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


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?


==Removals==
I have several pitches for you.
===Remove video game console generations===
I would imagine most people who have discussed video games in the past have heard of {{wp|History of video_game consoles#Console generations|video game console generations}}. It is a tool to categorize video game hardware and its place in time. There is just one problem: the current video game console generation system is flawed. If you would like to further read into the specifics as to why I would recommend this [https://www.timeextension.com/features/is-wikipedia-really-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations Time Extension article] by Jack Yarwood. But in short, the phrase "next generation" originates as a term used starting around the 1990s, as video games evolved over the many years, Wikipedia editors would create their own video game console generation system that has for the most part remained unchanged since its introduction in the early 2000s. This generation system would slowly be adopted by other sites, media, and the people who engage with video games.


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


First generation: [[Color TV-Game]]<br>
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
Second generation: [[Game & Watch]]<br>
Third generation: [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]<br>
Fourth generation: [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]], [[Game Boy]]<br>
Fifth generation: [[Nintendo 64]], [[Game Boy Color]]<br>
Sixth generation: [[Nintendo GameCube]], [[Game Boy Advance]]<br>
Seventh generation: [[Wii]], [[Nintendo DS]]<br>
Eighth generation: [[Wii U]], [[Nintendo 3DS]], [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
Ninth generation: [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>


There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the {{wp|Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X/S}} and {{wp|PlayStation 5}} consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead. Because of this, it is not entirely clear where the Nintendo Switch is in the video game console generation system and the solution is to simply file it in both generations rather than one or the other.
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


Now the Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console, but what about portable consoles? The current video game console generation system lumps in both home and portable consoles. If the goal of the generation system was to be based on hardware specifications than it ultimately falls flat with consoles such as the 16-bit [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] home consoles being in the same generation as the 8-bit [[Game Boy]] portable console. For home consoles there is absolutely nothing in the second generation, with the [[Color TV-Game]] consoles being in the first and the [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] consoles being in the third. Portable consoles have a similar issue with nothing in the third generation, with the [[Game & Watch]] line in the second and the [[Game Boy]] being in the fourth.
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later


For these reasons, I think it should be considered to remove video game console generations from this wiki. It is ultimately a flawed tool that originates as something made up by various Wikipedia editors that stuck around for far too long without real consideration of its flaws. If video game console generations are removed, we should gravitate towards more factual descriptions that better represent the consoles.
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


Home consoles: 1. [[Color TV-Game]] 2. [[Family Computer]], [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] 3. [[Super Famicom]], [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] 4. [[Nintendo 64]] 5. [[Nintendo GameCube]], 6. [[Wii]] 7. [[Wii U]] 8. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Portable consoles: 1. [[Game & Watch]] 2. [[Game Boy]] 3. [[Game Boy Color]] 4. [[Game Boy Advance]] 5. [[Nintendo DS]] 6. [[Nintendo 3DS]] 7. [[Nintendo Switch]]<br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


Home console example: "The [[Nintendo 64]] is the fourth [[Nintendo]] home console platform."<br>
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
Portable console example: "The [[Nintendo DS]] is the fifth [[Nintendo]] portable console platform."<br>
Hybrid console example: "The [[Nintendo Switch]] is the seventh portable and eighth home [[Nintendo]] console platform."<br>


This alternative system does have flaws with the Switch being in two categories again, however that is due to the Switch being a hybrid between a home and portable console. The reason the console is in two video game generations according to Wikipedia is not as clear. Another much straightforward solution would be to simply list the predecessor and successor of each console.
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.


Example: "The predecessor to the [[Nintendo 64]] is the [[Super Famicom]] and [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]] and the successor is the [[Nintendo GameCube]]."
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.


This is the most likely solution if video game console generations were removed. It is easy to understand and already implemented to an extent. The work required is simply the removal process with minimal addition.
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''


'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro3256}}<br>
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
'''Deadline''': December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


====Support====
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
#{{User|Bro3256}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
#{{User|winstein}} Per proposal.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per all, I've always found console generations to be confusing and unclear.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all.
#{{User|MCD}} I don't feel massively about this either way, but the concept does feel a bit arbitrary now and I can't see it getting any more relevant in future.


====Oppose====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Regardless of contemporary awkwardness, it's still useful comparing the timelines for the ones of the past. I've ''still'' seen people not realize the GBC was in circulation around the same time of the N64 based on nothing but their respective bit-count.
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - This feels like a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While we've always found the "console generations" thing really, really strange (as you can expect from a metric born from ''Wikipedia itself''), we can't deny that it is still useful to a degree, and unlike, say, calling unused content "beta" content, the term "console generation" is still a term that sees active use in gaming circles, even if as of late Nintendo's side of it has gotten a bit desynced. In addition, as was pointed out in the comments, the [[Philips CD-i]] is noticeably absent, but in addition to that, so is the [[Virtual Boy]], which is even more directly Nintendo related? Not that we'd particularly like this even if both of these were accounted for, mind...
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Without the Virtual Boy in here, this numbering scheme just flat-out isn't actually true. As such, I can't support this proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Perhaps a better idea is to use <code>Cross-generation ({{tem|wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}}—{{tem|wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}})</code> on the Nintendo Switch page and use <code>{{tem|wp|[No.] generation of video game consoles|[No.] generation}}</code> on pages on all other systems. As such, I'm opposing this proposal.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick and Cam&woodstock.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I personally do not invoke console generations when writing about video games - it is not a classification system that has much value to me. I do not think I would support the carte blanche integration of console generations as a large systematic classification system on the wiki. If this proposal was just asking to remove generations from the system infobox, I might be on board. However, console generations are still a widely employed way to separate game media into different eras, and I do not think it is intrinsically harmful to mention them in a paragraph if the editor finds it helpful to relay a specific piece of information. I think users should still have the ability to exercise that freedom.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|SeanWheeler}} Do we have pages about console generations? I can't find any pages about generations. If you can link to any pages about console generations, I'd change my vote to support because pages about console generations on a Nintendo wiki wouldn't be useful. If this proposal is about removing references to the generations in each console page, then I have to oppose. The whole issue about which generation the Switch is from could be settled on [[Talk:Nintendo Switch|the Nintendo Switch talk page]].
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Option Zero====
I disagree with the premise, since a tool that is helpful but flawed is still helpful. Moreover, we do cover a couple of devices that do not fit on a Nintendo-exclusive relative timeline, namely the [[Philips CD-i]] and the [[Triforce]] arcade boards. I guess "contemporary to the _____" works just as well, but there's a level of "semantics over broader public" thing that I'm a little iffy about if that kind of phrasing has to be used. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:51, November 29, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)


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


Where the HECK is the [[Virtual Boy]] in all of this? Nintendo's ''actual'' third portable console and part of the fourth generation (or fifth? It was supposed to keep customers occupied while waiting for the Nintendo 64), as it was released in 1995? {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:43, November 29, 2024 (EST)
====Option Two====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


:I didn't include select consoles in this proposal since my arguments mainly focused on the major [[Nintendo]] consoles. That is not to say consoles like the [[Virtual Boy]] and non-Nintendo consoles like the [[Philips CD-i]] aren't important (they are!), but I wanted to prioritize the issues present with how the video game geration system currently works with the major Nintendo consoles since these alone already present issues with the system without the additions of what was omitted for the purposes of this proposal.
====Option Three====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


:Regarding [[Triforce]], that is a whole different category of hardware. Arcade hardware for the most part has never worked with this generation system since it was primarly designed with home and portable consoles in mind. How do you even slot in arcade hardware to begin with? Arcade games had a completely different evolution to their console counterparts and were usually cutting edge at the time before any console equivalents made it to market, and even if they did unlike consoles, arcade hardware differs depending on the game. How can you be sure what a certain arcade game is running on is in a certain generation? --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:04, November 29, 2024 (EST)
====Option Four====
::I feel like this is a very picking-and-choosing type of situation. How in the heck is the Virtual Boy, something that gets ''equal amounts of merch as every other Nintendo console (Wii, Nintendo 64, Game Boy, NES, GameCube, etc) in the [[Nintendo Museum]] gift shop'' (meaning that Nintendo views this thing equally important as the other consoles), NOT a major console, but the Color TV-Game, a plug-and-play type of console that did NOT get ''any merch'' in the aforementioned Nintendo Museum gift shop, IS? This type of consideration also makes the Virtual Boy the ONLY non-major Nintendo console that isn't an upgrade or add-on of another previous console (e.g. Nintendo DSi, Famicom Disk System, Nintendo Switch OLED Model), and at that point, why make such a distinction at all? Wouldn't it be better to include the Virtual Boy among the other major consoles?<br>I also don't quite understand why you're mentioning the Philips CD-i or Triforce to my reply, when I didn't mention those at all. Unlike the Virtual Boy, I actually do get excluding ''those'': the CD-i is not a Nintendo console at all, it's only relevant due to the licensed Nintendo games on them. That's like saying the Nintendo Switch is a Sony system because a handful of Playstation Studio-made games were released on the thing as well. As for Triforce, that and all other arcade hardware is a whole other can of worms that neither of us would like to get into. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:23, December 3, 2024 (EST)
:::I was replying to both your comment and the one Salmancer made, I apologize that was not clear. To reiterate, the consoles I mentioned in the initial proposal were chosen to showcase the flaws with the video game console generation system. My intention was not to list out nearly every piece of Nintendo video game hardware that would have to be accounted for within this system as that was not the goal of this proposal. I feel the flaws with the video game console generation system and the confusion it has led should be more than enough reason to remove it from the wiki. If this were to be put into practice the questions you're currently asking would be all but redundant with the absence of this generation system entirely. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 12:09, December 3, 2024 (EST)
::::I still feel like you should include the Virtual Boy among the portable consoles you've listed, the way you've proposed your idea (which you are currently ''not'' doing). As I just stared before, Nintendo views the Virtual Boy on an (at least somewhat) equal level as their other major consoles historically speaking, and was basically meant to be a "third pillar" to the Game Boy and Nintendo 64 in the same way the Nintendo DS was meant as a "third pillar" to the GameCube and GBA (the obvious difference being that the Virtual Boy flopped hard while the DS became a commercial success). It's still a part of Nintendo's (portable) console history, so skipping the Virtual Boy feels disingenuous regardless of its failure.<br>Also, by counting the Virtual Boy as a portable console, it would also make the Nintendo Switch the eighth portable console, which also makes it way more convenient as a hybrid console, since it's also the eighth home console. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:07, December 3, 2024 (EST)


@Doc von Schmeltwick: I don't really see how that's an argument against this proposal. We have the release dates listed for the consoles, and the Game Boy Color article's very first sentence describes it as "the handheld counterpart of the Nintendo 64". Why is it also necessary to call them "fifth generation"? I'd argue that it's probably the least clear way of showing the connection, because I can't imagine "fifth generation" means anything to someone who doesn't know about when those consoles released. Not to mention that being in the same "generation" doesn't necessarily mean they were being sold at the same time, as the Wii U and Switch demonstrate. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:30, November 29, 2024 (EST)
====Comments====
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)


@Ahemtoday: Please read above the comment I made in regards to the absence of [[Virtual Boy]]. Keep and mind that I was presenting it as one possible solution if video game console generations were removed. That is not to say it should be the solution used hence why I provided another alternative one. If the first system was implemented into the wiki than I would imagine [[Virtual Boy]] being included. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 18:25, November 29, 2024 (EST)
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


Do we really discuss console generations extensively on the wiki? I do not know of any examples offhand. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:40, November 29, 2024 (EST)
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


:The [[Family Computer]] and [[Nintendo Entertainment System]] articles are obvious examples but there's [[Mario%27s_Puzzle_Party#Trivia|this article's trivia section]] as an example of non-console articles.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 00:08, November 30, 2024 (EST)
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


<blockquote>"''There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead.''"</blockquote>
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].


But then I have to question: what about the {{wp|SG-1000}} and the {{wp|Master System|Mark III/Master System}} releasing just shy of a few years? I know it has a very time span compared to the Wii U and Switch, but if they are bundled under the third-generation, the Switch should also be this way for the eighth, right? {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 01:00, November 30, 2024 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:There have been countless debates regarding the {{wp|SG-1000}} in particular due to it sharing nearly the exact same hardware as the {{wp|ColecoVision}} yet both consoles are in different generations despite being released within one year apart. However this side of the console generations debate is not relevant to the scope of this wiki.--[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 01:20, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:The wiki actually does currently consider the Switch to be "eighth generation", as seen in the infobox on its page. Which is a bit confusing since it puts it in the same generation as the Wii U even though the only thing making them less separate is the release timing of other consoles not covered by this wiki. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:42, November 30, 2024 (EST)
::I personally feel that is more than enough reason to remove video game console generations from this wiki. We already have "Predecessor" and "Successor" as a more straight forward tool. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 23:33, November 30, 2024 (EST)
:::I agree. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:43, December 1, 2024 (EST)


I'm only here to say that I vehemently reject the Wikipedia consensus on Switch being 8th gen console. Sure, it competed with 8th gen Playstation 4 and Xbox One, but Nintendo officially regards Switch separate from Wii U. What about Sega Genesis or Turbografx, are they 3rd gen because they were released to one-up NES? Or is Playstation 1 4th gen because of its origins as a SNES add-on? Hell, since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/hardware/index.html Nintendo considers Game Boy Color to be just another Game Boy iteration], shouldn't that really be a 4th gen handheld that happened to be released during 5th-6th gens and trounced its competition? I don't care which way this wiki goes with this proposal, but the Switch placement is one that irks me because 3DS and Wii U already cover Nintendo's 8th gen hardware lineup. Thus Switch should be the start of 9th gen and no amount of "because Wikipedia says so" is going to convince me otherwise. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 03:12, December 1, 2024 (EST)
====Support====
:The main reason I started this proposal to begin with was to showcase the flaws in the system which include things you've mentioned here. The video game console generation system that is currently being used has its roots as something made up by Wikipedia editors and to this day they influence what consoles are in what generation. Even if you don't use Wikipedia you've felt this influence everywhere in the video games space which does include this wiki. Therefore, removing video game console generations would be beneficial to this wiki as it would allow the contributors to this wiki be able to decide for themselves how to handle describing video game consoles. I provided two possible solutions if this proposal passes but that is not to say they are the only solutions, but removing video game console generations is the first step towards better alternatives in the long run. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 04:57, December 1, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


@SeanWheeler: I don't understand why you're opposing if you admit that console generations aren't useful to us. The Switch issue could be settled much more easily by removing console generations. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:35, December 3, 2024 (EST)
====Oppose====
:I'm confused as well. To reiterate a previous comment of mine, there is [[Mario%27s_Puzzle_Party#Trivia|this article's trivia section]] that uses it (''"...that design's only two appearances in any game originally for a '''seventh-generation''' or later console."''). Regarding other examples, there is [[Donkey_Kong_(franchise)#Merchandising|a merchandising section in the Donkey Kong (franchise) article]] (''"During the '''seventh generation''' of video games, there were two arcade Donkey Kong titles released in Japan..."'') and the [[WarioWare_(series)|development section in the WarioWare (series) article]] (''"...every Nintendo system from the '''sixth generation''' onwards has had at least one entry of the series released for it..."''). I feel that is more than enough examples to show that the use of the video game console generation system is used well outside of the console articles. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 03:52, December 3, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
::I'm concerned that Sean doesn't read proposals before voting. This is not the first time either. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 04:07, December 3, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.


We feel like if the point of this proposal was to bring up issues with Wikipedia's own console generation metrics, then it would probably be... well, we don't know if it'd be more productive per say, we have some '''''takes''''' about how Wikipedia is managed and a very cynical part of us imagines there's a non-zero chance that they'd shrug it off, but it would definitely be more ''apt'' to hold that conversation at the source, rather than here. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:30, December 3, 2024 (EST)
====Comments====
:Then why does this wiki use this generation system? --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 13:44, December 3, 2024 (EST)
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::It's what other people use, and while it has issues (namely, the fact Nintendo has gotten themselves out of sync with it and there has been zero effort to try and address that), none of them are particular deal-breakers. It's also capable of handling weird edge-cases, which is a genuine boon for it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:28, December 3, 2024 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:::This feels like a good time to raise the tried and true argument that we don't do things just because other wikis do them. I'm also a bit puzzled what you mean by "it's capable of handling weird edge-cases", which you state right after discussing its inability to handle the Switch's weird edge case. If by "weird edge cases" you mean stuff like the CD-i, I'm not sure why this wiki needs to "handle" them with a system like this in the first place. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:10, December 3, 2024 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::::The Switch is mostly a stumbling block because it's "technically" a part of the eighth generation due to how Wikipedia handles things, which. Is mostly a byproduct of Wikipedia themselves. Sure, we could do things our own way and call it part of the ninth generation anyways, but in ''this specific case'', we feel like that would do more harm than good; inherently, the console generation metric is based entirely on what other people say it is, and again, while it's not perfect, it's decent ''enough'' for our purposes, and it would only be worth fixing if, for whatever reason, Wikipedia decided it should change too.<br>As for the latter, well, what, are we supposed to just not count the Virtual Boy or CD-i as part of Nintendo's console lineups? If the proposal passes in its current state, neither of those consoles will fall into ''any'' "predecessor" or "successor" order. In contrast, the console generation system does properly show that the CD-i released in the same era as SNES, but before the Nintendo 64, without us having to interject it in some list of succession. And the less said about how the Virtual Boy would fit into this equation, the better--it's kind of a hybrid console, but also kind of a home console... We're sorry, but we struggle to see how a line of succession is any "better" than just listing the console generation system in this case. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:38, December 3, 2024 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::"Let's copy how Wikipedia does it as much as possible" strikes me as a very strange thing to argue. Nothing forces us to copy Wikipedia, and the significantly easier and better way to solve the generation system's problems is to remove it.<br>I admit that the way the proposal is currently written is odd and unnecessarily confusing: it suggests the numbered "line of succession" thing that some opposers are hung up about, but then suggests a better solution that seems to be the one that would actually be used, and lumps them both into the same support option. As I said in my vote, I am specifically supporting the second solution, which is to just say what consoles came before and after the one being discussed and leave it at that. (Also, yes we should exclude the CD-i from Nintendo's console lineups, it's not a Nintendo console.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:19, December 4, 2024 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


==Changes==
===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
===Decide what to do with {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}}===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.
{{early notice|December 8}}
Let me tell you what: the {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} templates read too similar to the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:Citation needed|citation needed}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:Unreferenced|unreferenced}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:More citations needed|more citations needed}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:Unreferenced section|unreferenced section}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:More citations needed section|more citations needed section}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> templates from Wikipedia, respectively. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to decide what to do with the templates using three options:


;Option 1: Move {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}} to {{tem|citation needed}} and {{tem|ref needed}} and ONLY make <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specific.
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.
;Option 2: ONLY move <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> respectively.
;Option 3: ONLY make <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specific.
;Option 4: ONLY make <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> more specific.
;Option 5: ONLY make <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specific.
;Option 6: Do NOTHING.


The <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template currently reads as follows:
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


----
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
</pre>


<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
----


However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template being moved to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template will be moved to <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and will read more specifically as follows:
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


----
<references/>
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
</pre>


<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
</div>
----


Also, if the proposal passes with either option 3 or option 5 being the most voted, we'll use this from above.
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.


For example, placing the <code>more=yes</code>, <code>section=yes</code>, and <code>reason=Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.</code> will have the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> more specifically read as follows:
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} ^Yeah this tripped me up when I first started seeing that.


----
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
This section '''needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. '''Specific(s):''' Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this section}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
</div>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
----
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]] Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Seems like the more immediate solution here.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Makes the most sense to me. Per all.


Likewise, the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template reads as follows:
====Don't make a standard====


----
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
<pre>
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
</pre>
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)


<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup>
I made {{tem|ref page}}. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 13:22, March 6, 2025 (EST)
----
:I somehow didn't notice, thanks! The obvious projected outcome of this proposal is to use that template, but I'll let the proposal run its course since it has only 2 days left. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:31, March 6, 2025 (EST)


However, if this proposal passes with either option 3 or option 4 being the most voted, the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template will read as follows:
===Introducing the crossover article===
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.


----
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
<pre>
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]&#93;</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>
</pre>


<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]&#93;</sup>
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.
----


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


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
I offer three options:
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''


====Option 1====
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} First choice


====Option 2====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option 3====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Second choice
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists


====Option 4====
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Third choice
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


====Option 5====
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Fourth choice


====Option 6====
====Crossover comments====
#{{User|Hewer}} What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Moved templates always give me headaches trying to figure out where the heck they went when I'm previewing edits.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all; this feels like it'd be ''even more confusing'' than what we're already doing for next to no benefit.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I know that "We should do this because Wikipedia does it" is not a compelling argument, but "We should not do this because Wikipedia does it" is not compelling either!
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.


====Comments====
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer|Waluigi Time|Nintendo101|Technetium|Doc von Schmeltwick|OmegaRuby|Axii}} What's a better way to do than options 1 or 2? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 13:37, December 3, 2024 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I guess I do not understand why anything needs to change at all, and I am reluctant to change templates that see widespread use across our userbase and articles without good reason. What is wrong with the way they are currently set up? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:43, December 3, 2024 (EST)
::The <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template from the Super Mario Wiki reads too similar to the <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:Unreferenced|unreferenced}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:More citations needed|more citations needed}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:Unreferenced section|unreferenced section}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki>/<nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{wp|Template:More citations needed section|more citations needed section}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> templates from Wikipedia. The last time I improved this proposal, I think a better way that I would choose option 4, one of my four options. {{unsigned|GuntherBayBeee}}
:::I hear you. They are "too similar" to the templates from Wikipedia. But is that a materially bad thing? What are the consequences to having these templates be similar to the ones from Wikipedia? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 14:32, December 3, 2024 (EST)
::::Backing this up--just because the internal names for templates are similar to Wikipedia's doesn't mean we should change them. Changing them would sweep a lot of change across wiki editing and be a hassle for longtime editors to adapt to. --{{User:OmegaRuby/sig}} 08:07, December 4, 2024 (EST)
:::::How about "Please help the Super Mario Wiki" instead of "Please help"? Would that look like a better idea? {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 13:36, December 4, 2024 (EST)


===A reconsidering of "derived names"===
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
This proposal acts as a counter to the proposal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/66#Repeal_the_.22derived_names.22_having_priority_over_official_names_in_other_languages|Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages]]. In short, to a casual reader like myself, subjects being named [[Disaster Neko]], [[Comet Tico]], [[Wonder Haiden]], and [[Kodeka Kakibō]] are extremely unhelpful when English names for them seem trivial. Many subjects in the Mario franchise use a very consistent naming scheme: [A descriptor for this specific subject, usually an adjective] [very standardized name]. If something is officially called Wonder Packun, and is a Packun(or Piranha Plant) which have variants consistently named "X Packun" in Japanese and "X Piranha Plant" in English, then it feels pedantic to not call it a Wonder Piranha Plant.
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]''). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)


The proposed change here would be to allow derived names to take precedent over internal and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation, on a case-by-case basis. Derivations should be based on actual official English localizations or already use English words to begin with. If there isn't precedent for each aspect of the name, then it should remain in its source language.
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
Examples:
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)
* [[Fire Gabon]]: "Fire X" is a well established format, see [[Fire Bro]] (Faia Burosu) and [[Fire Piranha Plant]] (Faia Pakkun). "X Spike" is also well established, see [[Paper Spike]] (Pēpā Gabon) and [[Stone Spike]] (Rokku Gabon). Therefore, Faia Gabon would be interpreted as Fire Spike.
* [[Comet Tico]]: "Comet" is already an English term used frequently in ''Super Mario Galaxy'', and [[Prankster Comet]]s are directly connected to the Comet Tico. "X Luma" is a very consistent formatting of names in SMG, see [[Hungry Luma]] (TicoFat internally) and [[Co-Star Luma]] (SupportTico intermally). TicoComet can therefore be interpreted as Comet Luma.
* [[Yarikuri Obake]]: "Yarikuri" is officially localized as [[Pirate Goom]], however it is never given any descriptors in English and "Obake" does not have a standardized localization, especially not one for ''Wario Land 3''. This name would remain in Japanese.
* [[Baboom|Hanabihei]] (assuming its official English name was never revealed): "Hanabihei" is derived from "Bombhei", but is a portmanteau and not a trivial descriptive name. It would remain as-is.


The positives of this proposal if it were to pass would be that related subjects would be intuitive as to how they relate. Just by reading the names, you would be able to tell that [[Hoppycat]], [[Wonder Hoppin|Wonder Hoppycat]], and [[Deka Hoppin|Big Hoppycat]] are related, and what that relationship is.
===Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors===


'''Proposer''': {{User|PopitTart}}<br>
The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the ''Mario'' franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.
'''Deadline''': December 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which ''Mario'' branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Per proposal. Since I started browsing this wiki as a kid, I had always thought the use of foreign language names were nonsensical when it was obvious what they should be - especially in cases like those cited in the proposal. "Neko" just means literally "Cat" in Japanese. It is likewise reasonable, as stated, to amend enemy names to their English counterpart in cases like "Fire Gabon", etc. In the previous vote to repeal this, {{User|Koopa con Carne}} stated that you shouldn't ignore an official name to make up a "wacky" name instead. I don't believe this to be a good faith argument in this case. Nobody is making anything up. If Gabon in English is Spike, then there is absolutely no conjecture with regards to applying that moniker to Fire Gabon - nor is there conjecture with regards to what replacing Disaster Neko with Disaster Cat in an instance where the normal version of these entities is just called "Kitten" in English, a direct translation from the respective Japanese name.
#{{User|Ninelevendo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Turboo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Meta Knight}} It just makes more sense.
#{{user|Lakituthequick}} Per all.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Cheat-master30}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|winstein}} I think this is a good idea, so I agree with it.
#{{User|Roserade}} I have been keeping with this proposal and reading the arguments of the opposition, and while I understand where they're founded, I remain fairly unconvinced by them. I believe that this proposal is pointing towards reputable translation as the source of these names, with names like "Fire Spike" being based upon a) well-established patterns in translation and b) clear visual indication of what the thing ''is''. To argue that translating directly like this is "making stuff up" feels to me like a bad-faith argument. I feel like we can reasonably deduce what a translation should be if we have the valid evidencing for it - which PopitTart indicates as the aim in this proposal. And if a localization eventually rolls around, and it's a different name than what we're using? We change it, which is already what we'd do in the case of a Japanese article name anyway. Updating information is not hard, if it becomes necessary. Ultimately, our aim as a fan wiki should be accessibility of its userbase, and straightforward translation work is one of the ways to make these articles more accessible. Also, I'm sure it's more of an aside than a fully-fledged argument, but "regret the next encyclopedia event" is a silly argument. It's not our responsibility to ensure that nobody in a formal publishing house opts to plagiarize the wiki again.
#{{User|MCD}} Per all, especially Roserade & FWD.
#{{User|Ninja Squid}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} The Disaster Neko and Fire Gabon examples are the ones that are ALWAYS on my mind when I think of this. Per Fun with Despair and Roserade especially.
#{{User|Reese Rivers}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Though I'm somewhat hesitant because I do perceive the stated disadvantages of doing this (particularly those mentioned by Nintendo101), I'm inclined to support this especially because of the argument raised by Lady Sophie and Exiled.Serenity's comments — that the wiki already ''does'' do this sort of name-deriving with examples like Comet Tico, Dark Nokonoko, and Fire Gabon, none of which ''exactly'' match the form seen in the game files. If we're comfortable adopting slightly derived names—and they are derived names—in order to make the wiki more readable, which I personally am, then I see little reason not to translate well-established names like Tico, Nokonoko, and Gabon, which have already been localized to English time after time. Perhaps the enemy's name will not turn out to be "Fire Spike" when it reappears with an officially-localized name, but we can simply acknowledge that as a wiki when the time comes. Frankly, acknowledging partially derived names like these three with a notice template arguably provides greater clarity than what the wiki is currently doing, claiming that the enemy's datamined name is Dark Nokonoko, rather than NokonokoDark, the only official "English" name that actually exists.


====Oppose====
As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - This remains speculative. They could just as easily call it ''Flame'' Spike ([[Flame Chomp]] exists, after all, having been renamed from Fire Chomp) or ''Fireball'' Spike.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per the previous proposal that got rid of these names. It's still conjecture no matter how much we pretend it's not, and I'd rather stick to what's official. In response to the argument that Japanese names confuse or are unhelpful to readers, I'd argue that using fan names over official ones is misleading readers, which is much worse. We're here to report what the facts are, not what we want them to be. Also, variant relationships don't always have to be obvious from the name (you'd never guess from the name alone that [[Bandit]] is a [[Shy Guy]] variant, for example).
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} '''No. Making up a name for a thing that has an official name is not what the wiki is about,''' and if you think the official name is less intuitive than the alternative, there's this nifty feature called "redirects" that doesn't tamper with official concepts. If you think that argument is in bad faith, then you misunderstood the mission of this site.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think Popitart created a solid proposal, and I understand why it has garnered support. However, I believe the burden on having these names revised to something more suitable and consistent with the English localization is on the publisher. Not us. One of the things that has made Super Mario Wiki stronger reference material than many other wikis is our naming policy. I view it as a concentrated effort to avoid {{wp|Circular reporting|citogenesis}}, {{wp|Descriptivist theory of names|descriptivism}}, and manufactured consensus, which is especially important considering Nintendo themselves clearly consult this site on occasion and sometimes incorporate [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/land2/index.html our interpretations of the text], including [[Bat (Super Mario Galaxy)|incorrect interpretations]]. It is clear we are the primary reference for in-depth ''Super Mario'' information on the internet and for the general public, and likely will remain so for years to come. I would like us to remain reliable and neutral for them. Does "Comet Tico" look silly next to "Hungry Luma?" Yes, it does. Does it not mean "Comet Luma?" Yes. But I do not think that is something for us to solve, and I suspect most readers will intuitively understand this means the subject has not been given an English name yet. I don't think that is a big deal. I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' article and assume that is its name. In my view, that is not really true, but presenting it as such can lead to misinformation being spread. I understand and respect those who feel differently, but that is generally how I feel at this time.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} How about we '''''<u>not</u>''''' do this again and regret it when the next encyclopedia event happens? We've never been one of those sites that gets a dopamine rush over "canonizing" stuff. On the contrary, we have a responsibility to step back and give the translators breathing room to do their thing when they get their chance without fears of stifling their freedom and being compared to the fans all the time. Per all the opposition, past and current.
#{{User|Axii}} ^
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Doc and Nintendo101.
#{{User|Sparks}} While it is tempting to just replace the Japanese name with its English equivalent, we don't know for sure if that is what the English translation actually is (or will be). While Fire Spike and Wonder Hoppycat seem to be obvious names for the enemies, what if they're not their official names? We have concrete evidence right now; it's just not English, but having an official name in Japanese is better than making up an English one.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all; no comment needed, since you may already know where i stand.


====Comments====
*'''infobox background:''' the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=#FFF5EE|#FFF5EE}} for ''Mario'');
@Doc von Schmeltwick: the decision to go with Fire Spike over Flame Spike or others is based on both its behavior as well as how the "fire" prefix is translated from Japanese; Faia Gabon is a Spike that attacks with fireballs, as opposed to being made of fire or such. This is in-line with the given examples, as well as [[Fire Nipper Plant]] and [[Fire Mario]], which all have the same "faia X" naming in Japanese. Flame Chomp however is named "Keronpa" in Japanese, and thus isn't suitable as a point of comparison. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 02:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)
*'''darker cell background:''' the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=bisque|bisque}} for ''Mario'');
:I have found better examples: ''Fire Heihō'' is known as [[Pyro Guy]] in English (not as "Fire Shy Guy") and ''Fire Mūcho'' is known as [[Scorchit]] (not as "Fire Snifit"). {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 07:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)
*'''header:''' the navigation template's header color (e.g. {{color|#fff|bg=#CC0000|#CC0000}} for miscellaneous ''Mario'', {{color|#fff|bg=#FF2400|#FF2400}} for ''Super Mario'');
::I don't see the point debating Fire Spike anyway when [[Fire Gabon#Internal names|the internal name]] specifically uses the word "Fire". --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:02, December 5, 2024 (EST)
*'''border:''' {{color|#000|bg=#aac|#aac}}, {{color|#000|bg=#aca|#aca}}, {{color|#000|bg=#acc|#acc}}, {{color|#000|bg=#caa|#caa}}, {{color|#000|bg=#cac|#cac}} or {{color|#000|bg=#cca|#cca}}, depending on the most closely matching color.
:::But it does not specifically use the word "Spike". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:06, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::The specific point being addressed here is Doc's vote, which was questioning using "Fire". --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:12, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::As Jdtendo demonstrated, the Japanese name being "Fire [enemy]" doesn't mean the English name will be "Fire [enemy]". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::::There are indeed cases where "faia" is translated as something other than "fire", but these appear to be used for enemies which use fire in a way distinct from the classic fireball projectile. In combination with the Fire Gabon's behavior matching the subjects which ''are'' translated that way, I believe "fire" to be the best option. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::::And that's just your subjective assessment. We have no idea if the official translators would agree, and for all we know, they could have completely different criteria to determine what gets called "Fire" and what doesn't. (For what it's worth, "Fire Spike"'s fireballs fly in a straight line through the air, so they are actually quite functionally different from those of Fire Mario or Fire Bro, which bounce along the ground, and Spike's other variants, Snow Spike and Stone Spike, do not follow any pre-established enemy variant naming patterns as far as I know.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I have not decided if I'd like to support this proposal yet but I feel like, as it is an English website, if the Mario Wiki shouldn't effectively create nicknames for subjects without official English names, it should not be arbitrarily applying names in other languages to those same subjects. The English name for the Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon and I think it is erroneous to refer to it as such in English text. if citogenesis is an issue, then using foreign and internal names runs the exact same risk as using a conjectural name. Just look at [[Comet Tico|Lumacomète]] in the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia''. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 08:18, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:Additionally, according to the Wiki's rules on Japanese, [[MarioWiki:Japanese|"words that originated in English should be written as the original English word for simplicity"]], which means technically we're already not accurately representing the subject's Japanese name. The Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon in English, and it's not called Fire Gabon in Japanese. if the jump from Faia to Fire is allowed, then why not from Gabon to Spike? We're already isolating and translating Japanese words in a vaccuum.{{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 08:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::I concur with this standpoint. I will keep supporting this proposal in its current state, but I would support changing all adjectives back to Japanese if it fails. It's really a case of all-or-nothing to me, currently it is quite half-baked. (It could be considered to add that as a separate option if more people feel this way.) {{User:Lakituthequick/sig}} 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Should I add this as a third option, then? It has only been 1 day, well within the editing timeframe. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::I think the difference is that the word "fire" is a loanword or {{wp|Loanwords in Japanese|gairaigo}}, so it is not really being translated. "Gabon" is not. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:58, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:How is the wiki's usage of foreign names "arbitrary"? They are used when no official English name is known to exist. This wiki may be written in English, but it's about a primarily Japanese franchise and covers [[:Category:Japan-only games|subjects that never officially existed in English at all]], so it's no surprise that not everything has an English name to use. What ''would'' be arbitrary is deciding not to use the subject's only official name because we think we can make up a better one. Also, this proposal isn't suggesting to stop using foreign names entirely, so we would still be using non-English names in our English text regardless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:48, December 5, 2024 (EST)
@Nintendo101 First, I want to acknowledge that you've put together a very articulate, well-considered case for your opposition. Though we disagree, I understand well your point of view, and I find your concerns over citogenesis in particular to be a very worthwhile consideration. There is one point in your position on which I would like to seek clarification, though. You say, "I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' article and assume that is its name." Would that not be adequately addressed by use of the conjectural name template, which includes an argument specifically for derived names? I am earnestly curious as to why the template, as a clear and difficult-to-miss disclaimer that the name is derived and not an official localization, does not adequately address this point in your view. [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 08:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:Howdy! For starters, I do think a template header would be mitigating and I am glad it is incorporated into this proposal. That was good foresight. However, the systemic effectiveness of these templates is dependent on readers going to the articles for Fire Gabon or Comet Tico specifically, and I am not sure how often they would feel compelled to do that if these names "look" like official localizations. Someone visiting the site to read articles on the games themselves or levels may not feel compelled to check, and precisely because of their similarly to proper localizations, may just assume "Comet Luma" ''is'' its true localized name. Anecdotally, I feel like I have heard conjectural names justifiably adopted by our wiki for lack of better alternatives uncritically presented as ''the'' names off of the site and I think that is partially why. They look like properly localized English names, so why would one assume they are not? I have not seen that as often for subjects with Romanized Japanese titles, and I suspect that is because they also look the part. Maybe if there was some sort of in-text template similar to "conjectural" to embed directly into game or level articles that would help, but that also sounds a bit cumbersome. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 08:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::Thank you so much for your response! Knowing this is coming from a position of concerns that readers will pass over the disclaimer by not actually visiting the page in question and will instead assume these names are official at a glance certainly does clarify that point. I do think you have the right of it that it would be cumbersome to mitigate this concern with the tools available to us. My first thought is perhaps we could use the [[Template:Hover|tooltip text]] to address this by putting "derived name" in the tooltip text for these names on game pages and such, and if the proposal does pass, I think it would be worthwhile to consider using it. That said, as far as I know, you can't see that text on mobile, so I recognize this wouldn't be a perfect solution. [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 08:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::Honestly, I'd rather not make a distinction between "conjectural" names and "derived" names at all. They're both names made up by the wiki in an attempt to be as straightforward as possible, the only difference being that "derived" names could be taking priority over official names, yet templates for "derived" names give the misleading impression that they are more official than "conjectural" names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::Or we can cut out the ten middlemen altogether and use much more efficient redirect system. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:11, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I feel like at a certain point, we can only do so much. We put templates on all the pages that are plain to see. If an Encyclopedia writer ignores it, how is that our fault? And like LadySophie17 said above, they used a French name for an English book - I don't see why using a name from another language, albeit official, eliminates the issue. It's their responsibility to appropriately localize names, not ours. And in this case, I think reader understandability comes first - after all, we are a site for the fans. Those writers shouldn't be looking at a wiki for research to begin with. If another Encyclopedia is written, I can only hope they learned from their mistakes with the original, and not use the wiki as a source. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 09:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:I am also aware I did that proposal to rename X-Ship to X-Naut ship, as the former felt too official of a name despite being marked as conjectural. This just feels like a different situation altogether for me, given that these conjectural English names for enemies aren't all fancy or anything, but very straight to the point. I agree with Hooded Pitohui's comment above that we could also mark these as being derived names on other pages they appear, not just the main articles on them. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 09:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::I understand your perspective, but part of the reason why we have maintained so many name-specific article templates in the first place was as a response to that encyclopedia and there has been a general reduction in conjectural names that was also in response to it. Besides, it is not just third-party editors I am thinking of — I am thinking of fans. Our general userbase. I do not want us to passively misinform them or imply names have some sort of community consensus when they do not. I know that is something I would have appreciated before I became more involved with editing the site, because I want to be informed and learn before anything else. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:13, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::You make good points. I'm not fully sure what to think myself honestly - as I said in my first edit summary for this today, those were simply my thoughts at the moment. I'll continue thinking about this as more comments are made and change my vote if my mind changes. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:17, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:Let's not pretend that ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' was an isolated case. It was only notable for its sheer sloppiness and scale. In actuality, we've seen similar things happen time and time again. [[Tornado#Super Mario Bros. 3|Prima]]. [[Fire Nipper Plant|Piranha]] [[Polterpiranha|Plant]] [[Nipper Dandelion|guidance]]. [[Talk:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest#NA release date|Dates]]. Don't get me started on ''Art & Artifacts'' and ''Zelda Encyclopedia''. This is a new constant of our interconnected reality, for better or worse, and it's something that both pros and fans have to thread carefully. Sure, no doubt coincidences happen. If that makes us feel better, we can chalk things up to coincidences. But sometimes, you can't help but smell something '''fishy''', and in aftermath, you wonder how preventable it was if the leash was held just a little tighter...like [[Croaka Cola|Croaka-Cola]]. That mysterious leftover hyphen made me do a massive double-take because I have a ''distinct'' suspicion on its origin (no, I will not elaborate here, but if you know, you know). Considering Nintendo/Localsoft drama was [https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/nintendo-s-systemic-policy-of-miscredting-is-harming-external-translators reported] sometime after the ''Super Mario RPG'' remake, and other strangeness like [https://web.archive.org/web/20231121212525/https://www.nintendo.com/jp/software/feature/magazine_2023winter/index_en.html?page=6&device=pc this top-left retranslated text-bubble] and all the other in-game languages looking an awful lot like a Japanese/English merged script, I've had this bad feeling that the scope of the official translators' fantastic work was extremely fragile, and that tears me up. But I digress; even if I find out I'm correct, I don't think the wiki's to blame. But it does show that we have the power to take a higher road less traveled, and for that, I strongly believe that the current restrictive system must be the lesser evil. Sorry if that sounds dramatic, but my honest fear is that the alternative would not be good in the long run, well-intentioned or not. If more fan-content cross-contamination controversies arise, don't tell me I didn't warn you. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 14:45, December 5, 2024 (EST)


Oh, and also - what about dev data names like [[Informant Mūcho]]? Would those be affected by this proposal? I remember a discussion on this informant guy specifically on Discord leading into the discussion that lead to this proposal. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:03, December 5, 2024 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
:Yes, the proposal states that it would "allow derived names to take precedent over ''internal'' and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:25, December 5, 2024 (EST)
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
This should also affect [[Fire Robota]] and [[Beam Robota]], right? Their counterpart [[Spear-bot|Yari Robota]] is the only one with a confirmed English name (Spear-bot) thanks to the ''[[Wario Land 3]]'' manual. So in this case they would've been "Fire-bot" and "Beam-bot" respectively. [[User:Winstein|Winstein]] ([[User talk:Winstein|talk]]) 12:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:I'd say that's too much of a stretch, isn't the point to only use these names when every part of them can be "derived" from other official names? "Fire" variants would usually (not always) be "Fire Enemy", not "Fire-enemy", and I don't know of any precedent for the naming of "Beam" variants. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::As Hewer says, the elements making up those names and how they are localized into English do not have much data backing them up, as well as "Spear-bot" being somewhat of a portmantau rather than the standard "descriptor proper-name", and wouldn't make a clear consensus. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)


@Roserade: The point isn't that the translation is bad, but that we shouldn't be the ones translating it, we should be providing the official names as they are. "Reasonably deducing what a translation should be" is not what the wiki is for (and "should" is also unavoidably subjective). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)
====Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
:Also,<br>"Ultimately, our aim as a fan wiki should be accessibility of its userbase"<br>No, our ultimate aim is to provide information about the subject matter that is as close to truth as possible. Or in the absence of something that can be deemed "truth", a consensus from the ones who handle the franchise. I'm kinda over this whole idea that accessibility comes at the cost of veracity and accuracy. <s>Supper Mario Broth would be disappointed in us</s>. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:20, December 5, 2024 (EST), edited 13:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Bro Hammer}}: Per my proposal
::Mostly towards KCC: I firmly hold that our ultimate aim should be accessibility. This is why we adjust literally anything on the wiki - table layouts, redirects, etc. If our purpose was just glossary, we'd be doing nothing but creating bulleted lists. Explicit or not, we are always aiming to create a space that best facilitates the accessing of information - and I feel that some of our delineations of what is a "valid" name or not stands in contrast to this aim. I'm noticing that you're using the language of ''is'' instead of ''should'', and I just want to say that I'm sorry my vision of this website varies in some ways from yours, but I think other interpretations of what this site is aiming to do are just as valid as this "purely objective" one, especially when changes are community-headed. I feel like I'm arguing into a theoretical circle that isn't leading me anywhere as I type, but I hope my feelings are clear. I don't think using the mountain of evidence to determine why "Fire Spike" is an acceptable name is doing anything to damage the reputability or informational identity of the wiki, and it would allow our information to be more accessible at a glance. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 15:51, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}}: Per proposer.
:::We are indeed aiming to create a space that best facilitates the accessing of information - official information, not fan names or information we think should be official. There's a big difference between changing the way we present information for accessibility and changing the information that we are presenting. The point of the wiki is only to present official information. I agree that Fire Spike would be a fine name for the character, but it's simply not official, so us wishing that it was does not constitute a "mountain of evidence". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:15, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::You are overlapping two extremely heterogenous aspects of the wiki: the presentation of information (including but not limited to, wording, layout, aesthetics), and the information itself. Yes, it's good to have information laid out in a pretty and accessible way, not so much when that bleeds into the information itself. So much for the accusation of bad faith when you're trying to liken the opposition's perspective to "we should only have bulleted lists!!!11"<br>Nintendo gives us a name for a subject, we use that. It's super clear-cut and avoids [[Talk:Kodeka Kakibō|Hefty Goombrat-isms]] as well as eluding the need of a hundred disclaimers pointing to how the name is conjectural. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:54, December 5, 2024 (EST) edited 16:56, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::Not directed at Koopa con Carne or Roserade or Hewer but in general: Just stepping in here to please keep things civil, please don't construct strawmen out of the oppositions' points. Thanks. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 17:04, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::I saw that "Hefty Goombrat" was mentioned derisively in the previous proposal, and I'm curious as to why that is, beyond the compromises of any derived name? Kodeka Kakibō is extremely similar in both behavior and name to [[Hefty Goomba|Kodeka Kuribō]], so it appears simple from the outside. Is it because Hefty Goomba is the only point of official localization for "Kodeka"? --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::It's a flowery name. "Wacky", if you will. It reeks of Fantendo. If you ''really'' want to give this enemy a conjectural name at the expense of the official one, just use "Big Goombrat"; not only do even bigger variants of this enemy not exist, but [[MarioWiki:Naming#Conjectural names|policy]] states that "When deciding on a name, the [conjectural] name must be simple yet accurate." {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:05, December 5, 2024 (EST)


Not gonna try to throw shade but while I agree with the proposal on derived names it does look odd that a large contigent of users that don't otherwise directly participate in the wiki voted, and voted in a quite short time span. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:48, December 5, 2024 (EST)
====Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
: People talk, especially in the wiki forum and the communities surrounding it, and sometimes a proposal can attract attention from veteran editors (especially when it is as interesting as this). Rare as it is, I think it's good that users with a long history of wiki contribution can still lend their opinion, even if they aren't currently active. {{User:The Pyro Guy/sig}} 16:19, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
::Wasn't there a hard rule against proposal soliciting? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Nintendo101
:::Discussing a proposal before posting it doesn't necessarily involve solicitation, as long as no one is asked to vote. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 16:31, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101.
:::There is a key difference between soliciting votes and simply bringing up a proposal to discuss it (the latter is what happened, of course). Everyone here is voting independently based on the subject matter, even if opinions align in this case. {{User:The Pyro Guy/sig}} 16:35, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
::::What does make this different than [[Talk:Kamek#Split_Wizakoopa_.28i.e..2C_the_Super_Mario_RPG_boss_character.29|outright meatpuppeting]] is that community members who voted here still at least had prior history editing even if they are active no longer, as opposed to in this case where oppose voters showed up only to vote in a single proposal and never contributed anywhere else. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 16:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
::::Also I do disagree that merely discussing a proposal isn't a form of solicitation, even if there is no directly asking a user to vote. There will always be biases in play depending on who approaches you and why you approach particular people: I'm more inclined to vote in support of my sister's proposal because of such inherent biases at play, and more in favor of supporting other people's proposals because I'm more aligned with their judgement or I have personally more trust in them than others, even if the same points are made, we all do. However, I do think a rule against vote solicitation is unenforceable because at what parameters do people suddenly break the rule? There's always going to be some bias towards one side regardless if there was direct solicitation involved or if it's implicated (and the latter is much tougher to analyze but honestly it's not worth dissecting intentions, we're supposed to assume good faith in all users). {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 16:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
:::::I do hear that, but bringing up a proposal in a public space (such as the Discord server) surely would not be a form of solicitation in any case, and is a pretty straightforward and honest way of handling something like this. Just trying to look out for a newer user such as PopitTart in this case particularly since this is their first proposal, and I wouldn't want to accuse them of impropriety without some kind of evidence. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 16:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
::::::Oh no, I understand your side. I'm just commenting that you can't completely avoid solicitation because of a lot of inherent biases that'll always be in play. Even writing a proposal practically is a sophisticated solicitation to get people to support you. In this case, I'd honestly have a proposal get votes from solicitation than proposals that end dead with a no quorum or extended dates. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 16:57, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
:::::::This makes sense to me — I really mean that it's not an improper or untoward form of solicitation that the wiki ought to discourage in my opinion; I do definitely see what you mean about basic proposal-writing being some form of solicitation, lol. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 17:01, December 5, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.


:I discussed the subject at length on the Discord server prior to starting the proposal, as I'd never done one before and wanted to make sure I accounted for all the nuances of the topic and got all the bureaucratic details right. Several of the votes are from users who were in that discussion and presumably wanted to get their opinion in officially as soon as they could. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 16:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
====Comments====
 
I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)
Still undecided on this, but to build on Lady Sophie's point above, it feels like we're drawing kind of an arbitrary line here. For example: The internal name we have for what the wiki calls "Comet Tico" is "TicoComet.arc", so we're already making the assumption that this is a Comet Tico and not a Tico Comet, that these are actually intended as two words at all, that the file extension is not intended as part of the name, and that the name of the file even describes what's in the file. Which is all reasonable, of course, since the surrounding context of other entities' official names heavily implies that all that is supposed to be the case. However, if we're worried about maintaining strict adherence to the text, I'd argue none of that is valid. The only appropriate page name would be "TicoComet.arc", which I don't like personally, but at least it'd be consistent. Or, of course, we could take the final step of also assuming that the word "Tiko" is just the Japanese term for Luma, and treating it as such. {{User:Exiled.Serenity/sig|Sarah}} 17:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:Changing the colors of {{tem|Game infobox}}, {{tem|Series infobox}}, and {{tem|Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the [[MarioWiki:Navigation templates#Chart|color schemes]] currently in use for navigation templates. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm pretty sure "Comet Tico" was also the name from the Japanese version of the SMB Encyclopedia. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::The [[Comet Tico]] page uses the dev data template, so that's probably not true. This has also been done with several other articles that have titles derived from internal data - [[Dark Nokonoko]] and [[Disaster Neko]], to name a couple. Adding to this, we also have [[Peddler Kinopio]], which is only labeled "PeddlerKNP" in the files. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 17:49, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::I mean, there is [[Bone Run Run Packun]] named as such, despite the existence of a proper Japanese name, ''Ran Ran Hone Pakkun''. I would've tried to get it moved when I noticed, but I think it would be best to wait for this proposal to end so we don't have to potentially move it twice.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:58, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::Looks like someone beat me to it, but here's my response anyway: "Looking at the [[Comet Tico]] page, it has the disclaimer that the name comes from development data. Not sure if that's accurate or not, but the only other name cited (コメットチコ) is from the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]], and is in untransliterated Japanese. Either way, I don't think it changes my point much." {{User:Exiled.Serenity/sig|Sarah}} 17:57, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::Would those other pages be affected by this proposal? I don't know of other "Disaster" variants to use as precedent for Disaster Neko, and both it and Dark Nokonoko have another Japanese name listed on their articles that doesn't seem to be from internal data, so how do we know which one an official translation would use? (I feel like these kinds of disagreements that require subjective decisions are another point against this proposal.) As for Peddler KNP, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names|I'd be fine using that name]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:03, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::I agree we should not be manipulating in-game file name data just to procure something that makes more linguistic sense to us, but I view names like "Comet Tico" or most of the unlocalized subjects from ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' to just be Romanizations of their Japanese names, which is something I support. I know from firsthand experience in other fields that this is not an uncommon practice for English texts directed at Japanese audiences, and I do not agree it hurts accessibility or readability. It is just a sincere reflection of what we have, and I would rather not give the impression otherwise. Good reference material make efforts to mitigate the spread of misinformation. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:09, December 5, 2024 (EST)
 
I will say this: if it's considered too speculative to say that [[Swipin' Stu|Mario logically shouldn't get a sunstroke in the basement]], then outright making something up for quote-unquote "accessibility" at the expense of accuracy, the latter of which is our express goal, is ''definitely'' too speculative. You might think "Fire Spike" is an educated guess or something to that effect, but really, it's ''just'' a guess. It is not our prerogative to make up names or localize the games, which is why we only do the former when we have literally no viable alternative. This system we have is not arbitrary, this is the only way to do it while keeping accuracy as the main focus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)


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

Latest revision as of 20:35, March 7, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, March 8th, 19:43 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

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

I have several pitches for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Zero

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

Option One

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

Option Two

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

Option Three

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

Option Four

Comments

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

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

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101
  6. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all
  7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. LinkTheLefty (talk) Pertendo101.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Comments

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

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

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

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

Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at MarioWiki:Citations

The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.

If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.

I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. These were my observations:

I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found this (studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd)) for MLA and this (libguides.up.edu) for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.
The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.

In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion. The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at Stretch Shroom and Big Penguin. The template {{cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.

I noticed that some users prefer to instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.

Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system, per Nintendo101 (talk)'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:

  • one instance[1]:18
  • another instance[1]:20
  1. ^ a b Smith, John (1985). Super Mario Bros. Official Guide. McPublisher Publishing ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) ^Yeah this tripped me up when I first started seeing that.

Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  9. PaperSplash (talk) No reason to stray from Wikipedia's system IMO if it works.
  10. LinkTheLefty (talk) Seems like the more immediate solution here.
  11. Killer Moth (talk) Makes the most sense to me. Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

On Wikipedia, as demonstrated here, they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even other non-numeric parts of a source that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)

I made {{ref page}}. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 13:22, March 6, 2025 (EST)

I somehow didn't notice, thanks! The obvious projected outcome of this proposal is to use that template, but I'll let the proposal run its course since it has only 2 days left. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:31, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Introducing the crossover article

The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:

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

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

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

frog man!
green lad!

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

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

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

I offer three options:

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

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

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

Support: let's implement crossover articles!

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Link costume pose in Super Mario Maker
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
  8. PopitTart (talk) It has always felt absurd to me that Captain Olimar's presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl, despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare: D.I.Y., Super Mario Maker, Yoshi's Woolly World, Mario Kart 8, and WarioWare Move It!
  9. Jdtendo (talk) Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter Smash Bros. list articles, it's even better.
  10. Arend (talk) As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
  11. Nelsonic (talk) Makes perfect sense.
  12. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Sounds good to me.
  13. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. death to the smash bros lists

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

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

Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles

Crossover comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors

The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the Mario franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.

As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which Mario branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.

As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:

  • infobox background: the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. #FFF5EE for Mario);
  • darker cell background: the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. bisque for Mario);
  • header: the navigation template's header color (e.g. #CC0000 for miscellaneous Mario, #FF2400 for Super Mario);
  • border: #aac, #aca, #acc, #caa, #cac or #cca, depending on the most closely matching color.

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

Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Bro Hammer (talk): Per my proposal
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk): Per proposer.

Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101
  3. Technetium (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
  6. Jdtendo (talk) Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
  7. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  9. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.

Comments

I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. Shadow2 (talk) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)

Changing the colors of {{Game infobox}}, {{Series infobox}}, and {{Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the color schemes currently in use for navigation templates. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4773690"