST)
 
All right, if this is going to continue to be "case by case," then expect a ''looooooot'' more discussions on this in the future. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:29, November 10, 2024 (EST)
 
===Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals===
One thing I never understood about rule 2 is why unregistered users are not allowed to comment under proposals. The rule states: "Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals." While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all, talk page proposals are a different story. Why should IPs be prevented from commenting under talk page proposals? Most IPs are readers of this wiki and they should be allowed to express their opinion on wiki matters too. I've seen several examples of IPs making good points on talk pages, I imagine most of them are regular visitors who are more interested in reading rather than editing, and allowing them to leave a comment under a TPP would only be beneficial.
 
If this proposal passes, unregistered and not-autoconfirmed users would be permitted to comment under talk page proposals. They still wouldn't be allowed to vote or create proposals, only comment.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support (unregistered users proposal)====
#{{User|Axii}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Wait, this was a rule?
#{{User|Pseudo}} This rule doesn't really seem like it accomplishes anything.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Why wasn't this already applicable?
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} it makes sense if it's just for comments
#{{User|Drago}} The rule was only [[Special:Diff/1858371|changed]] because of this page's semi-protection and not, as far as I can tell, because of any misuse of comment sections by unregistered users. Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} This is a reasonable change.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Anons use the wiki too and should be able to voice their concerns in the comments section, there's no reason to bar them the ability to comment.
#{{User|Mario}} We'll see if the Bunch of Numbers behave.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
 
====Oppose (unregistered users proposal)====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Unregistered users just have numbers for their names, so that looks awkward with the way the votes are counted. It's easy to use your IP to sockpuppet, so I wouldn't want anyone doing that for the votes. And even for just the comments, I wouldn't want anyone to sockpuppet in an argument for manipulation tactics. Nor do I want to see poor grammer or vandalism. Anyone who wants to participate in voting discussions should sign up. This page was semiprotected for a reason. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 00:19, November 1, 2024 (EDT)
 
====Comments (unregistered users proposal)====
"While it makes sense on this page, it is semi-protected after all"<br>If the protection history displayed above this page's edit box is any indication, it was the other way around. There was already a rule against anonymous voting on this page by the time it was semi-protected. In that case, it might be useful to look into the reasons this rule was made in the first place and, if there's any disagreement, extend this proposal to this page too. As to where these reasons are stated, I don't know. My assumption is that the rule exists because anons are more prone to shit up the place than registered and autoconfirmed users. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:15, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:I couldn't find a reason why IPs were disallowed to comment. My only assumption is that when this page was protected the rule was modified to mention that IPs couldn't comment, but talk page proposals weren't considered. I'll look into it more and potentially add a third option to allow IPs to comment here as well. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 16:20, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|SeanWheeler}} - This isn't about voting, it's about commenting. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:04, November 1, 2024 (EDT)
:For real, do you even read before voting on proposals? It's a small paragraph that makes it very clear that it's only about commenting under talk page proposals, not even on this page. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 01:07, November 1, 2024 (EDT)
 
===Decide whether to cover the E3 2014 ''Robot Chicken''-produced sketches===
For {{wp|E3 2014}}, Nintendo's press conference was a video presentation similar to today's Nintendo Directs, featuring [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FgzkZC0reE clips of stop-motion sketches] by the producers of ''{{wp|Robot Chicken}}''. I feel that these qualify to receive coverage on this wiki, since their appearance in a video published by Nintendo means that they are officially authorized, and they prominently feature ''Mario'' franchise characters. However, I have never seen the sketches discussed in any wiki article, nor are they listed on [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], so I thought it would be appropriate to confirm their validity for coverage with a proposal.
 
The following articles would be affected by this proposal if it passes (since the E3 2014 video is not a game, film, etc., coverage is best suited to an "Other appearances" section):
*[[History of Mario]]
*[[History of Bowser]]
*[[History of Princess Peach]]
*[[History of Wario]]
*[[Reggie Fils-Aimé]]
*[[Fire Flower]]
*[[Bullet Bill]]
*[[List of implied entertainment]] (In the last sketch, Mario mentions the fictional game ''Mario Ballet'').
 
Regardless of which option ends up winning, a note should be added to MarioWiki:Coverage to explain how these sketches are classified. Also, I'm clarifying that this proposal does not involve any sketches from ''Robot Chicken'' itself, since those are clearly parodies that have no approval from Nintendo.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|ThePowerPlayer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} This feels logical enough that I'm not sure it needs a proposal or even an explicit note on the coverage policy, but per proposal just in case.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Tails777}} Some of them were Mario related so I don't see any reason not to mention them. Per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} At first, we were a bit confused as to why ''only'' E3 2014 was getting this treatment, but it turns out that no, actually, we do mention a few things from E3 presentations and Nintendo Directs in these articles, we just never internalized that information. If we cover [[History of Wario#Other appearances|that Wario animatronic puppet from E3 1996]], and we cover [[History of Bowser#Other appearances|Bowser in Bayonetta 2]], we don't see why we shouldn't cover this specific E3's trailers just because it was by a different producer.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Don't see why not.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It is no less official than [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō]] or [[Super Mario-kun]]. Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Robot Chicken is an adult parody show. To cover Robot Chicken in Mario's history is like taking the Family Guy cutaway gags as canon. The Robot Chicken sketches including the E3 specials are covered in [[List of references in animated television]].
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Uh, SeanWheeler? You may want to see [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]. There is no canon in Super Mario. And being an "adult" show shouldn't prevent text from being referenced in normal articles given the wiki does not censor anything. (The last point on [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], and the set of arguing over [[Bob Hoskins]]'s page quote.) I guess one could discount the sketches on account of them as parodies, but given the "no canon" bit that seems hard to justify. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:01, November 3, 2024 (EST)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:It's been a hot minute, but aren't the 2014 E3 sketches not even a part of Robot Chicken, anyways? Just produced by the same team behind them. It would be like prohibiting mention of [[Ubisoft]] because they developed those South Park games. And even if the sketches for E3 2014 were particularly "adult", [[List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo#Super Hornio Brothers|overwhelmingly adult content hasn't stopped us before]]. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 09:43, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We might not have any canon, but Robot Chicken sketches are like the Family Guy cutaways. We don't cover Family Guy despite having a few Mario cameos. They only get listed in [[List of references in animated television]]. And no, it's nothing like prohibiting Ubisoft for their South Park games. We have [[Ubisoft]] for their involvement in the [[Mario + Rabbids (series)|Mario + Rabbids]] crossover series. We don't cover South Park. Prohibiting the mention of Ubisoft for just one unrelated series would be ridiculous. [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 15:25, November 9, 2024 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::So what if these are "like the Family Guy cutaways"? We don't cover Family Guy because we're not a Family Guy wiki. As far as I know, no Mario cameos in Family Guy were officially authorised by Nintendo, so it couldn't get its own article anyway. Meanwhile, these sketches were officially posted by Nintendo and featured Mario characters prominently. As for the part of your comment about Ubisoft and South Park, you've just described the point Camwoodstock was making by bringing that up. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:59, November 9, 2024 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
{{@|ThePowerPlayer}} Looking at these sketches, why not create an article covering them? It would be inconsistent not to cover them separately as well, not just as sections of other articles. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 13:26, November 4, 2024 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:The proposal is to cover them in "Other appearances" sections, which are [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Define the scope of "Other appearances" sections|supposed to cover things without articles]]. Also, to my knowledge, they don't exactly have an official title that we could use. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:32, November 4, 2024 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::This is exactly why I brought it up. It would be weird not to have a page on them when all other content does. Lack of an official title never stopped us either :) <br>[[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 03:42, November 5, 2024 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::My point is that not "all other content" has a page, and that's what "Other appearances" sections are for. I don't think these short, nameless skits from an E3 presentation that are more about Nintendo in general than specifically Mario are really in need of an article when this proposal passing would mean their entire relevance to Mario would already be covered on the wiki. They aren't even the only skits with Mario characters from an E3 presentation, E3 2019 has an appearance from Bowser. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:34, November 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::Exactly. Making an article would just lead to a lot of unnecessary descriptions of content that has nothing to do with the ''Super Mario'' franchise. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 19:44, November 5, 2024 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
 
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
===Require citations for dates===
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
Recently, a proposal decided that not sourcing a foreign name puts the article into a meta category of "unsourced foreign names". But I'd say a similar idea should be implemented to dates for things such as media releases, company foundations, and game, company and system defunction. Because, for example, there's been many times where I've seen an exact release date pinpointed and I think "where did they get that date from?", and after a bit of research, I can't find any reliable source with said exact release date. Dates being sorted like this would be nice.
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Starluxe}}<br>'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Starluxe}} Per my proposal
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I agree.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, how is this ''not'' already policy??? Per proposal.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I personally find that a lot of release dates for games on the internet come from hearsay, and copying what other sites say without actually double checking that info, so this would be great for guaranteeing accuracy.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario}} The next time Peach asks Mario out, I am sooo citing this proposal.


====Oppose====
@wildgoosespeeder: The intention of the proposal is just to add italic titles to the category pages themselves.<br>@Fun With Despair: I don't see how copy-pasting a template onto a bunch of categories is such a big ordeal? We've certainly had proposals that'd take [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Require citations for names in other languages|way more work]] that have passed, I don't think it's a good reason for opposing something.<br>@Arend: Everything you said about categories not displaying the italics in certain contexts or only displaying them if they're redirects also applies to articles, and yet those are allowed to have italic titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:51, March 11, 2025 (EDT)


====Comments====
===Introducing the crossover article===
What source you think is acceptable for release dates? I personally use GameFAQs. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:05, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
:GameFAQs isn't officially related to Nintendo, right? If so, then no. It needs to be an official source. Because if anything, GameFAQs' release dates could be taken from another unofficial source, making that an unacceptable source. {{User:Starluxe/sig}} 13:00, November 6, 2024 (EDT)
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
::But that is a major problem of mine regarding old games, especially those that came out before the internet. Game sites such as GameFAQs and Wikipedia have it down all the time, especially those as old as GFAQs, but I don't think Nintendo themselves keep track of it too much barring recent titles or titles they are currently selling, with rare cases of them citing release dates in games themselves (like Super Smash Bros. Brawl's chronicles). For example, Wikipedia does cite Mario Kart: Double Dash's release date in a financial statement by Nintendo but other games such as the original Thousand Year Door's release dates remain unsourced. I'll need an answer to what sources you plan on using to cite the release data. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:28, November 7, 2024 (EST)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
:::This has come up [[Talk:Donkey Kong (game)#Arcade release dates|a]] [[Talk:VS. Super Mario Bros.|few]] [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest#NA release date|times]], but the state of proper video game release date archival is dreadful. I would argue it was around the time of digital storefronts that they were catalogued more seriously. I really want to support this proposal, but first, I think it's really important to decide what type of sources are usable. Sites like GameFAQs and MobyGames? They're actually user-contributed, in theory, I guess. You can contribute there. The problem is that I don't know anything about their curation. Unlike a wiki, you can't look back. Someone can contribute something else that overrides your contribution, and you won't know why (probably something to the effect of "another online source"). So, I wouldn't take sites like them, despite search results doing a good job of making sure they're one of the first things you see. Wikipedia has taken to citing the copyright office, but as far as I know, details like that are not always the same thing as an actual release/airing date. My suggestion is that this needs a whole source priority of its own, preferably contemporary sources like magazines and press releases. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


Seeing how this could also apply to other things like defunction dates, I've added so to my explanation. {{User:Starluxe/sig}} 12:16, November 7, 2024 (EDT)
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.


===Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"===
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.
Earlier this year, I made [[Talk:Princess Daisy#Move to "Daisy"|a proposal]] suggesting that the article "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy". That proposal was rejected, with one of the main reasons being that people were concerned about the inconsistency this would cause with Princess Peach. Since then, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles|another similar proposal]] has passed that suggested moving the Koopaling articles to just their first names. So, I would like to suggest once again that I think "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy", except that this time I'm also including the option to move "Princess Peach" to "Peach".


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


====The case for moving Daisy's article====
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.
You can read my full argument for Daisy in my previous proposal about this subject, so I'll be brief here. My key point is that '''Daisy has never been called Princess Daisy in any game as her primary English name'''. It's certainly not an ''un''official title by any means, but she is and always has been called "Daisy", with no honorific, considerably more often and more prominently than her full title.


====The case for moving Peach's article====
I offer three options:
The case for Peach is much weaker than the case for Daisy. Unlike Daisy, Peach is actually called by her full title in-game as her primary English name sometimes. In fact, as was pointed out in the comments of the previous proposal, Nintendo has [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/puzzles/jigsaw-puzzle-princess-peach-daisy-rosalina/ on occasion] used the names "Princess Peach" (with the honorific) and "Daisy" (without) together.
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


Nonetheless, her highness is called "Peach" in-game considerably more often than "Princess Peach". (To be clear, my point is not that she's ''never'' called "Princess Peach", just that "Peach" appears to be her ''primary'' in-game name, which is what the [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policy]] recommends.) I believe the strongest example here is ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]'', which uses "Peach" despite having no shortage of playable drivers with excessively unweildy names.
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)


'''Proposer''': {{User|janMisali}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Move both princesses====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|JanMisali}} First choice, as proposer.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Tails777}} Primary choice. Even if Peach uses her title more often, MANY games usually relegate to just calling the princesses by their names without their titles. And since Bowser is also referred to as just "Bowser" over "King Bowser" (a titled name used about as often as Princess Peach), I feel all three can just use their names without titles.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Only choice, per proposal. I was part of the opposition to the previous proposal, but this one fixes the issue I had with it. And anyway, in basically any game where Peach is playable, the thing written under her on the character select is just "Peach", same as Daisy, so this feels like the natural solution.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} "Princess" is just a title of Peach's name, and most appearances refer to her as simply Peach. The name for "Daisy" is very seldomly preceded by "Princess". Compare to Dr. Mario, where the "Dr." is an inherent part of his name, rather than a full title.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Altendo}} If we can remove names from Sonic characters, the Koopalings, and even named identifiers like [[Grodus|Sir]] and [[Bobbery|Admiral]], there is no reason to ''not'' do this. Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, and the original proposal that spurred this one.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Things are headed in this direction, let's rip the bandage off.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|Arend}} I'm more comfortable with removing the "Princess" title from both articles rather than just Daisy's. Yes, Peach is often called "Princess Peach", but I find it comparable to Koopa minions referring to Bowser as "Lord Bowser" or "King Bowser" (or, in the case of game titles such as ''Super Princess Peach'' or ''Princess Peach Showtime'', it's comparable to the ''Super Mario'' games, which bear this title even if there's no Super Mushrooms to turn Mario into Super Mario).
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} I love how you've put this together, Nintendo101 and other contributors! This seems like a very valuable addition to the wiki.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Fine, second choice.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
<strike>#{{User|Pseudo}} First choice, per proposal. The princess titles for both characters can definitely be seen as their full names, but it seems to occupy a similar space to "King Bowser" in most games.</strike><br>
<strike>#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Altendo, specifically</strike>


====Only move Peach====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hmm, so I'm going to do this because technically each of a character's special moves gets a sentence to itself on their article/Smash list entry and those just aren't going to fit in a crossover article
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice.


====Only move Daisy====
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====
#{{User|JanMisali}} Second choice, as proposer.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Second choice, since Daisy has stronger reason to be moved.
#{{User|Tails777}} Secondary choice. Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" far less than Peach is referred to as "Princess Peach", with some modern games still using Peach's title. Daisy is almost always just referred to as "Daisy".
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per the case being made for Daisy. Games and other media as recent as ''Princess Peach Showtime'' and the Mario Movie alternate between naming Peach with and without the honorific, so MarioWiki:Naming cannot enforce one over the other based on recency, frequency, or source priority. None of this can be said about Daisy, however. Some have argued that "Daisy" is chosen for functional purposes within games, i.e. is an attempt to keep the character's name short in areas where you can allocate a piece of text only so much memory--and I'd understand the argument, if it weren't for cases like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)", "Yellow Shy Guy (Explorer)", and "Purple Koopa (Freerunning)" which push that memory limit much further than "Princess Daisy" ever could. I also question why the naming scheme of either character has to remain consistent with the other just for the sake of it; if their patently similar appearance and roles is the sole thrust behind this point of view, what's stopping [[Rosalina]] from being moved to "Princess Rosalina", then? That's an official title, too. Better lock in and make the facts readily apparent on the fan encyclopedia.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne. I see the argument for moving Peach as well, but feel more strongly that Daisy should be moved since she's rarely called "Princess Daisy".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Secondary choice.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary choice. We need to do ''something'' about Daisy, at least.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Koopa con Carne.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Secondary choice, Daisy is pretty much never referred to as "Princess Daisy" as her primary name.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per Koopa con Carne.


====Keep both princesses the same====
====Crossover comments====
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Stop shortening names! Seriously, I knew this was next after the Koopaling proposal.
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Mario}} I don't think any these moves are great (especially the one where "Shadow the Hedgehog" was shortened, I dislike that one). They greatly hinder searches on the wiki (in Peach's case, it's going to conflict with the fruit), and more people online are going to search "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to find the character. What these moves are going to do, like with those older name moves (which I am ''not'' on board with) is going to have searches rely on redirects. I'm not sure how much SEO and search engine discoverability is going to be impacted (Porple confirmed with me on Discord that it will certainly hinder discoverability on search engines but it's not catastrophic, just something to keep in mind) but I think there is a great reason we chose [[Chuckster]] over Pianta Thrower. These are distinct, recognizable names. Don't fix what isn't broken, and the current method of piping and using redirects for the shortened, overlapping names seemed to serve us well enough.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Mario. I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. Some of these make sense (E. Gadd is rarely called Elvin, the Koopalings' full names seem to be mostly phased out these days), but the Sonic proposal was a misstep IMO. Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it. I feel less strongly about Daisy, admittedly.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Upon further thought and seeing Mario and Waluigi Time's votes, I'm inclined to think that moving pages like this is probably not such a wise idea, especially as it hurts searchability. I've removed my original vote for merging both and now consider this my primary one, though I think that moving Daisy would still be alright with me.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Yeah, no; per all. We'd need a counterproposal... The Sonic proposal already was a stupid enough decision as-is and this... this is no different.
#{{User|MeritC}} Per all; first of all, in terms of a fan managed encyclopedia like this, it's still the best route to keep the "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" article titles for this Wiki, even though certain and recent games like the sports, kart racing, and Mario Party games just address the two as "Peach" and "Daisy" in their names. Plus, in terms of linking their names to the respective articles, we're already making sure that "Peach" links to the "Princess Peach" article and "Daisy" links to the "Princess Daisy" article anyway.
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice, the current names are fine too.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Waluigi Time
#{{User|Dwhitney}} Per all. Also, Daisy is referred to as Princess Daisy in ''Mario Tennis Aces''.
#{{user|Lakituthequick}} Per all, in particular Mario and WT. As for the SEO point, while that certainly does matter (even outside of "corporate" contexts), in this case it's just clearer to denote the princesses with their titles. SEO happens to be a happy by-product of that.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all. Since these proposals are made with following the rules in mind, then the obvious alternative is to change the rules. The naming guidelines have nothing about full names and titles, that should be changed so that conditions pertaining to them to allow use of extending their titles based on official material over (identifiers). Let's use Princess Peach as an example. "Princess Peach" was first seen in Yoshi's Safari then later in Mario 64 and here and there ever since. Thus "Princess" is part of Peach and should be kept as "Princess Peach" to distinquish from Peach the fruit. Same with Roy Koopa and Roy from Mario Golf, the latter doesn't really need an identifier if the former is moved back to his full name. On the other hand, I've been also thinking such a policy would have to be restrictive: "Princess Peach Toadstool" wouldn't be legit because it wasn't seen in Yoshi's Safari first, "King Bowser" wouldn't be either for similar reasons, "Boo Diddly" wouldn't count because  it's only seen in Mario 3 and its remakes, and Mollusque-Lanceur's full name won't because it comes from a secondary source and its length may be an issue. There's probably a lot more that needs to be figured out, those are just examples that came to my mind.
#{{User|MCD}} Per all.


====Princess Comments, Peach====
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
@SeanWheeler: Why is shortening names a bad thing? If the shortened name is the more current title of a character or game, shouldn't the article be moved to the more current title? The length of the titles of the characters is not the main issue here; it's how current those titles are. [[User:Mari0fan100|Mari0fan100]] ([[User talk:Mari0fan100|talk]]) 20:41, November 9, 2024 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)


@Mario: Given "Peach" and "Daisy" are very commonly used names, and also shorter (thus easier to type), I can't imagine it being that bad for searches. The shortened names are also "distinct, recognizable names", and the ones Nintendo is fine to use for the characters (as well as what I usually hear fans call them), so why shouldn't we follow suit (especially given all the other renaming proposals, some of which, e.g. [[Talk:Bobbery#Changing Admiral Bobbery to just Bobbery|Bobbery]] and [[Talk:TEC#Move to TEC|TEC]], had literally no opposition)?<br>@Waluigi Time: I would argue Princess Daisy isn't really "still in frequent use". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:13, November 10, 2024 (EST)
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I think if I wanted to look up the Mario character named "Daisy" in Google, I would use "Princess Daisy" to try to get more results that aren't daisies. Mario's popular, but not the center of all reality. (Though a company selling BB guns somehow beats out the plant.) Google suggests I may also want to use "Daisy mario". Bobbery is unique enough to be the main topic of that name. TEC has technology companies beat out the character unless "TEC-XX" is used.
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Super Mario Wiki appears to be far enough ahead in results that if Google recognizes the search is for a character this site is first up, even in cases like Bobbery, TEC, and Ludwig. But I'm no search engineer, so I don't know if changing the article names can impact this.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:29, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I was more referring to searches on the wiki itself. Google searches shouldn't really be what determines page names in my opinion, or we'd have a good case to move [[Pauline]] to "Mayor Pauline" (or to add "mario" in brackets to a ton of article titles). Either way, I feel like having to search "daisy mario" instead of "princess daisy" (as I imagine many people already do) isn't that big a deal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:44, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::As I alluded to, my reasoning mostly concerns Peach, but I don't really want to put my official support behind a Daisy move either, which is why I chose that option. IMO, external searchability absolutely should be something taken into consideration when it's relevant, but not the deciding factor. At the end of the day, a wiki is here for its readers, so let's not make it needlessly harder on them to find things if we can help it. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:56, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::I'd think using the name the character most commonly goes by would make it more intuitive to find. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:15, November 10, 2024 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I'm not convinced that switching to a shorter name has any negative influence on external searchability regardless of if that should be a priority or not. We're still on the front page of Google results for "Shadow the Hedgehog wiki", and the only results that come up before our "Shadow (character)" article are from Wikipedia and dedicated ''Sonic'' wikis. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 13:51, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::::I don't understand why the topic of SEO is still part of the debate. It's a misplaced priority. This site is a community-run educational resource, not a corporate product that you're incentivized to optimize every little aspect of in the name of clicks. Look at Fandom--outwardly, it provides the former, but it's also an ad-ridden hellhole artificially planted on the front page of Google results with no regard to the quality or accuracy of the content herein. I'm questioning whether it's worth compromising accuracy so the wiki could compete with such actors. Not to say this site would exist without traffic and participation at all, every project needs funding and other manners of support, but, like<br>guys,<br>This is the biggest resource on the Internet for the most popular video game franchise on the planet.<br>Do you really believe losing 0.005% of total searches because Glup Shitto got renamed to the less popular but more accurate "Shart Faqeer" is such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:33, November 10, 2024 (EST), [[Special:Diff/4429048|edited]] 10:55, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::::I think "corporate product" is a bit of a misread. Rather, there is little value in maintaining an encyclopedia that people cannot find. I do not know if it impacts this particular case (i.e. when I last searched "wendy mario" or "wendy o. koopa" on Google, [[Wendy|our article]] still shows up near or at the top, regardless of name), but I do not think it is invalid to keep in mind.
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::::I think it is worth keeping in mind that the Super Mario Wiki has different goals than a character-selection screen or a level-selection screen, which typically prefer simple truncated names. ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' refers to a boss as "[[Larry]]" in [[Larry's Torpedo Castle|one context]] and as "Larry Koopa" in [[Larry's Groundless Battle|another]]. An encyclopedic reference that encompasses many series and subjects may similarly best support its information by adopting fuller names with discretion. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:22, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::::::The character select screen name shortening argument has already been addressed: names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)" are longer than "Princess Daisy", yet the former is used while the latter is not. Clearly Nintendo just has a preference for the shorter name, so we should too. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::::::This is not consistent though. On the character-selection screen in ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'', you can select "[[Yoshi (species)|Light-Blue Yoshi]]." The standees for this character's name is truncated as "[https://youtu.be/9kJ2eVPxu1w?si=dQ3ZlK_uMZ3TSHS4&t=342 L. Blue Yoshi]." The ''Star Fox'' protagonist goes by "[[Fox]]" on the character-selection screen for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' titles, but goes by "Fox McCloud" on the costume list for ''[[Super Mario Maker]]''. Our pink princess character goes by "[[Princess Peach]]" on the [[:File:Princess Peach Showtime Box Art.jpg|box for her standalone game]], and simply as "Peach" in the game itself. Is it invalid to suggest whether a character goes by a truncated or full name is really context dependent, and less about the phasing out of monikers or surnames for certain characters? If the former, is Super Mario Wiki inherently not the platform where full names would be helpful? And if it is not, why? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:07, November 10, 2024 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::The length of a character's name can undoubtedly be subject to technical limitations in a game. I personally just don't think this is necessarily the case with Daisy's name as of today, and my view is that the wiki should be observing what the most current official consensus on those names is. The standees in ''Wonder'' are a highly particular instance of name rendering even within the game; the character selection screen [https://youtu.be/Q4Gp9aZKwEk?t=7 otherwise uses "Light-Blue Yoshi" and "Daisy" simultaneously], and I'd hazard a guess that players are more likely to make better note of those than how they are rendered in the standee menu. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:41, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:50, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]'').  [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:::::::As people have related in this discussion, Mario Wiki tends to be pushed forward in Google results for a Mario character. It is decidedly not an encyclopedia people cannot find. Porplemontage can probably conjure some projections, he has the data for this sort of thing after all, but I'm confident given the wiki's size and popularity that Mario Wiki will remain in the top search results for "peach mario" and "daisy mario" whether the characters retain or lose their mantle titles. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:04, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:12, November 10, 2024 (EST)
:::::{{@|JanMisali}} Same with googling "shadow sonic wiki". Even just "shadow wiki" still brings up his Mario Wiki article on the second page on my end, which is pretty impressing considering the breadth of coverage either of the words "shadow" and "wiki" have on the Internet. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:48, November 10, 2024 (EST)


@MeritC: "We'd have to change links" is never a good argument. If this passes, a bot will take care of fixing all the links. That's how we were able to [[Talk:Super Mario (franchise)#Move to "Super Mario (franchise)" -- proposal|rename the "Super Mario (franchise)" page]], probably one of the most linked to pages on the entire wiki, with no issue. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)


{{@|Dwhitney}} Where in ''Mario Tennis Aces'' is the name "Princess Daisy" used? I can't find any evidence of her being called anything but "Daisy" in that game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:27, November 11, 2024 (EST)
===Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one===
:It's right there in the beginning of the story mode. [https://youtu.be/bQYgz5RlAQI?t=315 This video, around the 5:15 time mark]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:19, November 11, 2024 (EST)
It should also be noted that [https://www.mariomayhem.com/downloads/mario_instruction_booklets/Super_Mario_Land_-_Manual_-_GB.pdf the ''Super Mario Land'' manual] consistently refers to Daisy as "Princess Daisy" in the story section and gameplay section; the character section is the only place in the manual where she's referred to as just "Daisy" (plus mistakenly calling her "Daisy Princess" as well). The manual of [https://www.gamesdatabase.org/Media/SYSTEM/Nintendo_GameCube/Manual/formated/Mario_Kart-_Double_Dash_-_Nintendo.pdf Mario Kart: Double Dash] refers to her as "Princess Daisy" once, too. I get that these aren't exactly "in-game" materials, but that should put "Princess Daisy" on the same level as the Koopalings' full names.<br>Do ''Super Smash Bros.'' games count too, btw? [https://youtu.be/U3wCxICjLPM?si=UEy9xJJ3Y3xX9Ee6 Palutena has referred to her as "Princess Daisy"]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:43, November 11, 2024 (EST)


===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
When users create a talk page, they don't always create a heading for their first topic. As a consequence, talk pages sometimes start with a discussion, then there's the table of contents (TOC) and then the remaining topics. For instance, this is the case for [[Gallery talk:Donkey Kong Card Game (trading cards)]].
''Mario Kart Tour'' has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using [[DS DK Pass]] as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large ''Mario Kart Tour'' template.  
It is ugly and inelegant, and it's even worse on mobile because this initial topic takes up a lot of vertical space and never gets collapsed; it is quite a pain having to scroll down an entire discussion just to access the TOC that lists the other topics.


A total of four sub templates exist within the ''Mario Kart Tour'' template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in ''Tour'', rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.  
To solve this problem, I propose to add a heading at the top of the first topic of a talk page if it does not have one.
That way, the TOC will be at the top of the page (as it should be) and the first topic will be listed along with the other topics instead of being separated from them.


'''Proposer''': {{User|MightyMario}}<br>
The title of the new headings could be "(First topic)", enclosed in parentheses to indicate that this was not a heading from the original poster; the heading title is open for discussion.
'''Deadline''':  November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
If this proposal passes, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery_talk:Donkey_Kong_Card_Game_(trading_cards)&oldid=4730155 the aforementioned page] would look [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Jdtendo/Bacassab&oldid=4776920 like this].


====Support====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
#{{User|MightyMario}} I heartily endorse this proposal.
'''Deadline''': March 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Tails777}} I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with ''Tour's'' template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} We've split navigation templates for [[Template:NSMBW levels|much less]], this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Agreed with all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Dark Jonathan}} I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.


====Oppose====
====Support: add a heading to first topic if it lacks one====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per proposal
#{{User|Technetium}} Good idea
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems useful for navigation!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! very good idea


====Comments====
====Oppose: don't add headings to topics====
I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)


We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. [[Super Bell Hill]] featuring {{tem|SM3DW levels}} instead of {{tem|SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific ''WarioWare'' or ''Mario Party'' title. So while it's atypical for us to split ''Mario Kart''-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)
====Comments (first topic heading)====


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Either remove non-English names from cartoon dubs that weren't overseen by Nintendo or affiliated companies, or allow English names from closed captions===
''None at the moment.''
"What does one have to do with the other?" You'll see!
 
Back in 2021, there was a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#"Closed caption of the Mario cartoons"|proposal]] to allow closed captions used on ''Mario'' cartoons uploaded or streamed officially online to be used as sources on the wiki. It encountered massive opposition, with one comment left by a user in a previous discussion acting as the cornerstone of the opposition's rationale. The link intended to lead to that comment, seen under that proposal, doesn't do its job any more, so I'm copy-pasting it here for your convenience.
<blockquote><span class="quote" style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:11pt;font-style:italic">“re closed caption: The relation between WildBrain and video streaming platforms like Netflix is the same one Nintendo has with retaillers like Gamespot: meaning the owner of the property sells the product to the retailler/streaming website, and they may supply other material (like artwork, press releases, etc) to help the client market the product. However, that doesn't mean everything the client does with the product is now official; for instance, Gamespot has in the past created fake placeholder boxarts for Mario games using edited official artwork. Gamestop may be an authorized (or "official") retailler of Mario products but it doesn't make those placeholder boxarts by association as they were made entirely by Gamespot without inputs from the creators of the source material.
 
“In that respect, closed captions fall in the same category as placeholder retailler-made boxarts. Closed captions are made by people with no relation to the source material or access to behind-the-scenes material like script, and who are just writing down what they hear by ear. They are not an acceptable source for spellings.”</span>
 
~ '''{{user|Glowsquid}}, 2021'''
</blockquote>
 
This is valid. In all this talking about what is official and what is not, I suppose it feels right to draw a concrete line somewhere. Someone who acquires the rights to use Nintendo's or one of their partners' IP to use it for a given purpose is technically an authorized party, but they're no authority themselves over the content within. Makes sense.
 
...Meaning the multilanguage names invoked in the proposal's title stick out all the more like a sore thumb. A good chunk of them, at least. Why would the wiki treat a studio or company that dubs and distributes syndicated Mario cartoons to a given demographic as particularly authoritative over the content? Ultimately, it's the same situation as the one described in the quote, the apparent clincher being that it's in a different language, and I apologize, but I don't see how it is consistent to prohibit third-party English subtitles but allow foreign dubs by people that are just as far-removed from the parent company. I propose a compromise.
 
Of course, not all foreign dubs would be off limits as sources should the second option of this proposal win. If one can provide sufficient proof that a given dub was supervised by one or more employees representing a company with authority over the original product, i.e. that the company left their mark on the endeavor, sourcing it is absolutely fine. As it stands, though, I can already point to the Romanian dubs of the Mario DIC cartoons as ineligible for sourcing given my failing to find any evidence DIC Entertainment ever put its signature on them. (This is coming from someone who contributed a significant amount of names from these dubs. Sometimes you gotta kill your darlings.)
 
"'''So if option 1 wins, 'Ahehehaue' is considered official again?'''"
 
No. That doesn't come from a closed caption, and I consider WildBrain's issue of circular sourcing to be a whole other can of worms best left out of this week's topic.
 
(added 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)) "'''Does the proposal extend to the live-action segments of the ''Super Show''?'''"
 
Yes, they're within the same package.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
 
====Allow the sourcing of English closed captions from officially uploaded and streamed ''Mario'' animated works====
#{{User|Hewer}} Perhaps I just have a more liberal understanding of "official" (as an Ahehehauhe defender), but after proposals like [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/57#Allow/prohibit fan work by former Nintendo staff|this]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Allow quotes of characters being voiced by their official actors in unofficial media|this]], and [[Talk:Fangamer#Delete this article|this]], I feel like all these should be close enough to official to be worth documenting. And aren't games like [[Hotel Mario]] a bit of a similar case, where the "official" involvement didn't go much further than licensing them?
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I think the difference between closed captions and placeholder retailer box art is that the closed captions are a(n optional) part of the media as it can be officially experienced. As such, I think it counts as "official" regardless of who did it.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Well, we would need some kind of source for names of characters that never appeared in English localizations.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These names would be familiar to some viewers of the material, if nothing else, and it seems a bit odd to consider them completely unofficial even if they weren't overseen by the original creators.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} a license is a license
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. I still believe that these should still count as official enough, as they are the providers of the content and it's like a license of a license.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} In the absence of any alternative names from Nintendo or the original team at DiC (since goodness knows that that isn't coming anytime soon), we feel like these are fair ''enough''. While not exactly a primary source by any means, if we permit names from various strategy guides, we feel like names from closed captions officially provided by the distributors should be fair game.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} These are no different than names from ''licensed'' strategy guides or other content written or localized by third parties.
 
====Remove names that originate from non-English dubs of ''Mario'' animated works that were not overseen by Nintendo or an affiliated company====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal. I found the argument persuasive.
 
====Do nothing====
 
====Comments (closed captions vs. foreign dubs proposal)====
Waltuh... I'm not voting right now, Waltuh... {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:01, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
 
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} By "not overseen by Nintendo/DiC", do you mean they gave the go-ahead but didn't have any direct involvement in production, or the dubs were produced by a third party with no permission whatsoever? I'd consider being more charitable for the former, but if it's completely unauthorized then that's basically equivalent to a bootleg or fan translation and probably shouldn't be covered. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:07, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:First one. The proposal only touches on the scenario where a company that airs a dubbed ''Mario'' cartoon has a license to do so from the work's owner. Anything outside of such a licensing agreement is completely unofficial, like you pointed out. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT), edited 17:44, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
 
Added stipulation that the proposal extends to live-action ''Super Show'' segments. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
:What is "Ahehehauhe?" [[User:SeanWheeler|SeanWheeler]] ([[User talk:SeanWheeler|talk]]) 23:29, October 30, 2024 (EDT)
::It's a [https://youtu.be/OdLFZ5RAPTU clip] of a ''Super Show'' episode uploaded to YouTube by WildBrain, the current owners of most of DIC Entertainment's library (including their Mario shows). On the wiki, "Ahehehauhe" used to redirect to that episode's article because it was deemed an "official" alternate title given WildBrain's ownership status over the material, which many found outrageous since it barely passes as a "title" and is simply a transcription of the characters cackling in that clip. We don't even know if a human consciously named the clip that; it could've been a bot. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:28, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
::Now, "Ahehehauhe" isn't linked to the WildBrain-related circular sourcing issues I mentioned in the proposal (they used names from the wiki in promotional texts, which Ahaha isn't one of). However, if the same policy used for the English Super Mario Encyclopedia is to be applied to WildBrain on the same grounds, then the only case where a name they used for a given subject should be employed by the wiki is (a) if the name didn't come from the wiki in the first place, and (b) there are no other known names for that subject. Even if we're to consider Ahahahue a unique and proper way to call an episode of a TV show, its use would still be untenable under the second point. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:39, October 31, 2024 (EDT)
:::If the same ''Encyclopedia'' logic applied, shouldn't it still be a redirect at least? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)
::::Ah, I didn't know that was the case with the Encyclopedia. Still, I don't think many would be keen on treating an onomatopoeia as an alternate title for an episode anyhow. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:11, November 9, 2024 (EST)
:::::Why would "Ahehehauhe" be considered as an ''alternate title for a full episode'' when it's only been used as a name for a ''15-second clip from said episode'', anyhow? It's only a short moment of the episode! I don't think other wikis for TV series consider official names of clips from a short moment of a particular episode to be an alternate title for the full episode either, whether it's some funny-sounding onomatopoeia or a more descriptive caption. I'd be all for using Ahehehauhe as a redirect if it was actually used as the name for the full episode, but it simply ''isn't'': it was only used for a small fragment and nothing more. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:38, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Latest revision as of 06:52, March 11, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Tuesday, March 11st, 13:33 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

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

I have several pitches for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Zero

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

Option One

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

Option Two

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

Option Three

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

Option Four

Comments

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

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

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

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

frog man!
green lad!

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

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

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

I offer three options:

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

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

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

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

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

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

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

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
  2. Technetium (talk) Good idea
  3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful for navigation!
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Works for us, and would make it marginally easier to tell when a talk page should be split. Per proposal.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! very good idea

Oppose: don't add headings to topics

Comments (first topic heading)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4778233"