MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎Do nothing (Fire Gabon, Informant Mūcho): this is not my personal position--it's supported by the policy and upheld by the community for years.)
 
(638 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
The passing of this proposal would include the in-game [[mission]]s and equivalencies (i.e. episodes from ''Super Mario Sunshine'', objectives from ''Super Mario Odyssey'', etc.) to the subjects we put quotation marks around in our [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]].


==New features==
In reference material aimed at describing and chronicling creative works, putting quotation marks around certain types of subjects has become a [https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html well-established practice]. This is acknowledged in our Manual of Style, in which it states that video games, TV series, and albums should be italicized, whereas individual music titles, named book chapters, and TV episodes should be within quotation marks. I am personally not a fan of adhering to traditions or standards just for the sake of it, but there are strong utilitarian reasons why this has become commonplace. Last year, I relayed what these were in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Do not surround song titles with quotes|proposal]] that aimed to remove quotation marks from song titles, stating:
=== Families ===
<blockquote>The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a ''greater whole'' (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in ''The Color of Water''. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of ''Resident Alien''. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "[[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]]" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and [[Gusty Garden Galaxy]] is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
It's not the first time I ask this, and certainly not the last (unless you approve it), but since there are articles for the families of [[Mario and Luigi's family|Mario Mario and Luigi Mario's]] and [[Kong#Kong Family|Donkey Kong's]], there should be articles for the major characters' families, like [[Bowser|King Bowser Koopa]]'s and [[Princess Peach|Princess Peach Toadstool]]'s. And probably [[Toad]]'s, but I don't really think that'd work. If there were, the wiki'd be kinda more organized.  
</blockquote>
I hope this adequately explains why I think this is a good practice for us as editors, and how this benefits visitors to our site.
 
I would like us to explicitly include [[mission]]s as subjects we should put quotation marks around. This is something I do already on the wiki because I have always perceived them as scenarios within a creative work, much like a TV episode or named chapter in a novel. They often even have unique narrative elements. Consequently, presenting them between quotation marks comes with the same benefit to readers. Proper levels (which I conceptualize as locations within the creative works we cover, not scenarios) have been given a diversity of different names through the franchise's history and many of them sound like they could be referring to scenarios. For folks browsing the wiki or reading an article covering a recurring subject, wouldn't it be nice to have some passive indication that [[Here Come the Hoppos]] is a level, whereas "[[Footrace with Koopa the Quick]]" is a scenario ''within'' a level? I think that'd provide helpful clarity.
 
As an example of what this would look like in practice, I recommend the ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' article, where I embraced this fully. I don't include quotation marks around missions in the level table because I feel that looks a little busy and they aren't as helpful there, but I always include them when I mention a mission within a sentence, just like I do with chapters and song titles. The only reason why I am making this proposal is because I have seen the quotation marks removed from mission names on other articles I have worked on, and I would rather we keep them. I think it is a good idea.
 
For clarification, <u>this proposal does not impact the names of actual ''levels''</u>, which I consider to be locations within the creative works we cover, regardless of how silly their names are in English. It is not commonplace to put quotation marks around the names of locations in creative works, and it would also defeat the intent behind this proposal. What would be the point of including quotation marks around "Big Bob-omb on the Summit" if you are also including them around "Bob-omb Battlefield?" That would just be redundant and clarify nothing to our readers.
 
I offer two options:
 
#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
#'''Don't do that.'''


'''Proposer''':[[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk)]]<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


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


====Comments====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all: it's unneeded, it does not make much sense to put mission names in quotation marks but not level names, it's not always clear what qualifies as a mission or not, and this would not be helpful to most readers because they would not be aware of this convention.</s>
Since we don't prioritize either conflicting source, a Bowser's family article presumably includes the [[Koopaling]]s as "formerly Bowser's children" and brings in data from [[Koopa Kid#Relationships]]. But now I'm questioning if the extant section on [[Bowser#Relationships]] can serve this need. A Peach's family article is presumably a no go because of a sheer dearth of data. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 10:39, December 6, 2024 (EST)


The reason why we have an article for the Mario Bros' family and a subsection for the Kong families on the Kong article is because a lot of members for either family have been introduced somewhere in the franchise. Admittedly, we already know of a couple of Bowser's family members: the Koopalings (former children), Bowser Jr (current only child), Kamek (caretaker, advisor and father figure), [[Bowser's mother]], and then some implied/mentioned ones. But I don't think four subjects and then some that appear only on a list of implied characters would justify an article on the matter. As for Peach, we only know of the [[Mushroom King]], [[Gramma Toadstool]], and maybe [[Toadsworth]] and [[Granny]]; and as for Toad, there's only [[Gramps]], and the implied character Moldy (though it's sometimes been stated that [[Toadette]] is Toad's sister). I'm pretty sure I'm still missing some things, but I doubt it would be as much. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:46, December 6, 2024 (EST)
====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
{{@|Ahemtoday}} I believe your proposal did not pass because the arguments were not persuasive. There are very few expectations for users and visitors of this site other than that they have baseline writing and reading comprehension skills. I am not privy to anyone, certainly not a systemic amount of people, who have seen quotation marks ''around'' the name of a subject and assume it is literally part ''of'' the name. I do not think it is a reasonable argument. I do not even know of any music tracks in the franchise with quotation marks around them as part of their name outside of the four items from ''Paper Mario: The Origami King'' - in a nearly forty year-old franchise with hundreds of music tracks. The inclusion of quotation marks for these four subjects is clearly the exception, not the rule, and a useful writing convention should not be thrown out just for them. It takes very little effort to just share in the body paragraphs of those four articles that the quotation marks are part of their names (if one even thinks it is necessary, which I am still unconvinced is). We are not misinforming readers here.


==Removals==
Additionally, bringing up that music track is a non sequitur because this proposal does not impact music: it impacts missions. If you feel like quotation marks around any subject, regardless of medium (i.e. televised episodes, song titles, titled novel chapters, and potentially missions, if this proposal were to be successful) is inherently "lying," as you assert in your previous proposal, it is dependent on the idea that your average reader sees quotation marks and assume they are part of the title unless otherwise specified, which you have not unsubstantiated. I don't think that happens. That is like seeing the title ''Super Mario Galaxy'' on the wiki and feeling misinformed because every letter on the [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
:The point is that the speech marks sometimes are part of the name and putting them around all names regardless of that removes that distinction. It wouldn't be immediately obvious to a reader that they are part of the title of [["Deep, Deep Vibes"]] but are not part of the title of "[[Happy & Sappy]]". Similar cases are "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario Bros.|"Hurry Up!" Ground BGM]]" and "[[List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music#Super Mario 64|"It's-a Me, Mario!"]]", where I think the double quotation marks look bad. A solution I'd be fine with is to only use the quotation marks in running text and not tables, which seems to already be done on many [[List of albums|album pages]] (though I'm still opposed to using quotation marks at all for mission names since I don't think it's an established standard). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:48, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::Why is it more immediately important to relay that quotation marks are part of a subject's title over the fact that it is a song as opposed to something else? — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:57, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::Because the goal of saying the title is simply to say the title, not to also clarify immediately what kind of thing it is. That's what context is for, not titles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::Then why do we italicize game titles? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 09:39, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::Because it's an established standard (and one Nintendo sometimes adheres to), unlike putting quotes around mission names. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:26, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::Very few novels put quotation marks around their own chapter titles. Independent reference material on those novels always do. Do you think we would not italicize video game titles if Nintendo themselves did not? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:02, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::What reference material puts quotation marks around video game mission titles that were not present in the game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:11, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::I would have personally appreciated it if you had engaged with the question I asked, or at least engage with whether you think it is accurate to say an episode in ''Super Mario Sunshine'' is essentially one of its "chapters." That was the point I was trying to make.
::::::::I am hardly familiar with any independent sources that discuss missions at all, let along put quotation marks around their names when they show up in a sentence, and I hope it is apparent from [[Super Mario Galaxy#Notes and references|the articles I contribute to the most]] that I do exercise that diligence. (There may be sources that chronicle RPG titles like ''Final Fantasy'' where certain scenarios or chapters in the games have quotation marks around them, iirc, but platformers are typically not discussed with the same rigor because most of them have weaker narrative elements.) When compared to literature, film, and music, video games are a younger medium that is still not chronicled or discussed with the same care in academic or archival projects, which is where precedents for this type of thing would be set. They are still viewed as products first and creative works second in many circles. Consequently, for all intents and purposes, the people who want granular information on the ''Super Mario'' series are likely to come to the Super Mario Wiki before anywhere else, and I do not see that changing in the near or distant future. We would very much be the ones establishing this precedent. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::I think the reason we italicise game titles is because of it being a standard in other sources, which putting quotes around mission names is not, regardless of the reason for that. I don't see why it should be our job to set this precedent. Following established practice is very different to inventing it. And I don't agree that missions are equivalent to chapters because I feel like missions in Mario games are often more equivalent to levels in other Mario games, which I certainly do not want us to be putting quotes around. Like Salmancer argued in their vote, the idea that missions have more narrative content than levels is not always accurate (and I don't see why narrative content should be a decider anyway in a franchise that is not primarily focused on narrative). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:33, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I do not want to set it because it is "our job." I want to set it because I think it is a beneficial tool. It is also not some sort of value judgement like Salmancer suggested. It is acknowledging that the Bob-omb Battlefield and "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" are not equivalencies within the game they occur in: the former is a level, whereas the latter is a scenario within the level. They are not the same thing. Bowser Jr. Showdown, regardless of how it was localized in English, is the name of a unique level. A location. It is within a greater region (a world), but that is exactly like World 1-1 or Vanilla Secret 2. When you access "Footrace with Koopa the Quick," you are accessing the same level as "Big Bob-omb on the Summit," so it is not the equivalency to something like Bowser Jr. Showdown and is exactly why I made the disclaimer I did in the proposal about level names. The lack of quotation marks does not mean Bowser Jr. Showdown is devoid of any narrative context, just that it is a level only. If there were different discrete scenarios like missions within Bowser Jr. Showdown that had names, that would be another matter. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:14, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't see how it being a "scenario" (which is already a pretty loose distinction imo) should mean it gets quotation marks if that isn't a standard. In the same way levels and missions aren't equivalent subjects, nor are levels and worlds, or levels and items, or levels and characters. Deciding that this particular distinction can't just be gleaned from context like all those others can and instead needs us to invent an extra indicator feels arbitrary to me. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:27, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:It is not that readers, necessarily, will '''believe''' that the quotation marks are actually present around things they are not. It is that, if the reader had any desire to see if quotation marks surrounded something, they could not get this information from us except from marginal implicities that are basically by accident. By contrast, whether or not a name is a location or a mission is extremely easy information to obtain on this wiki without quotation marks — readers can simply click on the link and find out at the very top of that subject's article what it is. I've never spoken to a person who's run into the issue of confusing episode and level names, but even if they ''weren't'' equally unsubstantiated, why should we obfuscate information to cater to them when they are five seconds away from solving their problem? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 21:55, January 8, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Hewer}} I think you have misunderstood the proposal. I did not argue this was common practice or had precedent. My argument is that quotation marks often convey the type of subject and that it is part of a greater whole. Missions are narrative scenarios within a larger creative work, just like episodes in a television show, scenes in a film (which also get placed within quotation marks when titled), and named book chapters. I think that is intuitive. They are ontologically all the same thing in different media and — like them — they inherit the same benefits from quotation marks. They passively relay the same info: that this is a scenario within a creative work as opposed to, say, a location within a creative work. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 04:54, January 8, 2025 (EST)
:I understand you weren't arguing that this had precedent, my point is that that was an argument for the opposition in the music proposal that I don't think can be applied here, thus I think the case for quotes around missions is weaker than that for quotes around music. Quotation marks only help to indicate what type of subject it is if the reader is already aware that that is what they are meant to indicate, which they aren't as likely to be for mission titles due to it not being a common practice (and again, it doesn't match how the games themselves do it, so I think it would probably add more confusion, not reduce it). The quotation marks around "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" don't indicate it being a mission any more than it being a song. I also personally don't think the distinction between levels and missions, especially in Mario games, is that significant. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:18, January 8, 2025 (EST)
::The intent is to clarify that "Footrace with Koopa the Quick" is a scenario in a place, whereas Bob-omb Battlefield is the place. I have found this very helpful in the articles I have contributed to. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, January 8, 2025 (EST)


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


;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.
On a second thought, I don't think that this proposal would cause actual harm, so I'm removing my vote. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 03:32, January 11, 2025 (EST)
;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:
==New features==
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
This proposal aims to create a template that directs people to a game section on a Profiles and statistics list page, saving the user the step of having to scroll for it themselves. The reason why I'm proposing this is because as more ''Super Mario'' games are released, it becomes harder to comfortably find what you're searching for in the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page, especially for [[Mario]], [[Bowser]], and many other recurring subjects.


----
Another reason I think this would be valid is because of the fact that listing statistics in prose (e.g. 2/10 or 2 out of 10) looks off, especially if that can already be seen in the corresponding statistics box; in that case, the prose could change from "2/10" to something more vague like "very low stat", which isn't typically worded as such in the statistics box.
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
</pre>


<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
For example, let's say for [[Luigi]] in his appearance in ''[[Mario Sports Superstars]]'', there could be a disclaimer either below the section heading or in a box to the side (we can decide the specifics when the proposal passes) that informs the reader that there's corresponding section that shows his profiles/statistics corresponding. Like such:
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>
----


However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template being moved to <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki>, the <nowiki>{{unreferenced}}</nowiki> template will be moved to <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> and will read more specifically as follows:
:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''


----
The above message is not necessarily the final result (just a given example), but the disclaimer would definitely point the user to the appropriate game section on the profiles and statistics list page, should this pass.
<pre>
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>
</pre>


<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
This article '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
</div>
----


Also, if the proposal passes with either option 3 or option 5 being the most voted, we'll use this from above.
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see a need to deliberately make prose less specific, but otherwise I like this idea, per proposal.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


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:
====Oppose====
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?


----
====Comments====
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
{{@|Hewer}} I don't think this would necessarily eliminate cases in which statistics are in prose, but it may be redundant if there's the link to conveniently access the statistics or profiles. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:15, December 18, 2024 (EST)
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>
</div>
----


Likewise, the <nowiki>{{ref needed}}</nowiki> template reads as follows:
If I understood this correctly, would this proposal add a disclaimer to every sigle game in a character's History section if the character has a corresponding profile and/or statistics section for that game? That's basically 20+ disclaimers on almost every game in Luigi's History page, is that correct? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:41, January 1, 2025 (EST)
:I don't really see the problem if it's helpful, relevant links that aren't very intrusive anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:08, January 2, 2025 (EST)


----
@Mario: I don't think the gallery comparison works. Galleries aren't split up into subsections for individual games in the same way as profiles and statistics pages, so it can't really be done the same way. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:16, January 3, 2025 (EST)
<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>
==Removals==
----
===Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images===
This concerns [[:File:SMS Fire Gatekeeper.png|these two]] [[:File:SMS Green-Yellow Gatekeeper.png|image files]], which are as of present unused.


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


----
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
<pre>
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]&#93;</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>
</pre>


<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">&#91;[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]&#93;</sup>
====Delete====
----
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in [[Delfino Airstrip]] and both [[Bianco Square]] and [[Bianco Hills]]. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in ''[[Super Mario World]]'' its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
#{{User|Tails777}} I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. <small>They still look cool though.</small>.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} The only thing that really kept me from nuking these images outright is because of lack of info and I'm glad that's cleared up in this proposal. Kill these.
#{{User|Technetium}} Here Ray Trace, you can borrow my FLUDD. Per all.
#{{User|Sparks}} Wash 'em away!
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} I'm inclined to claim that this ''is'' in fact unused content, just that it's not notable enough to warrant using images from a hacked version of the game. A small, text-based note in the article and using images from the unhacked vanilla game works fine.


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


Which option do you wish to choose?
====Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)====
i can see a case for keeping them around to illustrate how proto piranha's goo change isn't hardcoded, but i agree with the idea that a video might be better. i'll abstain for now. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 09:57, January 4, 2025 (EST)


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
{{early notice|January 16}}
The existence of these was brought to our attention thanks to a redirect called [[Mario Party 13]] (as of proposal, this leads to ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', which is already marked for deletion. This concerns both that redirect, as well as [[MP11]], [[MP12]], and [[MP13]].


====Option 1====
Simply put, these redirects seem to be entirely based on rather uncommon fan nicknames for ''[[Super Mario Party]]'', ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'', and ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''. We can't find any sources that call these games Mario Parties 11, 12, or 13. Random flavor text notes that Super Mario Party is "the 11th party", but that's as close as you get. And unlike, say, our similarly deprecated "[[Fury Bowser|God Slayer Bowser]]" redirect, we don't even think there's any particular confusion that those are the respective names of the games. Given the unofficial origins of these nicknames, as well as the fact they seem to not even be that used, we don't see any harm in getting rid of these.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} First choice


====Option 2====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


====Option 4====
====Keep (party on!)====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Third choice


====Option 5====
====Comments (idle party chat)====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Fourth choice
I do think fan nicknames [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/53#Recreate the numbered Mario Kart redirects|can be allowed as redirects]], so I'd vote to keep Mario Party 11 (because of the "eleventh party" mention in the game) but delete the other two (because then it starts getting ambiguous as to what counts). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:45, January 9, 2025 (EST)


====Option 6====
==Changes==
#{{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.
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
#{{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.
There are times when users have nothing else to add and agree with the rest of the points. Sure, they can type "per all", but wouldn't it be easier to not to have to do this?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Moved templates always give me headaches trying to figure out where the heck they went when I'm previewing edits.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Axii}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all; this feels like it'd be ''even more confusing'' than what we're already doing for next to no benefit.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I know that "We should do this because Wikipedia does it" is not a compelling argument, but "We should not do this because Wikipedia does it" is not compelling either!
#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
#{{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.


====Comments====
Yeah sure, if the first oppose vote is just blank for no reason, that'll be strange, but again, it wouldn't be any more strange with the same vote's having "per all" as a reasoning. I've never seen users cast these kinds of votes in bad faith, as we already have rules in place to zap obviously bad faith votes.
{{@|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 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"===
This proposal wouldn't really change how people vote, only that they shouldn't have to be compelled to type the worthless "per all" on their votes.
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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
Examples:
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
* [[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.
====Blank support====
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
#{{User|Ray Trace}} Casting a vote in a side is literally an action of endorsement of a side. We don't need to add verbal confirmation to this either.
#{{User|PopitTart}} <small>(This vote is left blank to note that I support this option but any commentary I could add would be redundant.)</small>
#{{User|Altendo}} <small>(Look at the code for my reasoning)</small><!---It might not seem annoying, but over time, or answering multiple proposals at once, it can start putting stress. Copy-pasting can be done, but it is just much easier to not type anything at all.---->
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}}
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} While on the outset it may seem strange to see a large number of votes where people say "per all" and leave, it's important to understand that the decision was made because the user either outright agrees with the entire premise of the proposal, or has read discussion and points on both sides and agrees more with the points made by the side they choose. And if they really ''are'' just mindlessly voting "per all" on proposals with no second thought, we can't police that at ''all.'' <small>(Doing so would border on FBI-agent-tech-magic silliness and would also be extremely invading...)</small> <!---Silent per all.---->
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} I've always thought of not allowing blank votes to be a bit of a silly rule, when it can so easily be circumvented by typing two words. I think it's better to assume good faith with voting and just let people not write if they don't have anything to add, it's not as if random IPs are able to vote on this page.
#{{user|TheDarkStar}} - Dunno why I have to say something if I agree with an idea but someone's already said what I'm thinking. A vote is a vote, imo.
#{{user|Ninja Squid}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} It's not like we're outright telling people not to say "Per all", it's just a means of saying you don't have to. If the proposal in question is so straight forward that nothing else can be said other than "Per proposal/Per all", it's basically the same as saying nothing at all. It's just a silent agreement. Even so, if people DO support a specific person's vote, they can still just "Per [Insert user's name here]". I see no problem with letting people have blank votes, especially if it's optional to do so in the first place.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}}
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.


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".
====Blank Oppose====
#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
#{{User|Technetium}} I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone ''does'' provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} {{color|white|Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type ''two words''.}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all <small>(is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)</small>
#{{User|Axii}} Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides ''some'' insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
#{{user|DesaMatt}} Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu


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


'''Proposer''': {{User|PopitTart}}<br>
Technetium: I understand, but blank votes are a fairly common practice in other wikis, and it's clearly understood that the user is supporting the proposal in general. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:36, December 17, 2024 (EST)
'''Deadline''': December 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
:Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)
:There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)


====Allow fully derived names (Fire Spike, Informant Snifit)====
I'm not really much of a voter, but I'm of the opinion "it's the principle of the matter". Requiring ''a'' written opinion, of any kind, at least encourages a consideration of the topic. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:35, December 19, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|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.
#{{User|Dainn}} Per all. Wonder Haiden bothered me deeply when I first saw it.


====Stop derived development data names (Fire Gabon, Informant_MUC)====
{{@|Fun With Despair}} And a blank oppose vote would mean what, exactly? At least with "per" votes, it's obvious that there must first be someone to agree with, in this case, the other opposers. A blank oppose vote on the other hand is little better than a vote just saying "No". <small>Which, imo, also should not be allowed.</small> [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 09:27, January 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|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.
:{{@|Blinker}} If you can't pick at least one user to specifically reference in a "Per _____", then I don't think the vote has much merit to begin with. "Per All" is just as much a "No" vote as a blank would be. It's lazy and barely tells anything about your opinion whatsoever or even if you bothered to read the other votes. If we are allowing them at all, a blank and a Per All should be equivalent. I would prefer we ban both, but oh well.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 22:55, January 9, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|Sparks}} Agreed.
::I disagree. A "per all" vote tells you that the voter agrees with all the previous votes, and sees the reasoning given by them as good justification for voting the same way. I don't see how that's less valid than only agreeing with a specific user. Of course, if someone is writing only "per all" just because it's an easy way to not have to give an actual reason, that isn't right, but that doesn't mean that there's something inherently wrong with "per all" votes. [[User:Blinker|Blinker]] ([[User talk:Blinker|talk]]) 11:55, January 11, 2025 (EST)
#{{User|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/problematic 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)====
===Organize "List of implied" articles===
#{{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.
{{early notice|January 12}}
#{{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).
Here's one of those "two related proposals in one with a YY-YN-NY-NN support scheme" proposals, concerning the following articles:
#{{user|Koopa con Carne}} '''No. Making up a name for a thing that has an official name [[MarioWiki:Citations#Why sourcing? What needs it?|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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're gonna be honest here, neither of the other options really appeal to us. We understand the concerns with citogenesis that caused the previous proposal to fail, so we won't really go over that. But the "we should use derived names ''exactly as they are written in the source''" is... Well, to put it bluntly here, more than a little asinine. Where exactly are we drawing the line, here? The provided examples in the proposal keep the camelcase in [[Comet Tico|TicoComet]] and that [[Informant Mūcho|B4_Informant_MUC]] would be moved to Informant_MUC; who's calling what's the "unnecessary" parts we omit here? Do we just include them all? If it's the latter, be honest with yourself; would the wiki be better off if we had an article called [[Peach doll|cg_data-character-p0242_peach_doll]]? If it's the former, how do we plan to trim down a sentence on the [[Watering hole]] article like "They consistently spew water into a small basin, allowing [[Mario]] to swallow some and turn into [[Pump Mario|STRM_SE_PUMP_MARIO_KUSUGURI]]."? We have so, so many questions, and unfortunately, next to no answers here. Above all else, we don't really feel comfortable going forward with a proposal that, as others have pointed out, has felt rather wishy-washy for something as drastic as a change to our article naming guidelines.


====Comments====
*[[List of implied characters]]
@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)
*[[List of implied entertainment]]
: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)
*[[List of implied events]]
::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)
*[[List of implied items]]
:::But it does not specifically use the word "Spike". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:06, December 5, 2024 (EST)
*[[List of implied locations]]
::::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)
*[[List of implied organizations]]
:::::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)
*[[List of implied people]]
::::::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)
*[[List of implied species]]
:::::::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 [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fE__ciXqJ26-JQ3_ah6zON_BzROTceRyvKWoIGlfmpA/edit?gid=174644527#gid=174644527 in-game languages] looking an awful lot like varying degrees of a master 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)
Right now, each of these is sorted purely alphabetically, with no regards for where or when they were implied to exist. The closest thing to an attempt at organization is Locations dividing between fictional and real locations, which also happens to expose a flaw with this particular article: nearly all the implied locations are there simply because they're mentioned on the [[Globulator]], with no other substance to their entry. All of these cities are already listed on the Globulator article anyways.
: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)
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)
There are other changes I'd like to propose for some particular articles, but for now, let's leave it at these two:
: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)
::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)
:::::::::Exactly. The current merged article is trying to make the best out of a suboptimal situation. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:40, 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)
*'''Reorganize''': Sort each article chronologically like your average History section, divided by series and then by game. This should help lump, say, all the Marvelous Compass locations in one place, or all the celebrities namedropped in the Super Show.  
: 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)
*'''Deglobulize''': Remove all real world locations from [[List of implied locations]] that are there exclusively because they're mentioned in the Globulator. This would exclude entries like Brazil, who have more to discuss than merely being acknowledged. I consider Locations the article on this list that needs the most trimming, so if this half of the proposal doesn't pass, I won't bother making follow-up articles for trimming the rest.
::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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:{{@|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)
====Both reorganize and deglobulize====
::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)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} primary choice.
:::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)
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Seems reasonable. I never liked how confusing these pages are.
::::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)
#{{User|Blinker}} Per proposal.
:::::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)
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
::::::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)
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
::::::To explain the ire against inactive users coming out of the woodwork to vote on something and do nothing else, the fact that they do nothing else means they won't have to deal with the consequences of a disastrous idea they're supporting. And in many cases, the wiki was a different place when they ''were'' active. My mind keeps going to [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Brown_Yoshi&diff=1666939&oldid=1659564 this edit], which was performed in 2014 by a user who hadn't been active since 2006, and was so out-of-tune with how the wiki was by then that it is preserved in the BJaODN now. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:48, December 6, 2024 (EST)
#{{User|Technetium}} Hmm what's the Globulator? *checks page* Oh. Oh god. Yeah that's a per proposal if I've ever seen one.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer and Technetium.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} '''Yipe.''' We knew the Globulator was causing issues, but we didn't expect them to be... That. And, of course, re-orgnaizing the remainder is fine.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.


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)
====Only reorganize====
: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)
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} secondary choice.
::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)
====Only deglobulize====


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)
====Do not reorganize nor deglobulize (do nothing)====
: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}}
:::::::Yes, that's the use case. Personally, when I see Japanese names being swapped out for English ones, I'm not going to be thinking, "ah, finally, ''Bauzā no Hikōsen da yo''," I'll be thinking, "oh, is this one of those times [[Super Mario Bros. 2#Notable mistakes and errors|the]] [[History of Bowser#Super Mario Sunshine|Western]] [[Foreman Spike#The Super Mario Bros. Movie|name]] made it to Japanese media?" Anyway, let me get the second option straight. If it passes, I'm taking it that the changes will look something like this?
*[[Assembly Block|AssemblyBlock]] (clipping of the various <tt>AssemblyBlockParts</tt> files to match internal Japanese name)
*[[Attack Ghost|AttackGhostA]]
*[[Banana Heli Bird|BananaHeliBird]]
*[[Banana Squid|BananaSquid]]
*[[Barbell|barbell_anim / DebrisDumbbell]]
*<s>[[Barrel Bomb|BarrelBomb]]</s>
*[[Bazooka Heyho|HeyhoBazooka]]
*[[BGM Tride]]?
*[[Big Bee|BigBee]] (''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'')
*[[Big Run Run Packun|EnemyBigPackunRun or EnemyBigRunRunPackun]]
*[[Bird Nest|BirdNest / BirdNestFire or BirdFireNest / BatNest]]
*[[Black Fairy|fairyblack / BlackFairyAttack]]
*[[Blood Pine|BloodPine]]
*[[Bob-omb Fish|bobombfish_anim]]
*[[Bone Run Run Packun|EnemyPackunBoneRun or EnemyBoneRunRunPackun]]
*[[Boss Pig Poppo|PigPoppoBoss]]
*[[Bunmawashi Doll|BunmawashiDoll]]
*[[Candy Block]]? (+ other remaining [[Super Mario Bros. Wonder|''Wonder'']] [[User talk:Time Turner/unfinished#Super Mario Bros. Wonder|stuff]] still redlinked)
*[[Ceiling Needle|CeilingNeedle]]
*[[Chandelier|Czako_chandelier]]
*[[Check Point (Yoshi's Crafted World)|CheckPointA]]
*[[Co Gasagoso|ksm_co_gasagoso]]
*[[Coco Pig|CocoPig]]
*[[Comet Tico|TicoComet]]
*[[Cuttacutta|cuttacutta_anim]]
*[[Dan Spider|DanSpider]]
*[[Dark Nokonoko|EnemyNokonokoDark]]
*[[Disaster Neko|NekoDisaster / NekoParentDisaster]]
*[[Domino block|Czako_domino_block]]
*[[Donguri Heyho|HeyhoDonguri]]
*[[Electricity Block|ObjectBlockElectricity]]
*[[Eye Beamer|EyeBeamer]]
*[[Fairy Board|FairyBoard]]
*[[Fairy Trampoline|FairyTrampoline]]
*[[Fire Bakky|FireBakky]]
*[[Fire Mini-Iga|FireMiniIga]]
*[[Fire Pig Poppo|PigPoppoFire]]
*[[Fire Shy Guy|ShyGuyFire]]
*[[Fling Pole|FlingPole]]
*[[Fly Bomb|Cmn_fly_bomb]]
*[[Fly Child|Cmn_fly_child]]
*[[Fly Heyho|HeyhoFly]]
*[[Fly Parent|Cmn_fly_parent]]
*[[Glass bird|Czako_glass_bi]]
*[[Gold Mini Slump Bird|SlumpBirdMiniGold]]
*[[Gold Treasure Box|TreasureBoxGold]]
*[[Hip Drop Move Lift|CloudWorldHomeHipDropMoveLiftParts000]]
*[[Ice Bakky|IceBakky]]
*[[Ice Meteor|IceMeteor]]
*[[Ice Mini-Iga|IceMiniIga]]
*[[Ice Snake Block|block_snake_ice]]
*[[Informant Mūcho|B4_Informant_MUC]]
*[[Jelly Fish|JellyFish]] (''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'')
*[[Juggling Heyho|Heyho_Juggling]] (clipping of various <tt>Heyho_Juggling</tt> assets)
*[[Kaeru Block|kaerublock]]
*[[Kanaami Road|roadkanaami]]
*[[Kiba Pig Poppo|PigPoppoKiba]]
*[[Kurako|f_kurako / f_kurata]]
*[[Luigi Block|R_block_luigi]]
*[[Luigi Key|luigi_key]]
*[[Mini Elephant Cannon|ElephantCannonMini]]
*[[Mini Panda|MiniPanda]]
*[[Mini Pig Poppo|MiniPigPoppo]]
*[[Mini Slump Bird|SlumpBirdMini]]
*[[Mini-Iga|MiniIga]]
*[[Moai|f_bg_moai_ba]]
*[[Neko Parent|NekoParent]]
*[[Pea Frog|PeaFrog]]
*[[Pea Jelly Fish|PeaJellyFish]]
*[[Peach doll|cg_data-character-p0242_peach_doll]]
*[[Peddler Kinopio|O4_KicthenEvt01_PeddlerKNP_01]]
*[[Pelmanism Leaf|Mobj_PelmanismLeaf]]
*[[Penguin Racers|PenguinRacers]]
*[[Pinball digital counter|s_PinBall_Digital_Counter0]]
*[[Pinball tulip|s_PinBall_Tulip_OPEN]]
*[[Pinecone|PineconesA]]
*[[Pipeman|f_pipeman_ma]]
*[[Prof. Kinopio|KNP_Prof]]
*[[Pump Mario|STRM_SE_PUMP_MARIO_KUSUGURI]]
*[[Raft|raft_anim]]
*[[remix course]]?
*[[Robo Kikki|RoboKikki]]
*[[Robomb|Robomb_Gold]]
*[[Rolling Frog|RollingFrog]]
*[[Rush Heyho|HeyhoRush]]
*[[Sea Turtle|SeaTurtle]]
*[[Senobi Generate Point|SenobiGeneratePoint]]
*[[Skall Heyho|HeyhoSkall]]
*[[Sky Move Lift|lift_move_sky]]
*[[Slave Basa|slave_basa]]
*[[Sleep Pig Poppo|PigPoppoSleep]]
*[[Slide Box|SLIDE_BOX]]
*[[Snow Mole|SnowMole]]
*[[Snow Ucky Kong|SnowUckyKong]]
*[[Space Junk Galaxy]] planets
*[[Spiked Barrel|BarrelSpiked]]
*[[Spring Flower|SpringFlower]]
*[[Spyguy|spyguy_anim]]
*[[Star Piece Cluster|StarPieceCluster / StarPieceClusterRock]]
*[[Statue Armour Ghost|StatueArmourGhost]]
*[[Super Jump Panel|SuperJumpPanel]]
*[[Surfing Kinopio|KNP_Surfing]]
*[[Surprised Flower|SurprisedFlower]]
*[[Tatami Block|obj_blk_tatami]]
*[[Thwomp Platform|ThwompPlatform]]
*[[Time Cloud|TimeCloudA]]
*[[Timer Gate|TimerGate]]
*[[Togemasuku|Czako_togemasuku]]
*[[Togetoge|Czako_togetoge]]
*[[Tokkuri Flower|TokkuriFlower]]
*[[Torpedo Base|torpedobase]]
*[[Tuki|f_tuki]] (clipping of <tt>f_tuki_wlk</tt> and <tt>f_tuki_act</tt>)
*[[Vampire Heyho|HeyhoVampire]]
*[[Wario Key|wario_key]]
*[[Wind Blow Tower|WindBlowExTower000]]
*[[Wind Mouth|WindMouth]]
*[[Wonder Packun|EnemyPackunWonder]]
*[[Wrench Shy Guy|ShyGuyWrench or Wrench_Guy]] (latter is from <tt>Tex/Wrench_Guy_2.bntx.zs</tt> and <tt>Tex/Wrench_Guy_8.bntx.zs</tt> files)
*[[Zombie Debuho|Debuho_Zombie]] (clipping of <tt>Debuho_Zombie</tt> assets)
Just wanted to make sure the rest of you who didn't dip out yet are all on the same page lol [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 09:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)


This proposal shouldn't have touched development data names. This is a completely separate topic that needs a discussion of its own. [[User:Axii|Axii]] ([[User talk:Axii|talk]]) 10:14, December 6, 2024 (EST)
====List of implied comments====
:You're right. There certainly was a switcharoo [[Special:Diff/4452631|here]], wasn't there? ''After'' <u>coordinated</u> '''20''' voted for an option that's technically no longer there. What is going on? We should at least have a rule that proposals initially written with group input can't be revised afterwards, or a voting cap before revisions are unallowed... [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 10:30, December 6, 2024 (EST)
If deglobulize wins, I think a disclaimer should be added to the list of implied locations (either at the top of the article or the top of the "Real locations" section) explaining that the Globulator doesn't count. Also, if reorganize wins, does the location list keep its "''Super Mario'' franchise locations" and "Real locations" sections? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:05, January 5, 2025 (EST)
::Was there an actual executional difference added to the basic "Support" option? I don't think I'm catching one. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 10:54, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:that first one is a good idea, def should be implemented. i want to say yes for the second one, but i think it depends on what the article ends up looking like when reorganized. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 16:08, January 5, 2025 (EST)
:::I believe the distinction being made is that "Informant" is not an established adjective <s>for enemies</s>, so in grouping [[Informant Mucho]] into option 1, the premise has been ever so slightly changed from "if the parts of the name have been translated separately we are allowed to put the translations together" to "grant increased permission to extrapolate a 'normal' name from development data" (EDIT:slight misreading)[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 10:58, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::This is not really different from the "Comet" in Comet Tico though, and "Informant" is literally written in English in the game files in that case (not translated by wiki users). Only "Mūcho" would be translated to Snifit in that case, much as it always has been, which is definitely the sort of thing that the first 20 supporters voted for. I don't think that the wool is being pulled over anyone's eyes. (edit: and, as someone who voted shortly before option 2 was added, I knew that this is what I was voting for.) {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 11:25, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::So what's the article title of this informant character going to be? If it's anything other than "B4_Informant_MUC", wouldn't it be classified as a "derived" name? See the problem? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 11:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::{{fake link|Informant Snifit}}, presumably, if the proposal passes—I'm not sure I'm understanding the confusion? This is the type of derived/translated name that the proposal is seeking to allow. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 11:36, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::::...I just made a list of what the second option would do if it passes, right above. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 11:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::::Apologies, I misunderstood and thought we were discussing the results of option 1... In that case I agree that the informant should be moved to B4_Informant_MUC if option 2 passes, yeah. I don't see how this is misleading anyone or making previous votes invalid, though? {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 11:44, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::Sorry, I misspoke a little bit since I had the first and second updates mixed up in my head in this roller-coaster of a proposal. To recap, there were a total of :30: votes at the time the proposal was [[Special:Diff/4452631|first]] updated, and the odd timing of in/semiactive editors had already been brought up at that point. At the time of the [[Special:Diff/4452872|second]] update, the second option was dialed back - as it should have been since that would have to be the focus of a [[MarioWiki:Writing guidelines#What are writing guidelines?|writing guideline]] proposal - but nearly :10: users had already voted for the earlier version of that option. Make sense? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 11:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::If the proposal's Ship-of-Theseus'd itself into a different thing entirely after so many votes, it should probably be canceled and <s>never</s> restarted. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:30, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::For full disclosure, I am a regular participant in the Super Mario Wiki Discord and I actively gave PopitTart pointers on how to write this very proposal, including the inclusion of that second voting option. I disagree with the proposed changes and still do, but that is less important to me than helping a less experienced user do the best job they can. But the point is that I was privy to the surrounding discourse.
:::::::::From my perspective, I saw an inexperienced user from {{iw|pikipedia|Pikipedia:Page title guidelines|a NIWA wiki with different naming policies}} (and one who has also been more active on the Discord over the past year or so just because it is friendly space, so it is not like they mysteriously rose out of the woodwork just to make this proposal) passively share that they thought it was silly to not translate some of these straight-forward Japanese names, and other users through their own volition and agency openly agreed with them, some of which quite strongly. I did not personally see anyone encourage them to write this proposal with the aims of taking down a policy they dislike, ask others to vote, to vote in any particular way, or coordinate a plan to vote together as a group. (I did see encouragement from the perspective that it is nice to see an inexperienced contributor want to develop a main page proposal, as staff and senior editors generally support people taking initiatives and participating in community-driven spaces like proposals, but that is not the same thing, at least in my view.) Again, maybe this still feels uncomfortable, but I did not see anything I would consider to be "solicitation." I saw a user share a view that others agreed with, and they decided to make a proposal. Maybe proposals should be written with that as a disclaimer, but I do not think it is the same as solicitation. I do not think anyone here, be it supporter or opposition, is here in bad faith, and only want the wiki to be the best it can be, and I hope folks remember this even if the proposal is not going in the direction they would like.
:::::::::For me, at the end of the day, '''I want to give readers good, accurate, and reliably attested information''', even if about silly Nintendo games. I do not feel comfortable asserting "there is an enemy called Fire Spike in ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''", because that is not true. It is not called that in any ''Mario'' media. The impression I have is that I am calling it that because I ''want'' to call it that. Saying there is an enemy called Fire Gabon or even rendering that name as Faia Gabon, to me, ''is'' accurate and is just the information we have at the moment. The fact that this name looks silly next to related enemies like Stone Spike is a lot less substantive to me. I do not discount accessibility and readability as important - they absolutely are. I want people to come here, learn, and appreciate the work we do. However, I also believe readers are entitled to accurate information and I want the wiki to be trusted source. I do think the proposed changes weaken that a bit. There have been many good-faith arguments from the supporters - especially from Roserade and Hooded Pitohui - but none have addressed this impression of mine. My feelings are not as strong for in-game file names because the subjects I personally work with on the wiki typically have official names or are at least mentioned informally in officially-licensed literature, but I at least have found your remarks on this persuasive, LinkTheLefty. I think I realize from this discussion that I would support the Romanization of official Japanese names to take priority over internal file designations for games developed by Japanese speakers, but that is not what that this proposal is about. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:00, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::While I won't accuse the support to have been coordinated, especially coming off of your message, I will criticize the Discord folk for their tendency to come here with their mind made and refuse to take any of the counterarguments in consideration. "You want to make this wiki less accessible", "Encyclopedias should not rely on descriptions", and "ファイア is definitely not the same thing as the English word 'fire' in a different writing system" are not arguments made in good faith. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 13:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
:::::::::::I don't want this to turn into full discourse unrelated to the proposal, but I also think it's entirely unfair to assume attitudes like this, and to misconstrue arguments to put words in people's mouths. Everyone I've seen discuss this on Discord has fully acknowledged that counterarguments have merits, including myself. I read every single comment on this proposal before I ever placed my own vote or comment. And I never once said that I think your aim is to make things less accessible for the entire wiki - I stated why I feel like this change would ''improve'' accessibility, which is a different argument altogether. Also feels just a hair hypocritical to say that we're appearing while refusing to take in counterarguments, while you began this proposal process with a '''bolded statement on what our website's intention is,''' which felt like you staunchly claiming that your position would not change. I'm not going to engage with this any further than that, just, worth acknowledging. [[User:Roserade|Roserade]] ([[User talk:Roserade|talk]]) 13:53, December 6, 2024 (EST)
::::::::::::Your impression seems to be that my bolded statement was an opinion--if I'm wrong, correct me--but I was merely highlighting a truth: the express mission statement and, until some time ago, prevailing sentiment in the site was that [[MarioWiki:Citations#Why sourcing? What needs it?|it should present information as accurately to the source material as possible]]. Speculation has always been frowned upon and removed on sight here. If there is ever going to be a global consenus that it's a better direction for the wiki to consistently let users make up their own constructs and pass them off as fact, I can accept it. Until then, I will try to uphold the above principle and bring attention to any developments that undermine it. The provision of facts in a medium with educational purpose is not negotiable, and I'm certain you are sensible enough to understand that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:34, December 6, 2024 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
===Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections===
Last year, I successfully proposed that the [[The Super Mario Bros. Movie#References to other media|References to other media section on ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'' article]] should be split into its own article due to its length, with the same later occurring for the [[Super Mario Bros.#References in later games|References in later games section on ''Super Mario Bros.'']] On [[Talk:Super Mario Bros.#Split References in other media section|the TPP for splitting the latter section]], the user [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] supported saying "i wonder what'll be the next game to require this". That got me to realise that other articles with these sections are of similar length, and suffer the same problems that I originally pointed out in those past proposals. Select examples that I've been able to find include the following:
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 2#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. 3#References in later media|references in later media]])
*''[[Super Mario World]]'' ([[Super Mario World#References in later games|references in later games]])
*''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' ([[Super Mario Odyssey#References to other media|references to]])
*''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]'' ([[Super Mario Bros. Wonder#References to other media|references to]])
Again, these are just examples. There's probably more out there that are equally as long. If this proposal were to achieve support, there would have to be some sort of guideline (similar to [[MarioWiki:Galleries#Splitting galleries|splitting galleries]]) relating to a certain limit at which the section is split, possibly a maximum of 20-30 bullet points or certain number of bytes before splitting, as the sections I've cited as examples go over said amount of bullet points. Normalising this would also prevent anyone from having to make separate TPPs to suggest splitting each and every long section separately, and would also help create some consistency, as it doesn't make much sense for only a few select references to/in other media sections to be split rather than more.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|RetroNintendo2008}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
<s>{{User|EvieMaybe}} look ma, i'm on tv! yeah, this seems like a very reasonable thing to do</s>
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I support in principle, but I'm against the proposed implementation here. We already have [[MarioWiki:Article size]] for determining what to do when pages get too long, so what I would like to see is simply considering references sections as things that can get split off when that happens. Of the pages linked in this proposal, SMB2 and 3 don't even meet the minimum byte count for a split (SMB2 falls especially short at ~85k bytes). SMB didn't meet those criteria before the proposal either and I think that should be reversed. These lists aren't ''that'' long all things considered and they're kept pretty low on the page so I don't think their presence is necessarily intrusive.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time; we already have policies for this, and we see no need to carve out any exceptions for the references section just yet.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Waluigi Time. A good idea in principal, but only if warranted on a case-by-case basis. I generally do not like splitting up pages unless necessary.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Waluigi Time, i hadn't considered that. i hope that if this proposal ends with Oppose bc of everyone backing WT, we still remember that we can split reference sections to trim article size
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time.
 
====Comments====

Latest revision as of 11:55, January 11, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, January 11st, 16:55 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

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

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I offer two options:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Removals

Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images

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

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

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

Delete

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

Keep

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

Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)

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

Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects

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

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

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

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

Delete (party's over!)

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

Keep (party on!)

Comments (idle party chat)

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

Changes

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

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

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

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

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

Blank support

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

Blank Oppose

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly? I'd prefer to get rid of "per all" votes since they're primarily used for the "I don't/like this idea" type of thing that has historically been discouraged. If you don't care enough to explain, you don't care enough to cast IMO.
  2. Technetium (talk) I don't think typing "per all" is that much of an annoyance (it's only two words), and I like clearly seeing why people are voting (for instance, I do see a difference between "per proposal" and "per all" - "per all" implies agreeing with the comments, too). I just don't think this is something that needs changing, not to mention the potential confusion blank votes could cause.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Maybe we're a little petty, but we prefer a "per all" vote to a blank one, even if "per all" is effectively used as a non-answer, because it still requires that someone does provide an answer, even if it's just to effectively say "ditto". You know what to expect with a "per all" vote--you don't really get that information with a fully blank vote.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive me for the gimmicky formatting, but I want to make a point here — when you see a blank oppositional vote, it's disheartening, isn't it? Of course, it's always going to be that way when someone's voting against you, but when it doesn't come with any other thoughts, then you can't at all address it, debate it, take it into account — nothing. This also applies to supporting votes, if it's for a proposal you oppose. Of course, this is an issue with "per all" votes as well. I don't know if I'd go as far as Doc would on that, but if there's going to be these kinds of non-discussion-generating votes, they can at least be bothered to type two words.
  5. Jdtendo (talk) Per all (is it too much to ask to type just two words to explicitely express that you agree with the above votes?)
  6. Axii (talk) Requiring people to state their reason for agreeing or disagreeing with a proposal leads to unnecessary repetition (in response to Doc). Letting people type nothing doesn't help us understand which arguments they agreed with when deciding what to vote for. The proposer? Other people who voted? Someone in particular, maybe? Maybe everyone except the proposer? It's crucial to know which arguments were the most convincing to people.
  7. Pseudo (talk) Per Technetium, Camwoodstock, and Axii.
  8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) I admit this vote is based on personal preference as any defensible reasoning. To build on Camwoodstock and Ahemtoday's points, though, the way I see it, "per all" at least provides some insight into what has persuaded a voter, if only the bare minimum. "Per all" is distinct at least from "per proposal", suggesting another voter has persuaded them where the original proposal did not by itself. A blank vote would not provide even that distinction.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) Asking for even a minimal input from the user as to why they are voting is fundamental, it tells us what were the compelling points that led to a choice or the other. It can also aid the voters in clarifying to themselves what they're agreeing with. Also worth noting that the new editors simply can't know that blank means "per all", even if we put it at the beginning of this page, because new editors simply don't know the internal organization of the wiki. Blank votes would inevitably be used inappropriately, and not in bad faith.
  10. DesaMatt (talk) Per all and per everyone and per everything. Per.
  11. Blinker (talk) Per Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii and Mister Wu.
  12. Killer Moth (talk) Per Camwoodstock, Technetium, Ahemtoday, Axii, and Mister Wu

Blank Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organize "List of implied" articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both reorganize and deglobulize

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

Only reorganize

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) secondary choice.

Only deglobulize

Do not reorganize nor deglobulize (do nothing)

List of implied comments

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

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

Miscellaneous

Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections

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

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

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

Support

  1. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.

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

Oppose

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

Comments

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4514918"