MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Comments: Articles are what we are presenting to the public. Categories are not.)
 
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.''
===Introduce a new type of proposal===
While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|this proposal]], which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 this old proposal attempt] for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?
 
My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named '''poll proposals'''.
*Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
*Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
**Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
*Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
*Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
*Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.
 
This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".
 
I've written down a [[User:EvieMaybe/Poll proposal|mockup poll proposal]] for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
#{{User|PopitTart}} For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Neat idea, per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
 
====Oppose====
 
====Comments on proposal proposal====
Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a ''lot'' more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of <nowiki>{{For}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Against}}</nowiki> templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use <nowiki>{{User}}</nowiki> to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need ''something'' to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
 
I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into [[Category_talk:Music#Proposal:_Reorganize_this_category|three]] [[Category_talk:Musical_groups#Change_into_a_category_for_musical_groups|separate]] [[Category_talk:Sound_tests#Rename_to_.22Sound_tests.22|ones]] myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Frog&oldid=2568046#Split_Frog_and_cut_down_on_its_genericness.2C_take_2 the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave], but I can't really envision what [[Gallery_talk:Super_Mario_(Kodansha_manga)#Split_Waluigi_.28Super_Mario_Land_2:_6-tsu_no_Kinka_2.29|your other example]] would look like as a poll proposal. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for [[List of references in the Super Mario franchise]], and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for [[Dotted-Line Block]], options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from ''SMBW''", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 11: Line 49:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Decide what to do with {{tem|ref needed}} and {{tem|unreferenced}}===
===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
{{early notice|December 8}}
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
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 this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
;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:
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."


----
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
<pre>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<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">
====Support====
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>
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
</div>
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
----
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Agreed with N101.
#{{User|Paper Plumm}} While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
#{{User|Daisy4Days}} Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Shadow2.


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:
====Oppose====
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
#{{User|Arend}} On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
#{{User|MCD}} This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you ''really'' don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|Green Star}} Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Green Star.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} per Green Star.
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>


----
====Comments====
<pre>
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
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>
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
</div>
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
</pre>
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)


<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
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>
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
</div>
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
----
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)


Also, if the proposal passes with either option 3 or option 5 being the most voted, we'll use this from above.
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)


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


----
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
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>
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
</div>
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
----
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what about my inquiry was an unfair assumption. I am generally not someone who supports the implementation of rules without cause. If there were examples of users receiving unsolicited "fluff" on the site that do not like it, or if you yourself were the receiver of such material, that would be one thing. But I do not believe either thing has happened. So what would be the point in supporting a rule like that? What are the potential consequences of rolling something like that? Facilitating edit wars on user talkpages? Making participants in a communal craft feel unwelcomed? Making users hesitant to express acts of friendship with another? The history of an article-impacting idea being lost because it emerged between two users on one of their talkpages? In my experience the users who have received light messages and images from others have established a bond elsewhere, such as on Mario Boards or the Super Mario Wiki Discord. I am not familiar of this being done between acquaintances or strangers, or people who dislike it regardless. If you had proof of that or any comparable harm, I would be more receptive to your perspective. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:13, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::::::::Feels like I'm just shouting at a wall here, and all of my concerns are being rebuffed as "not a big deal", so I guess I'll just give up. But going forward, having learned that once someone puts something on my talk page it's stuck there for eternity, no matter what it is, makes me incredibly uncomfortable. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:48, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


Likewise, the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template reads as follows:
===Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)===
Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:
*[[List of implied species]]
*[[Hoohoo civilization]]
*[[Soybean civilization]]
*[[Hooroglyphs]]


----
Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue [[Hoohooros]], but also [[Hooroglyphs]] and [[Beanstone]]s. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in ''March 2007'', actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.
<pre>
<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>
</pre>


<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]&#93;</sup>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
----
'''Deadline''': February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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:
====Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, [[Squirpina XIV]] or the [[Flora Kingdom royalty]], at most serving as the origin for [[Hoohooros]].


----
====Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone====
<pre>
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} The glyphs are actually seen, though.
<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>
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per LinkTheLefty.
</pre>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can ''see'' the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.


<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]&#93;</sup>
====Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone====
----


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.
====Merge none (do nothing)====


Which option do you wish to choose?
====Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)====


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
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'']].


====Option 1====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} First choice


====Option 2====
====Support====
#{{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.


====Option 3====
====Oppose====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Second choice
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.


====Option 4====
====Comments====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Third choice
@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)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We 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)
:::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)


====Option 5====
===Split the image quality category===
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Fourth choice
'''Issue 1:''' [[:Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality]] is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. '''Issue 2:''' All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:
*'''Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
*'''Assets to be uploaded with higher quality''' - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as [[:File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png]].
Additionally, [[Template:Image-quality]] will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.


====Option 6====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Waluigi Time}}<br>
#{{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.
'''Deadline''': February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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.
====Split both====
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
#{{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|Technetium}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
#{{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|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{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|LadySophie17}} Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} I would've only supported if there were an option for ONLY renaming ref needed to citation needed. I always type out "citation needed" and needing to correct to the actual name "ref needed" is frustrating.
 
====Only split screenshots====
 
====Only split assets====
 
====Leave image quality alone====
 
====Comments on image quality proposal====
Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:
<gallery>
File:Mk64mario.png|Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.
File:BIS Fawflopper Prima.png|Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.
File:Mariocrouch2Dshade.png|Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.
File:BulletBillTSHIRT.jpg|Too small image of merchandise.
</gallery>{{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
::I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: {{fake link|Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality}}. Something similar should also be done for the [[:Category:Articles with unsourced foreign names|Articles with unsourced foreign names category]]. [[User:Apikachu68|Apikachu68]] ([[User talk:Apikachu68|talk]]) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
:::Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)


====Comments====
===Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of ''[[Donkey Kong (game)|Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Jr. (game)|Donkey Kong Jr.]]'' and ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''===
{{@|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)
I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games ''Donkey Kong'', ''Donkey Kong Jr.'' and ''Mario Bros''. There's already a [[Donkey Kong (Game & Watch)|Game]] [[Donkey Kong Jr. (Game & Watch)|and]] [[Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|Watch]] game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "''Donkey Kong''" is the name of various other games too! There's [[Donkey Kong (tabletop arcade game)|the tabletop game]], [[Donkey Kong (Game Boy)|the Game Boy game]], [[Donkey Kong (Nelsonic Game Watch)|the Nelsonic Game Watch game]] and [[Donkey Kong (slot machine)|the slot machine]]. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for ''Donkey Kong''. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]].
: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"===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
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.


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.
====Support====
Examples:
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
* [[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.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.


Edit: Several users have expressed the sentiment that our current names are already somewhat derivative. Fire Gabon is not the name of the subject in Japanese, but rather ''Faia Gabon''. Similarly, [[Informant Mūcho]] is derived from the filename <code>B4_Informant_MUC</code>. Thusly, a new option is provided to propose to stop this form of derived names as well. Names like Comet Tico would be moved to "TicoComet", and Informant Mūcho moved to "Informant_MUC" or "Informant".
====Comments====
Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)


Edit 2: LinkTheLefty has very reasonably pointed out that the wiki has [[MarioWiki:Japanese#Subjects_with_Japanese_names|existing, consistent guidelines]] on how to write Japanese names with English loanwords, meaning Fire Gabon should not be written as ''Faia Gabon''. I have altered the second option in accordance. If it passes, Japanese names will not have their spellings changed, but names derived from development data will still be made more direct. In hindsight, it probably wasn't a good idea, articles called [[Superball Mario (level)|Sūpābо̄rū Mario]] or [[Super Mario Kart: Doki Doki Race|Sūpā Mario Kāto Doki Doki Rēsu]] would probably be rather obtrusive.
What about [[Dr. Mario (game)|''Dr. Mario'']]? That game also has a [[Dr. Mario (Gamewatch Boy)|separate release also called ''Dr. Mario'']].--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)
::The reason why the games ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Dr. Mario'' should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from ''Donkey Kong'' on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "''Dr. Mario'' (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|PopitTart}}<br>
===Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes===
'''Deadline''': December 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.


====Allow fully derived names (Fire Spike, Informant Snifit)====
Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.
#{{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 opposition's 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.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per proposal and Pseudo.
#{{User|Exiled.Serenity}} Per my comments below, and Pseudo. This is my preferred option— I think it is only "making stuff up" in the strictest possible sense. A far cry from calling him "Sizzle-Spikey!" or whatever. I also appreciate the proposal's restraint in this regard, choosing to only allow this when there's so much evidence for a given name that we'd just as easily be giving an inaccurate impression by not using it.


====Stop derived development data names (Fire Gabon, Informant_MUC)====
Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the ''only'' difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.
#{{User|MCD}} Not my first choice but per my comment below. What we have now is essentially a mish-mash of different sources of derivation, this is better than that at least.
#{{User|Sparks}} Agreed.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Second choice, Per MCD. If we can't do fully derived names, then we shouldn't do arbitrary partial ones.
#{{User|Hewer}} Second choice, I'll take this over the first option.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per... Hewer, I guess? Voting mostly to the detriment of the first option.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Honestly, I'm not even sure this is my second choice or not — I'm willing to go a long way in the name of consistency.
#{{User|Tails777}} Secondary choice. I'd rather lean one way or the other than have a messy in between. At least with this, it makes more sense than allowing the word "Fire" to be translated from "Fire Gabon" and not "Gabon".
#{{User|Pseudo}} Secondary choice per Tails777, and per the sentiment expressed in my vote for the option 1. The current situation is a bad middle ground. This might become my primary vote in the future, but I need to think about it more.
#{{User|Exiled.Serenity}} My second choice. It's at least consistent.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - This I can agree with, the guessing of word order for file names always bugged me. Granted, it'd look odd in the prose, but there are ways around it (for instance, "'''Informant_MUC''' is the internal designation of a Snifit in ''Paper Mario: Color Splash''. The Snifit is found...")
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} As counterproductive as the proposal itself is, i suppose this could be an alternative (even if this option might get counterproductive in certain areas too)


====Do nothing (Fire Gabon, Informant Mūcho)====
This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?
#{{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.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I see no reason to change this that doesn't involve appealing to the fact that this is an English wiki.


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
@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)
'''Deadline''': February 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
: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)
::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)
:::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)
====Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"====
: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)
#{{User|PaperSplash}} My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.
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)
====Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"====
: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|PaperSplash}} My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.
::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)
:::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)
::::::I'm not sure I agree with it being "flowery". It behaves just like and is particularly named just like the Kodeka Kuribō, so it follows that it would use the same naming scheme. Most enemies which are called "big" in English use simply "deka" in Japanese. I can understand being hesitant about using just the Hefty Goomba as reference, given this proposal hinges on the Mario franchise's tendency for consistent naming schemes. If this proposal passes, Kodeka Kakibō would probably warrant some discussion on its own. --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 18:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::::That just shows how subjective the entire basis of this proposal is. You think naming it as such is logical, but that is plain and simply an opinion, and not one that will necessarily be shared. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:31, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::::The point I brought up [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]] was that Kodeka Kakibō is analogous to Big Goomba in ''Super Mario Maker 2'', Hefty Goomba in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' (per the new name), and indeterminate in ''Super Mario Run''. There is no one-size-fits-all solution in such a loony scenario. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:37, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::::::That's starting off the assumption that the enemy in ''Super Mario Maker 2'' is a "Kodeka Kakibō" to begin with, which, considering the equivalent Goomba enemy is officially referred to in Japanese as "Deka Kuribō", doesn't seem like a very reasonable assumption. Sure, they have the same role, but so do Maker's Big Goomba and New's Hefty Goomba. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 07:35, December 6, 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)
====Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"====
: 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|PaperSplash}} My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it ''could'' make sense to follow suit...
::Wasn't there a hard rule against proposal soliciting? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 16:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::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)
:::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)
::::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)
::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)
:::::::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)


: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)
====Option 4: Do nothing====


:{{@|Mario}} Whether or not the votes have been solicited, I don't know. I'd not want that to be the case. But I think users should be allowed to voice their opinions on a wiki-relevant matter regardless of how much "credit" they have to their name as a user of the wiki, and regardless of whether they are a user at all or not. Otherwise the site just becomes a clique of stuffy nerds who monopolize the work done here and pretend it's justifiable just because they're more involved. This isn't a shade to the opposition (especially since I'm part of it), it just seems like a natural course of things in the given scenario. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:51, December 5, 2024 (EST)
====Comments====
::Problem I have is less the idea of what is and isn't solicitation and more that something organized in such a way will of course have more users who have already made up their mind compared to the active users who generally pay conscientious attention to proposal discussions. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 19:05, December 5, 2024 (EST)
For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::I still don't see an ethical problem in this. Indeed, there are a few users whose entire activity in the past years has been to vote for the prevailing sentiment in a discussion, refuse to elaborate, promptly leave. I understand your concern, as you're dedicated to the project and your intentions have been nothing but good--full disclosure, hopefully I don't offend by being honest, but I don't personally like the practice so described either--however, everyone here has a given freedom to vote. If they're not carrying out a concerted effort to sway a consensus, I'm not one to stop them, and I wouldn't be above them were I more conscientious. Most importantly, they're still part of the community even if they're not as active in the space designated the "wiki". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:25, December 5, 2024 (EST), edited 19:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::No offense taken whatsoever, though I do think it's curious that right after you say you don't see a problem, you then voted "mostly to the detriment of the first option." And, fine, if that's what it comes down to, but I think that adds fuel to my distrust of setting proposals up in Discord servers or however this happened. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 20:40, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::When I said I dislike the practice "so described", I wasn't referring to your behavior, so I apologize if it came off that way. Also, I'm not part of the Discord server. If the other option was added following a discussion over there, I don't know. I don't think I'm being disingenuous with my statements if I then choose to vote mostly against another option--as I said, everyone's got certain freedoms in these activities. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:56, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::::The decision to add the third option was based on comments here, (see Lady Sophie's above and Exiled.Serenity's below) and discussed briefly on the Discord server to, again, make sure I'm doing all the formatting and such correctly for my first time.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 21:15, December 5, 2024 (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)
:Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 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)
::::This is basically the equivalent of transliterating loanwords in foreign names, which is a minimum for language legibility. The way files are typically written is for the base version to be the first word, and then variant characteristics appended afterwards. That's just a consequence of organization, keeping alike things alphabetically arranged for ease of reference. Not all the time, but usually, and CamelCase also denotes where there would normally be a space. Cross-referencing also indicates how the names were likely intended to be read. Maybe the template wording can be revised a little bit. (Comet Tico is, by the way, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjects|a proposal suggestion]] to override Lumacomète.) [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::Why are foreign names being compared so much to internal names anyway? I've yet to encounter a foreign name that doesn't make sense syntactically, even in English (in "Fire Gabon are enemies in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''", you immediately understand the subject to be a fiery variant of a thing called "Gabon"; "Kodeka Kakibo" can be read by someone who doesn't know Japanese as simply the subject's name). There is more often than not some ''creative intent'' behind them, and using them in no way hurts accessibility as feared. In stark contrast, internal names are supposed to be utilitarian and may not translate well into prose ("Nokonoko Darks are enemies in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' has the flow of a ball of wet wipes in a drain). {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:30, 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)
I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)


I want to offer this insight, shared by CM30 in the Discord server (with permission to repost), that I believe articulates part of my argument better than I was able to: <br>"My opinion on this matter is that user readability should come first on an English speaking wiki. A reader shouldn't need an image or description to understand what a page is referring to, and that's a huge problem with relying too heavily on untranslated or foreign names. <br> And while you could argue that names should be official where possible, if they're literally just descriptions I see no harm in using a translation"<br> This is mostly what I mean about accessibility. Getting a first click of engagement is the most important step to getting someone what they're looking for on the wiki, and article titles that don't give clear communication of what a player has seen hinders this process and can cause confusion instead. Again, it's not true for every article that can be interpreted - only ones that have sufficient indication of what their derived name should be. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 18:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. [[User:PaperSplash|PaperSplash]] ([[User talk:PaperSplash|talk]]) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:Beyond my usual disagreements that being an English wiki means that English material is to be treated as The One and Only Source of Truth...<br>"A reader shouldn't need an image or description to understand what a page is referring to"<br>This makes zero sense. I'm sorry. I mean no offense to CM30, but if an encyclopedia wouldn't employ descriptions and demonstrative attachments, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia at all. It would be something closer to a... [[Special:Diff/4452460|glossary]].<br>A reader who's never had so much contact with the Mario franchise wouldn't immediately think of a brown anthropomorphic mushroom upon seeing the word "Goomba". That's where the wiki aids them with descriptions and images. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:41, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:It's still presenting conjecture over official names. Which is not how we operate, nor should it be. Just because something's "easier to understand" doesn't make it better. Opening Fire Gabon's page with "'''Fire Spikes''' are enemies from ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''" rubs me too much the wrong way because it's deliberately demoting the only official name we have for it in favor of something that is entirely based on guesswork. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::But the "only official name" is itself not official. The Japanese name is "Faia Gabon" so the "Fire" part is derived, the internal name is "EnemyFireGabon" so if that counts as official (which I personally disagree with, seeing as it's internal data the developer never would have intended to be seen publicly, if we had no official confirmed name for an enemy in a game and it was internally labelled as "Enemy1.pack.zs" would we call the page "Enemy 1"?) then "Fire Gabon" is still a derived name from that. If you think we should be prescriptivist about this, fine, but don't pick and choose what you apply these rules to and what you don't. {{User:MrConcreteDonkey/sig}} 19:10, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::"Faia" is the English word "fire" written for a syllabic language. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:28, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::It's literally just the word "fire" uttered using Japanese characters. It's a matter of linguistic stricture. Deriving the word "fire" from the word "fire" is neither conjecture or prescriptivist LMAO. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:37, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::<small><small>Why is this starting to sound like that "tsk, it's not ''Mamu'', it's ''Mam<u>ū</u>''" [[Talk:Wart#Calling him "Mamu" in YK:DDP|joke]] I made a while ago?</small></small> Okay, several things. Firstly, everything in a game, including the parts that make it tick, is official. By definition. This is no personal agreement or disagreement to be made here. The word you ''seem'' to be looking for is "canon", [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|which is not an argument this wiki is interested in.]] If a development name is too utilitarian to use, simple: ''we don't use it'' (for example, Kongā being one of the numbered "waru" DK-bots). In the case that there is no foreign name, we'd probably use a conjectural name than that hypothetical example. The remaining Fire/Faia argument displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how language and databasing work (as already gone over), and the proposer mixed in both under one new option, seemingly redefining [[MarioWiki:Japanese#Subjects with Japanese names|our longstanding common-sense rules]] under the "derived" umbrella (frankly, slipping in perceived Japanese word quibbles is an overreach of this name proposal). And utilizing different sources effectively makes encyclopedias encyclopedic. Becoming the ''Sūpā Mario Burazāzu'' Wiki will, in my opinion, put a damper on our reliability. There is nothing broken to fix here. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:28, December 5, 2024 (EST)
::::I didn't catch that the second option apparently violates the wiki's guidelines, I'm not a frequent editor and I simply went off what discussion in here suggested. I would be okay with the option being reworded to allow loan words to remain as their English spelling if necessary.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 22:18, December 5, 2024 (EST)
:::::It’s worth noting that [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese]] specifically mentions that names such as “Yoshi” and “Koopa” should use their official English names in article titles that don’t have an official English name. Granted, it doesn’t specify every context that this should be used in or which other names this would apply to, however I feel that it would be logical to extend this existing rule to enemy names that already have an offical English translation, like Spike or Luma. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}} 01:08, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::The difference is between transcription of names and translation of names. It's saying to write Kuppa as Koopa, not to replace it with Bowser. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:55, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::::Not entirely sure if transcription is the right term to use here or if transliteration would be more accurate, however your point is valid that this seems to be a slightly different topic from the one at hand, so I’ll admit that my previous comment might not be relevant to this discussion. - {{User:Ninelevendo/sig}}


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

Latest revision as of 16:05, February 9, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, February 9th, 21:05 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."

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)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)
Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork, Scrooge200 (ended January 5, 2025)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
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)
Merge the two Clawing for More articles, Salmancer (ended January 27, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Introduce a new type of proposal

While our wiki's proposal system is a pretty good way to democratize choices, it does have its limitations. A single-winner vote is simply not robust enough to support certain types of decisions, most notably with the ones that require settling various parts independently (such as this proposal, which had to decide on both the romanization and the identifier separately), or sorting several things at once (see this old proposal attempt for a maximal worst-case scenario). So what do we do?

My suggestion is to create a second type of proposal, tentatively named poll proposals.

  • Poll proposals can feature several options, much like regular proposals (which might also need their own name), but each option is its own binary vote.
  • Instead of commenting "per proposal" or "per all" or giving some insight, voters must indicate "for" or "against" on each option they vote on. Further comments are allowed, of course.
    • Abstaining from some options should be allowed too.
  • Each vote is subject to the same approval percentages as a regular old Support/Oppose proposal.
  • Early closures and term extensions get murkier when some options might meet the threshholds while others do not. This might warrant some further discussion, and I do not think I have the authority to decide how this should be settled. Up to staff, I guess?
  • Poll proposals must be clearly marked as such, to make it clear how one is supposed to vote.

This allows us to more efficiently make several decisions at once, instead of having to string several follow-up proposals together. For an example, I'm sure many of you have seen proposals that do two changes at once and have the options marked as "A, B, both, neither". This would contract those to simply "A, B".

I've written down a mockup poll proposal for those who need a more visual example. Of course, if this passes, staff is free to change aspects of the implementation as they see fit, particularly the specific word choices of "poll proposal", "for" and "against".

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: February 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Mock-up looks pretty good! The more variety when it comes to how we make major decisions, the better.
  3. PopitTart (talk) For. Having templates as Camwoodstock suggests would also be good to make it easier to see at a glance how votes are distributed.
  4. Rykitu (talk) Neat idea, per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal, as long as the suggestion to have a better visual indicator for support/oppose votes is taken into account. I lean more towards Ahemtoday's suggestion since it'll be easier to keep count of them.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  7. 1468z (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments on proposal proposal

Our only complaint is in the mockup; we feel like it could be made a lot more clear which votes are for/against in some way. Maybe a pair of {{For}} and {{Against}} templates? (In this context, we think making these templates is fine; you already need to know how to use {{User}} to vote, after all, and we're imagining these will be very, very simple to use.) Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:41, February 7, 2025 (EST)

That, but what purpose would "against" votes have compared to just not voting on that option? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, February 7, 2025 (EST)
Same as it would in a regular proposal, each option acts as an individual 2-option vote. If no one opposes an option (and it meets quorum requirements), then it passes. --PopitTart (talk) 17:56, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I feel like the easiest solution is just "for" and "against" subheaders under each option. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)
That would also work for us! Our only real concern is that this could result in level-5 subheaders on proposals on this page specifically, which... Don't look all that great. Even still, we just need something to disambiguate at a glance what is what, and this will do the job just well. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:01, February 7, 2025 (EST)
@Camwoodstock you're absolutely right and that's a very good idea! — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)

I'm a little bit stuck on what kind of use cases this type of proposal would be for. I've had to split a proposal into three separate ones myself once, but even if this type of proposal existed at the time, I still feel like it would have made the most sense to do them separately. I suppose it would definitely help for the "split combinatorial explosion" example you gave, but I can't really envision what your other example would look like as a poll proposal. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, February 7, 2025 (EST)

well, the way i was thinking of is that it'd have one option for whether to use Waruiji or Waluigi, and another on which identifier to use. i admit it's not as clean bc there's more than two options for identifiers, but something like that could work for similar cases. i came up with this proposal idea while thinking about a proposal narrowing down if cultural/historical/mythological/folklore references count for List of references in the Super Mario franchise, and thinking that it'd be great if we could vote on each of them individually without having to make a proposal for each. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:44, February 7, 2025 (EST)
I'm interested in using this to create a proposal for Dotted-Line Block, options being "Split the ones that turn into ! Blocks", "Split the ones that are on a time limit", "Split the rhythm blocks from SMBW", "Merge Color Block", and "Merge Switch Block (Mario & Wario)" --PopitTart (talk) 19:21, February 7, 2025 (EST)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page

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

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

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

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to February 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.
  2. Shadow2 (talk) Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally any other platform that has ever existed gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
  3. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per Shadow2's comment.
  4. Waluigi Time (talk) IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) per WT
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove any conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal and Waluigi Time. No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
  8. LinkTheLefty (talk) Agreed with N101.
  9. Paper Plumm (talk) While the concerns presented by the opposing side are valid, I think we should allow people to have the ability to control this sort of thing, this will have no consequence to you if you enjoy having friend requests however for those who are against this they are able to gain a net positive in relieving themselves of needless clutter. As per the broader ideas presented, that definitely needs its own vote, however again I am of the mind that the option should be made available but not forced upon all.
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal, Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Paper Plumm.
  11. Daisy4Days (talk) Per proposal. I just don’t see why one should have to keep that; it’s completely unrelated to editing the wiki.
  12. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Shadow2.

Oppose

  1. Ray Trace (talk) This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
  2. Hewer (talk) I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
  3. Sparks (talk) Friend requests are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
  5. Technetium (talk) No one even does friend requests nowadays.
  6. Mario (talk) Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it must be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
  7. Tails777 (talk) I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
  9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
  10. Arend (talk) On top of what everyone else has already said, I think leaving them there is more useful for archival purposes.
  11. MCD (talk) This seems like something that would spark more pointless arguments and bad blood than it would prevent, honestly. Nothing wrong with saying 'no' if you really don't want to be friends with them, or just ignoring it. Also, the example that sparked this isn't anything to do with courtesy - the message in question was from 9 years ago and was not removed because the user was uncomfortable with it, but they seem to be basically starting their whole account from scratch and that was the one message on the page. In that context, I think removing the message was fine, but anything like that should decided on a case-by-case basis if there's nothing wiki-related or worth archiving otherwise.
  12. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
  13. Green Star (talk) Friend requests may not be especially helpful when it comes to building an encyclopedia, but allowing users to remove rather than simply ignore them isn't exactly helpful for building a friendly and welcoming community.
  14. Rykitu (talk) Per Green Star.
  15. Cadrega86 (talk) per Green Star.

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species (and Hooroglyphs info to that)

Another multiple-way merge! This is about the following articles:

Simply put, these are all ancient civilizations that we don't encounter in-game, since. Well. They're long-gone ancient civilizations that are only ever mentioned alongside occasional things that originate from them, most notably the statue Hoohooros, but also Hooroglyphs and Beanstones. While we can understand keeping Hoohooros and Beanstones split--the former is a full boss encounter, the latter is a key item involved in a sidequest--we're less sure about Hooroglyphs in particular. Merges for the civilizations have been called for since around late 2023, and we think the Hooroglyphs should be merged as their split mostly comes from the decision to make a page for them back in March 2007, actually predating the Hoohoo civilization article. We've provided an option for keeping Hooroglyphs split, though we imagine it'd be better to merge this with the Hoohoo civilization information.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge all (merge Hoohoo/Soybean Civilizations to List, merge Hooroglyphs to the Hoohoo Civilization section)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves; these civilizations don't have as much plot relevance nor lore behind them as something like, say, Squirpina XIV or the Flora Kingdom royalty, at most serving as the origin for Hoohooros.

Merge civilizations, leave Hooroglyphs alone

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) The glyphs are actually seen, though.
  2. Jdtendo (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option; admittedly, we're not quite sure how strong "you can see the glyphs in-game" is as a reason, but we would much rather the civilizations get merged than nothing at all.

Merge Hooroglyphs to Hoohoo civilization, leave civilizations alone

Merge none (do nothing)

Comments (Indus River Valley civilization joke here)

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

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.

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.

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)

Split the image quality category

Issue 1: Category:Images to be reuploaded with higher quality is a very big category, with nearly 4,000 images in it right now. Even if it's something you can help with, it's very difficult to actually find anything in here. Issue 2: All other things being equal, some types of images require specific methods or skills to get that all users may not have or be comfortable with. To aid in the overall usability of this category and make it easier for skilled users to find things they can help with, I'm proposing the following two subcategories:

  • Screenshots to be uploaded with higher quality - Most Nintendo consoles don't have the ability to take native screenshots. That's all I'll say about that.
  • Assets to be uploaded with higher quality - Sites like The Spriters Resource are helpful, but they don't have everything. Getting higher quality images requires being able to extract them from the game files and/or the ability to manipulate them afterwards. This will also include images that are currently screenshots meant to demonstrate an asset, such as File:DKCTF Donkey Icon.png.

Additionally, Template:Image-quality will be modified with an extra parameter to mark the image as a screenshot or asset and categorize them appropriately. Considering we already have the rewrite and stub categories organized for better navigation, I don't see this as an issue.

Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk)
Deadline: February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split both

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Category:Votes to be reuploaded with a better reason
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a little surprised a split like this hasn't happened sooner, honestly; if for no other reason than it would be nice to have it organized. Per proposal.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all, which is mostly "per proposal"s anyway
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense

Only split screenshots

Only split assets

Leave image quality alone

Comments on image quality proposal

Silly question; will images that are of neither screenshots nor assets that have the image-quality tag, like scans, character art/renders, or merchandise, just remain as-is? There are already a few examples of those that are all presently tagged with image-quality, like so:

  • Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

    Scan of 3D render, colors are washed out.

  • Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

    Muddy scan of 2D illustration, and background cropped.

  • Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

    Photoshop upscaled 2D promo art.

  • Too small image of merchandise.

    Too small image of merchandise.

Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:30, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Yes, anything that doesn't fall into either of the two subcategories will stay in the main one for now. I suppose we can look into splitting it further down the road, but I singled these two out because of the higher barrier to entry and also that they seem to be the bulk of the category's contents right now. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:37, February 6, 2025 (EST)
I think this category should also be split by the media that it appears in (e.g: Category:Game screenshots to be reuploaded with higher quality. Something similar should also be done for the Articles with unsourced foreign names category. Apikachu68 (talk) 19:50, February 6, 2025 (EST)
Almost all of the screenshots in the category right now are from games so I don't think it needs to be narrowed down further just yet. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:09, February 6, 2025 (EST)

Change "(game)" identifier to "(arcade)" on the articles of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros.

I wouldn't consider "game" to be the best identifier for the arcade games Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. There's already a Game and Watch game that shares its title with each of the arcade games, but "Donkey Kong" is the name of various other games too! There's the tabletop game, the Game Boy game, the Nelsonic Game Watch game and the slot machine. I know the slot machine is technically an arcade game, but it's not a standard cabinet like the 1981 arcade game. "Game" is a broad identifier, especially for Donkey Kong. Shouldn't a "game" identifier only be used if there's no other game with the same name? That's why we use consoles for identifiers instead, such as Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii) and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS).

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: February 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) Those articles also cover the game's release on Famicom, NES, Atari, etc., so "arcade" would not be a holistically accurate identifier.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; "arcade" is kind of a misnomer when the non-arcade ports are covered on them.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  4. PaperSplash (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer's comment.

Comments

Maybe "arcade game" would be a decent compromise? PaperSplash (talk) 18:02, February 8, 2025 (EST)

What about Dr. Mario? That game also has a separate release also called Dr. Mario.--PopitTart (talk) 18:24, February 8, 2025 (EST)

The reason why the games Donkey Kong and Dr. Mario should keep their identifier of "(game)" is because those are by far the most popular and commonly thought-of games under their respective titles; the other articles (aside from Donkey Kong on the Game Boy) are on much more obscure devices while being clearly separate from the original game. To put it another way, "Dr. Mario (game)" is what people are looking for when they think about "the game featuring Dr. Mario"; meanwhile, you'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Gamewatch Boy game even exists at all. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 22:15, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes

So far, the use of "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes on this wiki has been rather inconsistent and arbitrary, to say the least. While Nintendo is typically known for providing distinct English localizations for the United States (and other English-speaking territories in the Americas) and the United Kingdom (and other territories where Commonwealth English is standard, apart from Canada), the actual differences between them, if any, have varied over time.

Historically, many Nintendo games have featured minor English text differences between their releases in the Americas and Europe/Oceania; however, these were typically not wholly separate localizations to account for the differences between American and British (or Commonwealth) English – they tended to follow American English conventions for the most part regardless. Rather, they were simple amendments made by Nintendo of Europe to Nintendo of America's existing English scripts, usually either to rectify perceived shortcomings or to modify certain terminology based on internal preferences. These versions were typically stored separately on region-specific cartridges or discs, with occasional differences in how they were labeled in internal data.

Later, during the DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U eras, more distinct localizations specifically for the United States and United Kingdom that also accounted for regional language differences became more commonplace. However, all of the aforementioned practices have largely faded with the advent of the region-free Nintendo Switch, where games now typically release simultaneously worldwide on identical cartridges. As a result, English scripts are now more often than not also identical across regions (or at most contain only very minor differences, such as the date format used; in many cases, the date format is the only difference), though they are still almost always stored and labeled separately in internal data, typically alongside each other.

This proposal aims to determine how we should handle cases of identical or nearly identical (American) English scripts between regions when identifying languages in game infoboxes. Should we list them both as "English (United States)", simply as "English" or adhere to how they are distinguished in internal data, even when actual differences are minimal?

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

Option 1: List largely identical American English localizations only as "English (United States)"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My third choice. I mean, when it really is just American English, I can see the argument.

Option 2: List largely identical American English localizations as simply "English"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My first choice. I think it's the best compromise that makes the most sense, all things considered.

Option 3: List both "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" if distinguished in internal data, otherwise simply list "English"

  1. PaperSplash (talk) My second choice. When internal data classifies them that way, it could make sense to follow suit...

Option 4: Do nothing

Comments

For better accuracy, "British English" should probably be "Commonwealth English." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:13, February 8, 2025 (EST)

Noted. Though I decided to focus mainly on the terminology used in game infoboxes, as I realized this wiki's use of the term "British English" is effectively its own can of worms... PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

I'm a bit confused what this proposal is trying to change. Is it just about terminology used in game infoboxes? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:31, February 9, 2025 (EST)

In hindsight, I realized this proposal was trying to change too many things at once, so I decided to tidy things up and focus on just the game infobox terminology for now. PaperSplash (talk) 15:35, February 9, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4726980"