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===
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
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).
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].
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>
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
'''Deadline''': November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.


====Support====
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
#{{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====
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.
#{{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====
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
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.)
I offer two options:


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


:{{@|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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@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)
====Support: I like this idea! Let's include missions on the Manual of Style.====
: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)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "[[Mama Luigi]]", quotation marks in places like the [[Super Mario World (television series)#Episodes|list of episodes]], to even the infobox of its own article, we can see ''a'' reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are ''useful''. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D ''Mario'' platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is ''Super Mario Odyssey'', regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider ''Mario 64'' style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in ''Sunshine'', after all!
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.


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)
====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
: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)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the [["Deep, Deep Vibes"|errant times they are official]] from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
::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)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
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)
#{{User|Salmancer}} Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an ''average'' and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like [[Bowser Jr. Showdown]], and missions can lack those, like with [[Smart Bombing]]. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
: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)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard [[Power Moon]] names count, if ''SM64'' stars do? what about ''Brothership'' [[List of Mario & Luigi: Brothership side quests|side quests]]? ''TTYD'' [[Trouble Center|troubles]]? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like <i>Master of Disguise</i>'s [[Whose Show Is This Anyway?!!|first]] and [[The Purple Wind Stinks Up the Ship!|second]] levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
::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)
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
 
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all.
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====
 
====Do nothing====
 
====Comments====
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)
:*NTSC=PAL: Mini Bowser would be a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and the Mini Bowser toy
:*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)
::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)
::::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:
 
::::::*"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."
 
::::::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.
 
::::::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)
 
===Do not surround song titles with quotes===
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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'''.
 
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.
 
So, our options:
 
* '''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 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.
* '''Option 3: Do nothing.''' I guess this option ''includes'' Origami King's CDs.
 
'''Proposer:''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''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====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>
#{{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====
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
#{{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.
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.
#{{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.
#{{User|Axii}} Per all.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.


====Comments====
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
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)
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
: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)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::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)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
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)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::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)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|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)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html MLA] {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::If it's not ''our'' manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::''Our'' manual of style '''is based on this manual of style.''' {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::If it's only ''based on'' it, then it ''isn't'' it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone ''else's'' manual of style. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Well, then — '''Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to ''pretend'' like they do.''' That's been my argument this whole time. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we ''should'' emulate over a video game's script. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::{{@|Ahemtoday}} I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ab/e1/7e/abe17ef61a737df53498f93487668213.jpg albums], [https://images.template.net/89102/novel-table-of-contents-template-wvzrz.jpeg books], or [https://addbcdbimages.s3.amazonaws.com/nick/sbsp_fish_bowl.jpg title cards for television shows]. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{tem|cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_formatting_and_style_guide.html MLA proposes it is done] <small>(owl.purdue.edu)</small>. There's also been at least [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Italics_formatting_of_boat_names.2C_fictional_products.2C_and_others|one attempt]] at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.
::::::::But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them ''being'' conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)


I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on {{@|Nintendo101}}'s vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively ''in'' sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music ''doesn't''. Yet [[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music|this article]] writes the song names as if it ''does'', because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be '''unable to trust the wiki about it'''. No benefit can counterbalance that. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)
I argue "death of the author". People will read this as "we're putting quotation marks around missions and not levels because missions are more like television episodes than levels are". This will happen because levels in 2D ''Super Mario'' games and missions in 3D ''Super Mario'' games are more or less equivalent; the concept of "place" vs "event in place" is wibbly-wobbly in video game land unless the option of replaying them with the same save file is cut off, and this proposal is putting one set of "events in places" over the other. I read the entire proposal and came to that exact conclusion. And to the theoretical confusion of "3D platformer level" to "mission", what of "2D platformer world" to "level"? What makes declaring Footrace with Koopa the Quick to be a part of Bob-omb Battlefield but not of the same type as Bob-omb Battlefield any more important than declaring Bowser Jr. Showdown is part of [[Meringue Clouds]] but not of the same type as Meringue Clouds? This has to be done for both kinds of relationships. This, of course, is relevant because Worlds in New Super Mario Bros. games started to include interactive elements that work based on how they do in the levels, and I think this proposal is targeted at prose for such interactive elements in their articles, like explaining where and when things appear. Sure, this makes something like [[Cosmic block]]'s first sentence in it's ''Super Mario Galaxy'' section marginally clearer if someone has already read the Manual of Style, but why shouldn't [[Spine Coaster]]s get this treatment when they appear in [[Thrilling Spine Coaster]] and in [[Rock-Candy Mines]]? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 23:19, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I don't think "death of the author" applies here because the distinction of mission vs. level is informed by the game itself, not by what the creators of the game say it should be.
:The reason why Bob-omb Battlefield isn't the equivalent of a world is because the first floor in ''Super Mario 64'' is the world, and this is part of how the game is physically organized. You only gain access to another floor if you clear the first Bowser course of the first floor. The only games with missions that don't have worlds for their levels are ''Super Mario Sunshine'' and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. The other three do: ''Super Mario 64'' has its levels broken up into floors; ''Super Mario Galaxy'' has [[dome]]s; and ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has what are literally called [[World#Super Mario Galaxy 2|World]]s. So if the the equivalency of the [[Terrace (Super Mario Galaxy)|Terrace]] in ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' is [[Acorn Plains]], and the equivalency of [[Good Egg Galaxy]] is [[Acorn Plains Way]], than what is the equivalency of "[[A Snack of Cosmic Proportions]]?" The answer is there is none, because Acorn Plains Way doesn't have any episodes. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:07, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::I should have leaned less on the joke. When I said "death of the author" I meant "your intention not being that missions have more narrative content than levels does not negate my interpretation of this rule in the manual of style existing because missions have {arbitrary quality} that levels do not". ({arbitrary quality} can be replaced with anything, "narrative content" is just my pick for the most obvious given the comparison to television in the proposal.) People who don't edit wikis usually do not read the manual of style, and there has to be a non-zero number of editors who don't read it either. This rule, if implemented and without someone also reading the explanation listed here, says what I interpreted it to say. Super Mario Wiki makes decisions both for contributors and for readers, and this interpetation is a negative for both groups if they do not read the Manual of Style to obtain the intended interpretation. While reading the Manual of Style is an expectation for contributors (and honestly I do not mind if people skip the manual of style and just figure things out from context), that is not expected for readers.
::And to point 2... This policy meant to apply to exactly five video games only functions in a reasonable sense for three of them. That is far too much "sanding off the corner cases because it's convenient" than this wiki should have. (If you subscribe to the reasoning Nintendo displayed once in an [[:File:3D Mario Infograph.jpg|image]] that ''Odyssey'' is actually the sequel to ''Sunshine'' and the ''Galaxy'' games float off with ''3D Land'' and ''3D World'', then the ratios of "makes sense/doesn't make sense" are 2/2 for the Galaxy/3D Whatever group with missions and 1/3 for the wide open sandboxes with missions. That's worse.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 22:18, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm sorry, I don't think I really understand what you are talking about. The criteria for missions is not arbitrary - they are well defined in the games they occur in, which is why we have an [[mission|article for them]]. It is an immaterial scenario within a level. The reason why one would put quotation marks around mission and not something like a [[Spine Coaster]] is because the latter is a material, physical structure. Same with characters, items, objects, enemies, worlds, levels, etc. Mario can touch Bob-omb Battlefield - he cannot touch "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," only experience it. This is frankly a level of clarification I did not really expect. Traditionally, in creative works, regardless of medium of what that work is, named scenarios - the subset experiences within which the events of the creative work occur - are what you put quotation marks around in reference material about that work. That's it. That's very common practice, and it is a helpful tool for the reasons I outline above. To me, that is exactly what missions are in the 3D ''Mario'' games - named scenarios. The missions in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' are even referred to as episodes - which is what you would quotation marks around in reference material about television series. It is completely inline with what one would do for a novel with named chapters, an album, a film with named scenes, or even the named paragraphs of a delivered speech. The point isn't that people at large would know the quotation marks mean it is a mission - it is that they would understand "oh, there is something discretely different between 'Footrace with Koopa the Quick' and Bob-omb Battlefield" just by passively reading the text. Because if they were equivalencies, they would not be formatted differently in the reference material. That remains the case. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:09, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::::My point was to say in the same way Cosmic Block would be clarified by going, "Cosmic blocks first appear in 'Pull Star Path' of Space Junk Galaxy", Spine Coaster merits equal clarification by going, "Spine Coasters appear in 'Thrilling Spine Coaster' of Rock-Candy Mines", not that we should be putting quotes around Spine Coaster. (I'm really bad at wording these things).
::::Regardless, I still flatly think this is wrong. Yes, missions are immaterial, levels are material... but there's a catch to "missions are immaterial" that I should have remembered a few indents earlier. The specific mission selected from a menu changes the map that a level uses. And the exact state of the map of the level when a mission is selected is treated on this wiki as part of the mission: according to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_in_the_Honeyhive_Kingdom&diff=4484131&oldid=4482705 this edit summary] and [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Luigi_on_the_Roof&diff=4470879&oldid=4448218 this edit summary] the enemy list for a mission should only account for enemies in the version of the level loaded when that mission is selected and are able to be encountered while collecting the mission's Power Star, not just every enemy that can be encountered while still collecting the mission's Power Star. Missions on this wiki consist of both an immaterial scenario and the very material version of the level loaded when selecting the mission. Footrace with Koopa the Quick means both the scenario where you can race Koopa the Quick to get a Power Star ''and'' the version of Bob-Omb Battlefield that contains Koopa the Quick, a [[Bob-omb Buddy]] to unlock the [[cannon]]s, an extra [[metal ball|iron ball]], and neither [[King Bob-omb|Big Bob-omb]] nor a [[Koopa Shell]]. (This explanation on {{iw|Ukikipedia|Bob-omb Battlefield}} brought to you from Ukikipedia!) This ties back into my earlier ''Odyssey'' joke: this concept doesn't necessarily apply there because in removing the ability to replay missions and having state changes for finishing final objectives, things more logically come together as "the world is changing because I'm moving through the story" and not as "the world is in a specific state because I picked this Star from the menu". Which is why I'm swearing up and down that I knew this and somehow forgot to mention it. (I should also note I'm not overthinking game mechanics, Big Bob-omb actively acknowledges this is how things work because he says he shows up again if the player selects Big Bob-omb on the Summit's Star from the menu.) With this the layout of the level being a component of a mission, a mission looks a lot like a level of a 2D ''Super Mario'' game.
::::For completion's sake, I should also mention that [[Dire, Dire Docks]] throws a spanner in my case. The state of Bowser's Sub is based on completion of [[Bowser in the Fire Sea]] and not on the selection of any mission. Which would mean that maps aren't entirely dependent on mission selection, only extremely close to completely dependent on mission selection. Ukikipedia doesn't count Bowser's Sub's state as a course version, if that matters. ([[Tick Tock Clock]] presumably doesn't mess with this: the clock speeds presumably are just changing the behavior of all the platforms and not four versions of Tick Tock Clock.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 09:14, January 11, 2025 (EST)
{{@|EvieMaybe}}, I restricted this proposal to what I am familiar with, which are the 3D ''Super Mario'' platformers. I do not have the knowledge or expertise to extend this proposal to ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' or ''Mario & Luigi: Brothership''. I am only interested in ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Sunshine'', ''Super Mario Galaxy'', ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'', and ''Super Mario Odyssey''. I do not offhand think isolated Power Moons should be impacted by this proposal. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 00:13, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:By the nature of being a writing guideline, this proposal ''inherently'' extends to those games, and every other game within this wiki's scope. I've taken a hardline stance against this convention, but I would rather it be applied consistently everywhere than be inconsistently enforced and/or explicitly arbitrarily limited in scope. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:47, January 9, 2025 (EST)
::What? No. It would apply only to the subjects on the [[mission]] page, but they do not have a single name. Please do not say things that are not true or assume bad faith. It is discourteous to your fellow user. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:36, January 9, 2025 (EST)
:::Apologies. I'd overlooked that "mission" was a strictly defined term on this wiki in that way, and I didn't mean to speak in a way that was assuming bad faith. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:26, January 9, 2025 (EST)


===Add identifiers to near-identical titles===
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)
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!'').


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


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


'''Edit:''' Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include [[Family Basic (microgame)]] and [[Family BASIC]] (as ruled by [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|a proposal]]), [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)|Hot Air Balloon (''Donkey Kong'' franchise)]] and [[Hot-air balloon]], [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]], and [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] and both [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)|Avalanche! (''Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix'')]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)|Avalanche! (''Mario Party 4'')]]. If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
====Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)====
'''Deadline''': November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves, of course. We don't see any particular harm in this when, as of submitting this proposal, this would only create, what, 10 categories?
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me, especially because, if an individual is uploading images to the wiki for a source that currently has no images, there's a solid chance that that person will upload three images. {{wp|Rule of three (writing)|It's a popular number}}!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Three is a magic number.


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


====Oppose====
====Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)====
#{{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.
The intent of that restriction is that, for example, if there aren't four articles for [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters]] then the couple characters would just go in [[:Category:Super Paper Mario]] rather than create the subcategory. Image categories are different since moving up the tree in the same way would be undesirable (there would be a bunch of random images at the bottom of [[:Category:Game images]] rather than those categories being redlinked). We can create image categories with as few as one entry; I updated [[MarioWiki:Categories]]. If you still want to change the number needed for articles, up to you. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 22:38, January 21, 2025 (EST)
#{{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.
:Oh! We didn't know that, good to know! We'd like to proceed with the proposal, even if we don't think it'd have any immediate impact under these rules--all the 3-item categories have to do with images at the moment. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, January 21, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
#{{User|Dine2017}} Per Hewer. Also, I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.) In addition, I'm not sure how "semantically identical" would be defined -- I think "color" and "colored" have subtle different semantics to make them ''not'' identical.
 
====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)
:i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the [[Secret exit]] article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. [[Family Basic (microgame)]] recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from [[Family BASIC]] [[Talk:Family_Basic_(microgame)#Moving_the_page|was deemed unreasonable]]. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename [[Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise)]] (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from [[Hot-air balloon]]. [[Avalanche (obstacle)]] has an identifier to separate it from [[Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix)]] and [[Avalanche! (Mario Party 4)]], even though both of them have exclamation marks. [[Finish line (object)]] and [[Finish Line (microgame)]] get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)
::This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made [[Family Basic]] a redirect to [[Family BASIC]], so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)


==New features==
==New features==
===Create a category for "catch-all articles"===
===Make categories for families===
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:
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).
 
*[[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|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} My proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.


====Oppose====
====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|Mario}} So, have any idea what this category will exactly comprise of? Seeing the organization this user is proposing (putting Daisy into Peach's family for instance) isn't making me really want to support.
#{{User|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|LadySophie17}} Going from the names described in the comments, I disagree with the addition of characters like Daisy and Toadette, whose familial connections hinge on single instances from prima guides. Having them in those categories is borderline misleading. <s>I also disagree with adding implied characters, since they literally do not have their own page, and we just cannot simply add categories to the whole list articles.</s> There might be some merit to categories for Bowser's Peach's and Toad's families (if there's enough of them) because they are legitimate characters (even if from fringe media) but overall, I am not convinced. I've been corrected on list article categories, but I still feel implied characters should not be counted.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or ''Super Mario''.
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per all
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per Mario and LadySophie17
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.


====Comments====
====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 articles I agree are generic, 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)
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:What 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)
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
Each of these new categories should have at least '''five entries'''; see [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]]. I'm not sure Donkey Kong, Toad, or Peach meets the minimum number of entries. Would the Koopalings still count as Bowser's family?--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 23:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
:Donkey Kong certainly has enough, though there might be a bit of overlap with [[:Category:Kongs]]. Peach and Toad probably have enough if you count [[List of implied characters|implied characters]] (which can be included in the categories as redirects). More examples were mentioned in the previous proposal's comments. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:23, January 18, 2025 (EST)


==Changes==
:Here are 5 people in each family:
===Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals===
:Peach’s family: [[Princess Peach]]; [[Princess Daisy]]; [[Mushroom King]]; [[Gramma Toadstool]]; [[Obā-chan]]; etc.<br>Bowser’ family: [[Koopalings]] (even more than 5); etc.<br>Donkey Kong’s family: [[Donkey Kong]]; [[Donkey Kong Jr.]]; [[Cranky Kong]]; [[Wrinkly Kong]]; [[Uncle Julius]]; etc.<br>Toad’s family: [[Toad]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Mushroom Marauder]]; [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus|Jake the Crusher Fungus]]; [[Gramps]]; [[Toadette]] (Toad’s sister sometimes); etc (in this case, [[Moldy]] and [[Toad's cousin|Toad’s cousin]]).
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.
:I actually thought there should be an article for Dixie’s family, but there are only 4 known members (unless we count [[Baby Kong]]), so her family should be in the category for Donkey Kong’s. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 15:25, January 18, 2025 (EST)
::It's not about number of people but '''entries'''. [[Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus]] is a single entry. It really looks like scraping the bottom of the barrel. Daisy and Toadette because of single throwaway lines in the Prima guides? Implied characters? Baby versions? As [[MarioWiki:Categories#Size and scope]] says: "a minimum of '''five entries''' (including any subcategories' entries), however they ''should'' have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand (for example, the six [[Dixie Kong's Photo Album#Aquatic Attackers|Aquatic Attackers]] are listed on that very page, which they all link back to)." Mario and Luigi's family got their own category because there were so many entries. They have their own page because putting it all on Mario's page is cumbersome. Right now, Toad and Peach's families can fit into single paragraphs in their respective articles. Donkey Kong's only has Cranky due to his ambiguous identity. I can get behind Bowser since his family has its own template, even if there are lots of retconned and implied characters in it.--[[User:Platform|Platform]] ([[User talk:Platform|talk]]) 20:26, January 18, 2025 (EST)
:::Look, Platform, I stopped reading after the fourth sentence. I just wanna say: even though that, there are still enough characters to make the categories. If Mushroom Marauder and Jake are in the same page, add [[Toad's cousin]]. He's someone else. And if you don't wanna add Toadette and Daisy, fine. There are still enough people. So, ☝️🤓, okay? And, btw, if you don't like the idea of my wonderful proposal, then oppose. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 12:56, January 21, 2025 (EST)
::::That is incredibly rude of you. And also an IGN journalist is not a valid source of information. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 19:34, January 21, 2025 (EST)


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.
@LadySophie17: Implied subjects can be added to categories in the form of redirects, this is an established practice. For example, see [[:Category:Organizations]], which includes several implied organizations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:40, January 21, 2025 (EST)
:Fair enough. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:21, January 21, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Axii}}<br>
What about times where families get..screwy (e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g0uXcTF3mA&t=281s that one time Mario and Peach were married and became parents to baby Luigi])? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 12:09, January 22, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline''': November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:Oh my god, that is so disgusting. But, anyway, [[:Category:Mario and Luigi's family|there already is a category for Mario and Luigi’s family]] with baby Luigi in it, so no worries. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 14:50, January 23, 2025 (EST)


====Support (unregistered users proposal)====
For the record, I don't think an old 2007 IGN article written by a columnist working for them instead of Nintendo on the brink of ''Brawl'' speculation (such as [https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case the article provided]) is anything close to official confirmation that Stanley and Mario are cousins, and so not a very verifiable source. Especially when this "confirmation" in the first sentence reads like a colloquialism or a baseless comparison. {{User:Arend/sig}} 04:21, January 25, 2025 (EST)
#{{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)====
===Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories===
#{{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)
We realize this is a bit presumptuous given the proposal to split the clothing is, as of writing this, [[Talk:Clothing#Split everything here|the oldest unimplemented Talk Page Proposal]], and it isn't even ''close'' (it's the only proposal on that list from 2021!). However, we're a little surprised the badges and accessories weren't included in that proposal! Like clothing, there are multiple badges that appear across multiple games (such as remakes, but also the various Bangles from Dream Team/Brothership, Scarves and Statues in Dream Team/Paper Jam) and things different between them (did you know the base Mush Badge isn't in the Super Star remake? Only Mush Badges A and AA. you'd only know this comparing the two lists.)


====Comments (unregistered users proposal)====
In addition, a few of the accessories are already split; namely, the special items from the Starbeans Cafe, like the [[Greed Wallet]] or [[Great Force]]. We don't know what exactly to do if this split doesn't happen, so we've added an extra option to retain those articles but keep things to their lists, and one that just merges everything back to the lists.
"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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
: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)
'''Deadline''': February 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===Decide whether to cover the E3 2014 ''Robot Chicken''-produced sketches===
====Split 'em all (fire up that button pin maker!)====
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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, of course. There's ''enough'' recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
 
#{{User|Arend}} Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
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):
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
*[[History of Mario]]
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
*[[History of Bowser]]
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
*[[History of Princess Peach]]
#{{User|Hewer}} Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
*[[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====
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} 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|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|Tails777}} Some of them were Mario related so I don't see any reason not to mention them. Per proposal.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per proposal.
#{{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|Nintendo101}} Don't see why not.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} It is no less official than [[Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō]] or [[Super Mario-kun]]. Per all.


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


====Comments====
====Merge 'em all (those are SO out of style!)====
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)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
{{@|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)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
::::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)


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|Starluxe}}<br>'''Deadline''': November 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
The original proposal was "split everything here." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 01:06, January 26, 2025 (EST)
:The wording is a bit vague, admittedly. The way the proposal was archived says only clothing, but the actual article suggests all gear. Which, hey, it'd be nice to at least confirm it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 01:10, January 26, 2025 (EST)


====Support====
==Removals==
#{{User|Starluxe}} Per my proposal
===Remove staff ghost times from the driver's list of profiles and statistics===
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
Currently, our lists of profiles and statistics list all of the details for every ''Mario Kart'' staff ghost where that driver is used. See [[List_of_Mario_profiles_and_statistics#Mario_Kart_8_Deluxe|Mario's from ''8 Deluxe'']] as an example. That seems odd to me, so I'm proposing their removal for two main reasons.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I agree.
#'''I don't view staff ghosts as being intrinsic to the character.''' Unlike the unique stats a driver has, a staff ghost is not really part of what the character was built to do in the game. Instead, it's the other way around - the character is being used in service of the staff ghost mechanic, and that's about it. Even if you do take the perspective that these are intrinsic to the character, there's arguably superfluous information here. Is the fact that Laura from NoA decided to play as Mario on Mute City that important to Mario the character in ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe''?<br>Not everything that a character does in the game is necessarily a statistic - for example, it's generally agreed on the wiki that the levels in a platforming game where an enemy appears are not a statistic to be counted in this section, and I see this as basically equivalent for a racing game. (Yes, I'm aware that there are several examples of this currently being done. I do not think this is appropriate.) IMO, it would be more appropriate to use the character's history section to list the course(s) they appear as a staff ghost on in prose.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, how is this ''not'' already policy??? Per proposal.
#'''It's inconsistently applied.''' To my knowledge, this is only done with drivers - not karts, tires, or gliders. Mechanically, the vehicle that a character drives is just as important as the character driving it, so if we really wanted to be consistent here, we'd have to add staff ghost times to all of those other pages too. I think you can guess by the rest of the proposal that I don't support this.
#{{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.
You could also make some argument that this is stretching [[MarioWiki:Once and only once|once and only once]] a bit too far, since we have staff ghost times already listed on the game page and individual course pages. I'm admittedly not as much of a stickler for once and only once as some users and I think it's sometimes applied too rigidly, but character profiles are a third (and if we want to apply this consistently to karts as well, potentially fourth, fifth, and sixth) page where stats are repeated. That's quite a few pages that could have to be fixed up if we ever discovered a mistake, and those aren't places an editor is likely to check if they aren't already aware of them.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Mario}} The next time Peach asks Mario out, I am sooo citing this proposal.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments====
What source you think is acceptable for release dates? I personally use GameFAQs. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 20:05, November 2, 2024 (EDT)
: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)
::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)
:::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)
 
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)
 
===Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"===
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.
 
====The case for moving Daisy's article====
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====
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.
 
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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|janMisali}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Move both princesses====
====Support: They're out of time====
#{{User|JanMisali}} First choice, as proposer.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Ghost 'em.
#{{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. Now that I think of it, most would be looking for them on a Staff Ghost page in any case. With these characters, they just so happen to be selected by the Staff Ghost, practically never due to any clear theme involving that character.
#{{User|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|Tails777}} Staff Ghosts are tied more to the tracks than the characters. The tracks themselves all cover the Staff Ghost information perfectly fine, as do the actual game articles. I don't see them as a harm being on the statistic pages of the characters, but I also don't think they ''need'' to be there. Plus, the point of not doing the same with karts, tires and gliders also provides a fair point towards axing this info. In short: RIP, per proposal.
#{{User|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|LadySophie17}} 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|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Why are these attributed to the characters and not the tracks themselves, anyways?
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal, and the original proposal that spurred this one.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Things are headed in this direction, let's rip the bandage off.
#{{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|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} Fine, second choice.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sparks}} Time's up!
<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====
====Oppose: Keep time====


====Only move Daisy====
====Comments on staff ghost proposal====
#{{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.
#{{User|UltraMario}} Per all. I voted on the other one so that both Princesses could not get changed, but I'm also going to vote this because I agree that Daisy should just be called Daisy, specifically.


====Keep both princesses the same====
==Changes==
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Stop shortening names! Seriously, I knew this was next after the Koopaling proposal.
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
#{{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.
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
#{{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; if this proposal fails, then i'd support reversing the Sonic proposal.
#{{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====
@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)
 
@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)
: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.
: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 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)
:::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'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)
::::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 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)
::::::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 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)
:::::::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)
::::::::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)
:::::::::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)
:::::::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)
 
{{@|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)
: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)
::Ah, missed that. Thanks! But regardless, it's definitely not her ''primary'' name in that game. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:25, 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)
:I mentioned ''Smash Bros.'' in my previous proposal about this. She's called Daisy everywhere else in that game, including elsewhere in that same Palutena's Guidance conversation. But yes, I agree that "Princess Daisy" is a name used on the same level as the full names of the Koopalings, and I think we should use it the same way we use the Koopalings' full names (ie. not in the article title). {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:25, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
@SmokedChili: There is no universe where peach the fruit that made minor appearances in five games could get naming priority on this wiki over Peach the major character with hundreds of appearances. That's why [[Peach]] already redirects to the character, and [[Peach (fruit)]] already has an identifier - shortening the name wouldn't change that. The same goes for Roy - the Mario Tennis character always had an identifier for years before Roy Koopa's name was shortened, because the former is significantly less prominent and less likely to be what people searching "Roy" are looking for. (Also, Mollusque-Lanceur's full name recently appeared in Nintendo Music, which I don't think is a "secondary source", and [[The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens|length wouldn't be an issue]].) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)
 
{{@|SmokedChili}} Peach is not called "Princess Peach" at any point in ''Super Mario 64''. She is called "Princess Toadstool", "Peach", "the Princess", and "Princess Toadstool, Peach". {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 12:48, November 11, 2024 (EST)


===Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)===
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
''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.  


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|MightyMario}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|MightyMario}} I heartily endorse this proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{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|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|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|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Agreed with all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Dark Jonathan}} I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|BMfan08}} I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.


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


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


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)
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
===Either remove non-English names from cartoon dubs that weren't overseen by Nintendo or affiliated companies, or allow English names from closed captions===
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
"What does one have to do with the other?" You'll see!
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


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


~ '''{{user|Glowsquid}}, 2021'''
===Merge the Tortes===
</blockquote>
Three birds with one stone with this one! This proposal concerns the following articles:
* [[Apprentice (Torte)]]
* [[Chef Torte]]
* [[Torte]]


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


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


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.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


"'''So if option 1 wins, 'Ahehehaue' is considered official again?'''"
====Merge all 3 to Torte (It's burnt...)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of ''Superstar Saga''.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
#{{User|Sparks}} Merge!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.


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.
====Merge Chef Torte & Apprentice, keep them split from Torte (It's just a little crispy.)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; if we really must keep Torte split from the duo we see in-game, that's fine, but we can't see any particular reason to keep the duo split up.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Also if I recall correctly, that inconsistent-in-English accent difference is not present in Japanese, where their speech patterns are mostly the same. I'm not sure about merging them to the species since they at least ''have'' unique names from the species, unlike say, Birdo.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Doc in the comments. This would also be consistent with [[Talk:Iron_Cleft#Merge_with_The_Iron_Adonis_Twins|last year's proposal for Iron Clefts/the Iron Adonis Twins]].
#{{User|TheTrueAnnoyingDog}} Per all. If all three'd be merged, I'd rather the title be "Chef Torte and Apprentice" anyway, because iirc they're the only Tortes in the game.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} Per all.


(added 17:42, October 30, 2024 (EDT)) "'''Does the proposal extend to the live-action segments of the ''Super Show''?'''"
====Do nothing (It's gourmet!)====


Yes, they're within the same package.
====Comments (It's... Alive???)====
This can easily be ''four'' birds with one stone, since "Apprentice (Snifit)" can become the default article (the identifier's a little dated anyway) and the paltry disambig can be turned into an <nowiki>{{about}}</nowiki>. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:08, January 19, 2025 (EST)
:Good observation, actually! Went and added this. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:15, January 19, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
@Doc: On that note, because of [[MarioWiki:once and only once|once and only once]], that info is awkwardly divided across two out of three articles at present, even though it pertains to all three. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:25, January 22, 2025 (EST)
'''Deadline''': November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:I see the "species" article as being mostly about how they battle, as well as the best place to note the various unused setups containing differing amounts of them, while a singular character duo article would cover their role in the story and general characterization. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:15, January 22, 2025 (EST)


====Allow the sourcing of English closed captions from officially uploaded and streamed ''Mario'' animated works====
==Miscellaneous==
#{{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?
''None at the moment.''
#{{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 01:10, January 26, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, January 26th, 11:17 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}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)

Writing guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I offer two options:

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

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT January 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Our thought process for this is, admittedly, a tad silly, but hear us out here; if we give episodes of TV shows, like, say, "Mama Luigi", quotation marks in places like the list of episodes, to even the infobox of its own article, we can see a reason to go for this. While we don't feel as strong about this as others, we do feel like it at least makes SOME sense to us to apply this rationale to what is, effectively, the gameplay analogue to an "episode".
  4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Nintendo101's comments below regarding the relative youth of videogames as a medium. While, as with all conventions, it pays to re-examine them every now and again, these formatting conventions have stood the test of time because they are useful. They quickly and easily signify published creative works and subsections thereof. Standards and conventions for writing about videogames have not had the same time to mature as those for older media like television and literature, but in order for them to mature, someone, somewhere must be willing to engage in a dialogue about those conventions, and decide which conventions used for other media are worth preserving - are useful in some way - to discussing videogames. All of that said, I find this convention useful to discussing these sub-narratives and objectives which occur in larger levels. I do understand the concerns surrounding the murky lines between a "level" and a "mission", but based on the wiki's current definition of a "mission," this applies only to the 3D Mario platformers, where that distinction is relatively strong. The exception is Super Mario Odyssey, regarding which I think Nintendo101 has already addressed sufficiently in the comments.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. In my opinion, this only serves to bring further clarity to the title of a mission within the level vs. the level itself. With the established notion of a mission being inherent to 3D Mario as a sub-category within levels themselves, I don't see this causing any confusion whatsoever.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. I do see that there are some tricky gray areas to this mentioned by the opposition, but I do think it's fair to consider Mario 64 style missions the equivalent of something like a chapter or TV episode — they were even called episodes in Sunshine, after all!
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal and per Hooded Pitohui especially. Having an established separator between a location and the "scenario" within said location is not just a nice little feature but can even bring clarity with active or new readers of the Wiki. I see this causing quite the opposite of confusion.
  8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.

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

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) I maintain my stance from the aforementioned proposal — these quotation marks are misrepresentative of these subjects' official names, and the insistent use of them makes it impossible to tell the errant times they are official from the times in which they are not. This is prioritizing a manual of style over the truth, which is unacceptable no matter how minor.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per Ahemtoday, and I also think the argument for using the quotation marks for missions in particular is especially weak because I don't think you can argue it's a common practice elsewhere like you can with music. It doesn't help to clarify anything for the reader if they don't already know it's a standard.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Putting quotes exclusively around mission names would be saying that a mission has more narrative content than a level, as both are equally discrete segments of video games. (Start at one point, goal at other point, stuff in between, game enters a state with lessened consequences in-between, be that a transition to the next level/mission or a World Map/hubworld.) And sure, missions have more narrative content on average than levels. But that's an average and is far from absolute, mostly being decided by "are there NPCs in this mission/level who are relevant to the story"? Levels can have those, like Bowser Jr. Showdown, and missions can lack those, like with Smart Bombing. It would be best for Super Mario Wiki to not pass judgement.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) ignoring the fact that the line between what counts as a "mission" and what doesn't by the given definition is murky (do bogstandard Power Moon names count, if SM64 stars do? what about Brothership side quests? TTYD troubles? achievements?), i think the way this proposal tries to apply a standard used for episodes in a show and songs in an album to only a particular stripe of objectives within a videogame is drawing a false equivalence. deciding that levels are strictly separate "locations" while missions are "scenarios" also feels like an improper conflation of game-mechanical and narrative terminology (what about levels that share locations with others, like Master of Disguise's first and second levels?). this feels like a misapplied idea.
  5. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

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

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lower Category Item Requirement from 4 to 3

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

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

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

Lower to 3 (triple trouble!)

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

Keep at 4 (forced to four!)

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

Comments (wait, letters in numbers?)

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

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

New features

Make categories for families

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split Mario & Luigi Badges & Remaining Accessories

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

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

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

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

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, of course. There's enough recurrence and differences here that we feel like this has ample reason to exist beyond just consistency's sake.
  2. Arend (talk) Might as well do it. Heck, maybe it will incentivize someone to actually do something about that clothes proposal.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Hewer (talk) Huh, this wasn't included in the clothing proposal?
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

Comments (splittin' badges/accessories)

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

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

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

Removals

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

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

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

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

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

Support: They're out of time

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

Oppose: Keep time

Comments on staff ghost proposal

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Tortes

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. It's probably the simplest option overall, if you ask us, and it fits with how we handle the various duos of Superstar Saga.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Unusually, these guys don't even have unique battle labels.
  3. Sparks (talk) Merge!
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Blinker (talk) Per proposal. (By the way, I'm also rethinking my position on the Iron Cleft situation...)
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

Do nothing (It's gourmet!)

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4660112"