MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(apologies, did not meant to vote here)
 
(772 intermediate revisions by 71 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
===Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style===
''None at the moment.''
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]].


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:
==New features==
<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.
''None at the moment.''
</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.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


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.
==Changes==
===Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.===
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like [[Cape Mario|swinging a cape]], [[Flying Squirrel Mario|jumping in the air]], or even a slew of [[Link|Link’s moves]]! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding [[Tail whip]])


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.
If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if [[Builder Mario]] had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if [[Mole Yoshi]] had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the [[Super Pickax]] had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)


I offer two options:
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:


#'''Add missions (and equivalencies like episodes and objectives) to list of subjects we should put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style.'''
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
#'''Don't do that.'''
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])


'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared to base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.
'''Deadline''': January 21st, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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


====Oppose: I think this is a bad idea. Let's not do that.====
As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how [[Dash]] handles the [[Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4431004&oldid=4421941 Relevant Edit]) and the [[Spin Dash]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4435629&oldid=4431024 Relevant Edit]). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.
#{{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|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.
#{{User|Cadrega86}} Per all.


<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>
This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on [[Spin Jump]], Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on [[Swim]], Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on [[Roll]], and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely [[Fireball]], [[Ice Ball]], [[Hammer]], and [[Bubble]]. Builder Boxes are [[Crate]]s, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with [[Superball Mario]] years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. [[Yoshi]]'s [[Swallow]], [[Egg Throw]], et al, [[Baby DK]]'s [[DK Dash Attack]], [[Diddy Kong]]'s [[Diddy Attack]] and [[Barrel Jet]], and [[Rambi]]'s [[Super move|Supercharge]] and [[Charge (Donkey Kong Country series)|Charge]] are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. [[SMB2 Mario]] is bizarre, but [[Crouching High Jump|charge jump]] is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' proper, and the article doesn’t have a ''Super Mario Maker 2'' section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.


====Comments on this quotation mark/mission proposal====
Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut [[Fly]], an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a [[User:Salmancer/List of methods of flight|userpage]], based on the existing [[List of power-ups]]. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article. As the various contexts of Fly are not the same kind of action to begin with, the article will become {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}. This broadens the scope to fit all of the components. (Note how "flight" is not a proper noun).
{{@|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 [[:File:SMG Title Screen.png|title screen]] is capitalized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 03:36, January 8, 2025 (EST)
[[Tail whip]] was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into [[Raccoon Mario]] for 2D games and [[Tanooki Mario]] for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect.  While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of [[White Raccoon Mario]] and [[White Tanooki Mario]] to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. [[Tail]]s are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to [[Cape]], which used to compile the yellow capes of [[Cape Mario]] and [[Superstar Mario]] into a listicle before this [[Talk:Cape#Clean up this article to include only information in the Super Smash Bros. series|proposal]] reduced it to only the Smash Bros. attack.)
: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)


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


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)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==New features==
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list with the name {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}====
===Create a template to direct the user to a game section on the corresponding List of profiles and statistics page===
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.
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.
====Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is====


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:
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list with the name {{Fake link|List of methods of flight}}====


:''For profiles and statistics of Luigi in Mario Sports Superstars, see [[List of Luigi profiles and statistics#Mario Sports Superstars|here]].''
====Oppose: Status quo====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, <s>so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate [[Mariowiki:Once and only once]]</s> {{color|purple|EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find}}. Furthermore, we do not merge ''character''-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-''Mario'' characters in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series) - for instance, look at [[Scuttle]] and [[Flutter Jump]] - so why should we do so with forms?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.


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.
====Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)====
I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
Question; would this merge [[Fireball Punch]], and would this failing result in re-instating [[Talk:Dangan Mario|Dangan Mario]]? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


====Support====
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Once_and_only_once&diff=4723954&oldid=4372233 retired]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
:Thanks, wish I'd known that before. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{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.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} This is a good idea, and all it does is make it easier for readers to find information that's otherwise scattered across various pages. It's a centralizing effort that I think could be fairly helpful.


Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the [[Luigi Cap]]. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..
<blockquote>After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies. </blockquote> - [[Penguin Mario]]
The system works! It's repeated for [[White Raccoon Mario]] in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for [[Power Squirrel Mario]] to [[Flying Squirrel Mario]], with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


====Oppose====
"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Mario}} Doesn't seem necessary. Just a thought: should we also link to parts of character galleries for every game section?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I worry this would make history sections messy and repetitive when the focus should be on the written text.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Lefty and N101.


====Comments====
Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until ''Super Mario 3D Land'', despite it being usable by that form in ''Super Mario Bros. 3''? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|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)
:Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine. <blockquote>In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, '''in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves''', making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' section.
:<blockquote>However, the form's mechanics are different from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing {{button|3ds|X}} or {{button|3ds|Y}}) and glide (now done by holding {{button|3ds|A}} or {{button|3ds|B}}, as with [[Cape Mario|Caped Mario]], rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario 3D Land'' section.
:Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the ''3D Land'' text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat ''3D Land'', is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the [[Tanooki Mario]] page on Super Mario Wiki!"
:::In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on [[Tail whip]] to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::::I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is ''Mario Kart'' Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in ''Mario Kart Tour'' with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a ''Mario Kart'' series "sentence long section with a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::::IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


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)
===On the leading "Princess" for Peach/Daisy/Rosalina, and/or lackthereof===
: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)
Brace yourselves--this is gonna be a long one.


@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)
In July of last year, jan Misali created a proposal to [[Talk:Princess Daisy#Move to "Daisy"|remove the leading "Princess" from the article name for "Princess Daisy"]]. This failed 15-18, as people were interested in a proposal to move Peach alongside this. In November of last year, jan Misali created a follow-up proposal [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"|do exactly this]], which failed again; among other concerns regarding redirects, most of the support was split between moving both Peach and Daisy to their Princess-less counterparts, and just moving Daisy, leaving the opposition in the lead. Guess third time's the charm.


===Make categories for families===
The question is simple; do we remove "Princess" from the names of the [[Princess Peach]] and [[Princess Daisy]] articles? Time and time again, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|we've removed or truncated]] [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|full names or particles]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|to more common names]]. However, for whatever reason, the "Princess" particles for Peach and Daisy stick, despite Nintendo being very hit-or-miss about how required these are, ''especially'' for Daisy, whose "Princess, despite never doing anything royal outside of her debut" status has been acknowledged, officially, multiple times.
I've made a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Families|similar proposal]] a while back, but it didn't work out, so now I'm asking less: make categories for Peach, Bowser, Donkey Kong and Toad's families. These are the only characters I know that have a family big enough to make it to a category. I mean, categories are made to... categorize things, and I actually think this would be a good thing. Oh, and Stanley the Bugman is Mario's cousin[https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/09/28/smash-it-up-from-the-trophy-case 「¹」] (unrelated, but meh).


'''Proposer''': {{User|Weegie baby}}<br>'''Deadline''': January 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT
To recap the cases in favor of these renames for people that didn't read those first two proposals, the case for Daisy in particular is very strong, so we'll start with her. Simply put, Nintendo so rarely calls her by the name of "Princess Daisy" that it's starting to become a surprise when they ''do'' call her that in things like [[:File:Hot Wheels Princess Daisy Character Car Packaging.png|HotWheels character cars]]. To re-iterate a point made in jan Misali's original proposal, the count of times where Daisy is overtly referred to as "Princess Daisy" outside of manuals or other such paratexts can be counted on two hands, and even then, only barely; once in ''[[Super Mario Bros. Print World]]'' (which also erroneously calls Peach "Daisy" at one point), [[Mario Superstar Baseball|the two]] [[Mario Super Sluggers|baseball games]] and ''[[Fortune Street]]'' interchange "Daisy" and "Princess Daisy" in dialogue but all UI uses just "Daisy", ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' being in a similar boat but with in-game descriptions for [[Super Mario Run#Remix 10|Remix 10]] instead of dialogue, and ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate]]'', where Palutena calls her that. In every other case, including her own debut game, she is generally called "Daisy".


====Support====
For Daisy, there is also the strange asterisk that is her [[Princess Daisy (film character)|film equivalent]], but given the context of the plot of the film itself--that Daisy is unaware of her own royal status for the bulk of the film, and is simply referred to as just "Daisy" for most of it, we personally think it's fair to move her to "Daisy (film character) and add a Full Name parameter to clarify her "Princess Daisy" title she has towards the end. That being said, [[:File:SMBFilmCard11.jpg|even her own official trading card just calls her Daisy]], and apparently the "Princess Daisy" title only gets dropped on the back of "Sad Goodbyes", which we lack an image for.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote last time, I don't see the harm in this.
#{{User|Weegie baby}} Per me.


====Oppose====
The case for Princess Peach is less strong, partially thanks to the release of ''[[Princess Peach: Showtime!]]'', a game in 2024 that makes rather overt use of "Princess Peach"; however, it is worth noting that Nintendo still does play rather fast-and-loose with the "Princess" particle for her as well. Most spinoffs will truncate the "Princess" off of her name, as far back as ''[[Mario Kart 64]]'' and even after the release of ''Showtime'', later that same year, ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'' also [[:File:SMPJCSSUnlocked.jpg|truncated the "Princess" off of Peach's name]]. While we acknowledge it's odd to laser in on exactly one game, ''[[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]]'' just calls her "Peach", and that is one of the best-selling games in the entire Mario franchise.


====Comments====
We've seen various arguments against these, and aside from "personal preference for preferring particles", which we obviously can't argue with (at least, not without looking silly), we can't say we understand the majority of them:
{{@|Weegie baby}} You can put in a support vote if you want to. Even the proposer gets to vote! {{User:Sparks/sig}} 16:31, January 16, 2025 (EST)
*Concerns were risen about removing royalty particles from other article names, such as [[Princess Shokora]] or [[Princess Shroob]] or [[King Bob-omb]] or [[Prince Mush]] (never mind that in his case, it's a stage name and not royalty). In those cases, the characters have ''never'' been referred to without their particles that we could find unless [[You're the Bob-omb|there was already an older name in the first place]], such as "Big Bob-omb" for "King Bob-omb" (it's possible there's remote dialogue or an obscure Manga appearance we don't have on-record, but we're doubtful). These would retain their particles, as per our [[MarioWiki:Naming|Naming policies]] determining that the most common English name is what is used, and in these cases, the particle is included almost 100% of the time. In contrast, Nintendo has been fairly interchangeable with Peach and Daisy's "princess" particles, and in Daisy's case, her particle has only become increasingly rarer as time goes on. If instances were located where the aforementioned characters lacked their particles short of the Big/King Bob-omb example, that would be something worth acknowledging, but in their cases, the particles being excluded is overwhelmingly the exception, not the norm.
:Yeah, I forgot, thanks. [[User:Weegie baby|Weegie baby]] ([[User talk:Weegie baby|talk]]) 08:47, January 17, 2025 (EST)
*Concerns have been risen about the [[Peach]] and [[Daisy]] article titles potentially referring to generic subjects; however, as of writing this proposal, both "Peach" and "Daisy" directly lead to their corresponding princesses anyways by means of redirects. Other subjects are instead given a "For <nowiki><x>, see <y></nowiki>" in the Princess' articles introductions. These redirects are already present as-is, and these changes wouldn't change how a search lands.
*For internet traffic, given Peach and Daisy already lead to these articles, we still fail to see how this would impact much, unless we intentionally chose to not leave a redirect after a move; it should go without saying that, if we were to make a move of this magnitude, we would absolutely be leaving a redirect.
*On a meta level, for the "would prefer one, but not the other" angle that was part of the reason the second proposal failed, we have since introduced a poll format to more adequately determine more nuanced situations like this, without risking support being split between two groups and being out-numbered overall.
*While this was not mentioned in the original proposals to our awareness, we do acknowledge that some people may be concerned about the costs of labor of changing a bunch of links; however, not only could this trivially be an automated rename, something our proprietor already does fairly regularly with template names, even if this were somehow unworkable, we already have ample tools to manually perform such a change built into MediaWiki itself. We are well-aware of what this wiki's userbase can do when it comes to making these mass-changes, and we think we have a very capable userbase when it comes to deploying a change like this, either automatically or by hand.


==Removals==
There are also two characters we think are worth acknowledging, one brought up by jan Misali when we shared this proposal's draft with them, and one we noticed ourselves. For jan Misali's part, there's [[Bowser]], or rather, King Bowser... Or rather, how in-frequently Bowser is known as "King Bowser". It's to the point where mentions of "King Koopa" as he appears in the ''DiC'' cartoons severely outnumber the amount of times Bowser is actually called "King Bowser" outright. This is exceedingly non-contentious, and while a [[King Bowser]] redirect has existed since 2006, we can't tell when the last time "King Bowser" was overtly used in dialogue. All we can really say is, having played ''[[Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser]]'' recently, it's not in that, with Bowser usually just being referred to as, well, Bowser, with the occasional uses of "Lord" or other offbeat honorifics instead of "King".
===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.


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.
However, to us, the ''real'' smoking gun for why a move like this would not only make sense, but be perfectly fine for the wiki, has been sitting right underneath our noses the entire time. [[Rosalina]], or should we say Princess Rosalina? Rosalina has been called a Princess from sources dating as far back as 2010 and as recently as 2023. She's commonly colloquially known as a Princess by fans. Heck, [[Princess Rosalina]] is, as of writing this proposal, a valid redirect to her article, and her infobox states her full name is "Princess Rosalina". However, her article has sat at the title of "Rosalina" since its inception back in 2007, with the Princess redirect only being made in 2014. Rosalina is a Featured Article, so her page naturally receives a ''lot'' of traffic and scrutiny, but nobody seems to have questioned if it would be worth moving her article to "Princess Rosalina" to match the other two princesses; and while one could argue that Rosalina is "not much of a princess", that naturally begets the response that neither is Daisy, who keeps the particle anyways. There's not really any reason we can think of why Daisy should keep her particle if Rosalina hasn't ''ever'' held one and it's seemingly never been questioned, and from there, we could understand removing the particle from Peach's name for parity's sake. (Even still, if you really wanted to, we've provided an option to, in addition for what to do to the "Princess" particles in Peach & Daisy's names, if we should add one to Rosalina's name, or keep it absent. We don't really intend to include something like this for "King Bowser" as, while "Princess Rosalina" at least has a plurality number of cases we could find of that name being used, we could literally only find one "King Bowser", in [[Nintendo Comics System]].)


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}
'''Deadline''': January 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Delete====
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Peach?====
#{{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.
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.


====Keep====
;Yes Princess (status quo)
#{{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.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and ''certainly'' more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
#{{User|Rykitu}} [[Princess Toadstool's Castle Run|All]] [[Super Princess Peach|5]] [[Parasol Fall|Princess]] [[Peach's Puzzle|Peach]] [[Princess Peach: Showtime!|games]] have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her <strike>full</strike> ''proper'' name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
#{{User|Sdman213}} per all.


====Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)====
;No Princess
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)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an [[Princess Peach: Showtime!|entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name]], we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Abolish the monarchy.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like [[Fox]], [[Sonic]], etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per all
#{{User|PopitTart}} I was initially hesitant because of the existence of ''Princess Peach Showtime'', but I was quickly swayed by looking at [https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/princess-peach-showtime-switch/ the game's online store page], which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
#{{User|Arend}} Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" ''without'' an uppercase P.


===Delete the MP11/MP12/MP13 redirects===
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Daisy?====
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]].
{{Early notice|option=yes|March 26, 2025}}
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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.
;Yes Princess (status quo)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in ''Super Mario Land'', the ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'', and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Pseudo}} Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}<br>
;No Princess
'''Deadline''': January 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in ''[[Mario Party 9]]'', Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as ''[[Super Mario Land]]'' itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-''Land'' is practically a defining trait of hers.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per last times.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} Since I'm supportive of "Princess" being removed from Peach's article title, the same would apply to Daisy, who has made fewer appearances, including with the "Princess" title.
#{{user|Cadrega86}} Per all three past proposals.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per proposal.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} per all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Hi, She's Daisy!
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.<br>Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of [[Larry]] as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, '''with visibility nigh intact'''. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.


====Delete (party's over!)====
====Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Rosalina?====
#{{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'.
{{Early notice|option=yes|March 26, 2025}}
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Does anyone actually call those games ''Mario Party 11'', ''12'' or ''13''? Per proposal.
'''Deadline''': April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Honestly, I’m already on edge on Mario Parties 6-10 because of the non-mainline Mario Parties, but unlike those 5 games, the three concerned don’t even use those as their own game, not to mention ''Jamboree'' is basically a sequel to ''Super Mario Party''.


====Delete MP12/MP13, keep MP11 (...except you, you stay.)====
;Yes Princess
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we personally feel like a clean sweep makes the most sense, but we understand the merit of keeping MP11 given that at least ''Super Mario Party'' has ''a'' piece of dialogue calling it the 11th party.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|the proposal that added the Mario Party 11 redirect]].
#{{User|Arend}} Secondary choice; I guess it makes sense to still call ''Super Mario Party'' the 11th one, and my vote for deleting them all stems from the confusion whether Superstars or Jamboree is the 12th one, a discussion from which ''Super'' is exempt.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Secondary option. I’m sure there is like 6% of users who would search ‘MP11’, but ''Jamboree'' is basically SMP2 anyways, and whether MPS or Jamboree is MP12 is so confusing we might as well delete MP12 and 13.


====Keep (party on!)====
;No Princess (status quo)
<s>#{{User|Hewer}} Per my comment and [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/54#Create a Mario Party 11 redirect|this proposal]].</s>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. We hope we've made it apparent that we think adding the particle to Rosalina's article is very silly indeed, especially decades after the fact, when Rosalina has obtained a featured article without the particle, and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy.
#{{User|Hewer}} She's barely ever called that.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Queen it up.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Unlike the other two, there is no substantial media that refers to Rosalina as "Princess Rosalina." It is presented only in larger descriptive material on Rosalina, and even then, only occassionally.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} If anything, cases where Princess Rosalina is used are the clear outlier.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - She's clearly a queen, just sometimes lumped as one of "the princesses" for convenience.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. It's unclear if Rosalina is even really a princess in the first place.
#{{user|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think I ever recall it being used.
#{{user|Cadrega86}} Per all.
#{{user|Ahemtoday}} Princess of ''what'', by the way? Princess of space? Can you ''be'' the princess of space?
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} princess of [[:File:TAoSMO_Rosalina_Concept_Art.jpg|acoustic rock]], obviously.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all. Her backstory implies she was one, and she carries the appearance of one, but it is certainly not one of her defining characteristics.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} She's straight-up never referred to this way except in supplementary material like websites, not even the ''Super Mario Galaxy'' manual calls her Princess Rosalina. This is pretty clear cut to me.
#{{User|Pizza Master}} In Chapter 7 of [[Rosalina's Story]], there is a castle in the background that is implied to be Rosalina's house. Quote Rosalina, "I want to go back to my house by the hill!" The only visible "house" by the hill is the castle. So it's likely that she was born to royalty on her home planet. That said, Daisy has no princess particle, so Rosalina shouldn't either just going off precedence.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all. Unlike Princess Peach or Princess Daisy, Rosalina is almost never referred to as a Princess.


====Comments (idle party chat)====
====Comments (Princess Particle Party!)====
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)
Should be of note that Palutena's Guidance [https://youtu.be/Ls0qNcpAn1E?t=53 is not the ''only'' part in Ultimate] in which Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" (obviously this also applies to Peach). {{User:Arend/sig}} 14:23, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in ''Smash Bros.'' games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the ''Super Smash Bros.'' games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
::King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by [[List of drivers in Mario Kart Tour|Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)]]). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:::{{@|Hewer}} I was referring to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made ''Mario Kart Tour'', a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In ''Melee'', for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the [[:File:CharacterSelect-SSBMelee.png|selection screen]]. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
::::I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's ''more'' reason for us to move it? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:::{{@|Hewer}} In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally ''Peach-hime'', ''Daimaō Koopa'' and ''Dedede-daiō'', respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, [https://shmuplations.com/starfoxadventures/ one interview] where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying ''Star Fox''{{'}}s Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)


This is up for debate, because there's redirects for [[Mario Kart 1]] through [[Mario Kart 6]], so if these are to be affected, then they'd need to go too, but I see no reason to remove those as they may come in handy if someone wants to search for the [[Mario Kart 5|5th Mario Kart]] for example. Simply ask "what's the [[Mario Party 11|eleventh Mario Party]]?" and there it is. Another proposal with tons of grey area unaccounted for it seems. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 13:28, January 12, 2025 (EST)
How is Rosalina a queen, exactly? I don't think that's ever been stated anywhere, and Peach is still Princess even though she explicitly rules the Mushroom Kingdom, so Rosalina ruling something wouldn't make her Queen necessarily. Speaking of, even if she's not technically ruling anything now, she's still a princess by birth (backstory and Baby Rosalina's design), and I don't think titles become null and void like that / "oh it's been (blank) years I guess I'm not a princess anymore". [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 16:03, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm not fond of "MK6"-style redirects, but at least there's no confusion about the 6th ''Mario Kart'' game was and you can be pretty sure that there will never be a game titled ''Mario Kart 6''. However, you wouldn't create a "MK9" redirect to ''Mario Kart Tour'', would you? It is debatable whether this game would count as the 9th ''Mario Kart'', and Nintendo could still release a game titled ''Mario Kart 9'' in the future. I admit that it is less likely that Nintendo would release an actual ''Mario Party 11'', but it could still happen – they did release ''New Super Mario Bros. 2'' when there was already [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii|a second ''NSMB'']] after all. As for people who would know what is the 11th ''Mario Party'' released on a home console (which is not the 11th ''Mario Party'' game overall if you include the handheld games), they will probably want to find the 12th as well, which, since there's no consensus on what ''Mario Party 12'' should even be (''Superstars'' or ''Jamboree''?), would probably only lead to frustration no matter what we choose "MP12" to redirect to. Frankly, unless Nintendo suddenly announces a game titled ''Mario Party 14'' which would retroactively confirm that the current Switch games are ''MP11'', ''MP12'' and ''MP13'', I would rather not keep these redirects. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 06:07, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::This is why I'm in support of only keeping the Mario Party 11 redirect, as Birdo states in dialogue in the game that it's the "eleventh party", so it's not ambiguous whether it counts. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 09:04, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::Question! Would it be too late to add a "keep MP11, delete MP12/MP13" option to this proposal? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:08, January 13, 2025 (EST)
::::You can add options within the first four days of a proposal's creation, so yes, I think today is the last day you can add an option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:15, January 13, 2025 (EST)
:::::Nintendo is probably not going to release Mario Party 14 (too lazy to do italics), because they’ll probably make Super Mario Party Superstars Jamboree or Super Mario Party Jamboree 2 or whatever. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:25, January 17, 2025 (EST)


==Changes==
@Pseudo: In what way is Princess Daisy "the main name that she is known by"? It certainly isn't officially, and in my experience it isn't even the more used name by fans either. And since Nintendo101 didn't really answer this question: why does a name being the "full name" mean it should automatically take priority? It didn't with [[Talk:Conker#Rename to Conker|Conker the Squirrel]], [[Talk:Bobbery#Changing Admiral Bobbery to just Bobbery|Admiral Bobbery]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|Sonic the Hedgehog]], [[Talk:Professor E. Gadd#Rename (proposal edition)|Professor Elvin Gadd]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56#Move animal names from the Donkey Kong Country series to just their normal names|Rambi the Rhino]], [[Colored Pencils|Colored Pencils, The Missile Maestro]], [[Talk:Baby DK#Move to Baby DK|Baby Donkey Kong]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/69#Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2|Wendy O. Koopa]], [[Talk:Grodus#Move to Grodus|Sir Grodus]], [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/68#Move Super Princess Peach enemies to their full names|Glad Red Paratroopa]], [[Talk:TEC#Move to TEC|TEC-XX]], and indeed, Princess Rosalina. So why is Princess Daisy different? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:57, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
===Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"===
:I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. ''Super Princess Peach'' enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are ''technically'' conjectural.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
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?
::Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: [https://mario.nintendo.com/characters/ this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/mario/ this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/characters/ this] ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Games/Characters-hub/Super-Mario-Hub/Characters-2493286.html this] ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of [[Spiny Shell (blue)|Blue Shell]] if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)


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.
For reference, here's how Play Nintendo (a division of Nintendo's American website) handles the names of Peach and Daisy.
*On the [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/ "Friends"] page, the former is "Princess Peach", while the latter is "Daisy".
*A [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/puzzles/jigsaw-puzzle-princess-peach-daisy-rosalina/ puzzle activity] featuring both characters renders the former as "Princess Peach", while the latter as "Daisy".
*Similarly, coloring activities that feature the former ([https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/mushroom-kingdom-princess-peach-paint-activity/], [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/princess-peach-paint-by-numbers-spring-2023/], [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/paint-by-number-princess-peach-activity/]) render her name as "Princess Peach". Compare Daisy's [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/paint-by-numbers/daisy-paint-by-numbers-online-activity/ own coloring activity], where she is rendered as simply "Daisy".
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/valentines-day-mushroom-kingdom-trivia-quiz/ In this quiz], at question 2 you'll notice the "Daisy" answer; question 4 invokes "Princess Peach".
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/mushroom-kingdom-role-model-poll/ A poll] uses the shortforms of both ("Peach" and "Daisy").


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.
Now, for a change of pace:
*Daisy is displayed as "Princess Daisy" on [https://play.nintendo.com/themes/friends/princess-daisy/ her own profile], which doubles as the hub of Daisy-related stuff on that site.
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/mushroom-kingdom-character-trivia-quiz/ Another pop quiz] uses "Princess Peach" and... "'''Princess''' Daisy".
*[https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/mushroom-kingdom-character-hang-out-poll/ This poll], likewise.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Mario}}<br>
Note that the pages linked above are not tied to any particular product, but rather the Mario series in general. Most were nevertheless published during the Switch generation, and I strived to highlight as much cross-reference material as I could find from both Daisy's profile on the site, and the [https://play.nintendo.com/search/?s=daisy search results for "daisy"] (which aren't all that different for "[https://play.nintendo.com/search/?s=princess+daisy princess daisy]"). It appears that activities which promote specific games overwhelmingly invoke characters using the same name they use in those games. In other words, "Peach" for Peach, and "Daisy" for Daisy, as expected. Some examples: [https://play.nintendo.com/activities/opinion-polls/super-mario-bros-wonder-character-poll/][https://play.nintendo.com/printables/crafts/super-mario-party-jamboree-printable-party-hats/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/skill-quizzes/super-mario-online-trivia/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/personality-quizzes/who-is-your-super-mario-party-jamboree-buddy/][https://play.nintendo.com/activities/personality-quizzes/mario-golf-super-rush-personality-quiz/]. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:17, March 20, 2025 (EDT), edited 17:00, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': <s>January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> January 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Blank support====
{{@|Camwoodstock}} ''"[...] and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy."''<br>I don't think that's true. Daisy has been called the princess of Sarasaland as late as ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''. Rosalina, on the other hand, I cannot recall her ever being referred to as a princess of anything. Or royalty at all, for that matter. People presumed she was "Princess Rosalina" or "Princess Rosetta" in the early years before Mario Galaxy released purely because she has that "Princess Peach"-esque look, but canonically, she's been referred to as the protector of the cosmos, the keeper of the Comet Observatory, and the mother of the Lumas; none of which are titles of royalty. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:40, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Mario}} Per all.
:I agree, but the proposal is specifically about whether the characters' articles should be called "Princess Peach/Daisy/Rosalina", not whether they are canonically princesses. Let's stay on-topic. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:53, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
#{{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.
#{{User|Shoey}} Per all. The idea that you can't infer what a blank vote means is absolute pedantic nonsense. The idea that per all has this grand meaning or that if we allow blank votes people could abuse voting is ridiculous. News flash if people wanna abuse votes they can just put per all. Do you people hear yourselves? The idea that a blank vote can lead to an anarchy of votes nobody can understand or will lead to this great rush of bad faith votes but the 7 characters that spell out per all will protect us from the anarchy is a goddamn preposterous argument.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per Shoey.
#{{User|MCD}} - If we allow per all votes then there's no reason not to allow a blank vote that clearly infers the same thing. If someone makes a blank vote and you don't understand why then you can always ask them to expand in the comments. Outside of that the only real argument against this is personal preference which shouldn't dictate whether we allow this or not.


====Blank Oppose====
===Merge the "did not reach consensus" and "tied" proposal outcomes on the archives===
#{{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.
This came up in the comments at the tail end of my poll proposal archive proposal. A grand total of four proposals have "tied" and are therefore represented by brown. Notably, nobody decided [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73#Create_a_template_to_direct_the_user_to_a_game_section_on_the_corresponding_List_of_profiles_and_statistics_page|'''this''' proposal]] would be brown even though, by any reasonable definition of "tie", it is one. I take this as a sign that this distinction isn't really... suiting the reality of the proposal page. After all, what makes a tie so different that it needs its own color, when it's just a particular arrangement that a failure of consensus can land on?
#{{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|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
#{{User|Scrooge200}} A blank vote would be hard to interpret, and you should at least give ''some'' reasoning rather than none at all. A "per all" sends the message that the voter has read the proposal and all its votes and is siding with them. For more heated proposals, a blank vote is basically arbitrary because it doesn't tell you anything about why they chose the side they did.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per opposition. "Per [someone]" implies that you took the time to peruse someone's arguments, is an explicit and articulate enough way to show support for those, and it's typically only around a dozen characters long including the space. A blank vote is ambiguous--it could be what I just described, or it can be a vessel for drive-by voting, bandwagoning, or even a simple bias towards the fictional thing so discussed. Sure, the weight of your vote would the same regardless, but if I'm not able to tell which user's case you express your support for, be it the proposer themself or one of the voters, I can just as easily infer that you're not engaging with the proposal in good faith. Give your vote a meaning.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} 2 things: Putting a blank vote doesn’t automatically mean you agree with previous voters. It may mean you’re voting because you like voting, or you may have accidentally saved changes before typing a reason. And… It’s not really a big deal to type 6 letters, 1 blank and 1 full stop. If you are too lazy to type 1 a, 1 e, 2 l, 1 p, 1 r, 1 blank, and 1 full stop, it implies you are too lazy to vote properly.


<s>#{{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.</s>
By the way, one color has to win out in the merge, and my view is: '''it will be brown'''. This is going to sound hugely pedantic, but I don't think white is good for a proposal archive color, at least not one with this meaning. Outside of the new dark mode, it looks like it doesn't ''have'' a background. That makes it look like some state inherently separate from the others, or like some kind of blank state with no meaning, or like it's related to what gray means. This isn't any of those; it's a pretty normal fate for a proposal to meet. Brown is more in line with the look of the others, and it looking close to "no quorum" better conveys its similar meaning. (Arguably you could merge in "no quorum", too. I'm not here to make that argument <s>but if I was, we should obviously use orange</s>.) Therefore, I say we're merging them to brown.


====Blank Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
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)
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
: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)


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)
====Support====
: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)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
: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)
#{{User|Hewer}} Per.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes perfect sense
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; as it stands, both "ties" and "failed to reach consensus" are in this weird spot where it's unclear which of the two you're meant to even use outside of, y'know, ''if the vote count literally ties'', which isn't a particularly helpful distinction as far as the archive is concerned.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.


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)
====Oppose====


{{@|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)
====Comments====
:{{@|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)
there's something to be said about the fact that the proposals are color-coded in the first place (which is VERY inaccessible to colorblind folks, people using screenreaders, and people who do not remember each color-outcome connection by heart), but that's for another proposal. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:09, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::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)
:Agreed, having some kind of symbology or just writing out the outcome in the proposal listing alongside the current color schemes would be a big improvement. {{User:Pseudo/sig}} 10:12, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:This is a bit of an extreme-case scenario here, but imagine a proposal which is a landslide failure, only 1 support from the author and 20 opposes. Consider how the creator of that proposal would feel in the scenario where the opposition is 1 proper vote and 19 "per" votes, versus an opposition of 20 votes that are all completely blank. How would they handle the former? The latter?<br>To take it a bit more extreme, say you were tasked to make a follow-up proposal. How exactly would you go about it in the former case? Could you do the same thing in the latter case? Does the question ''even make sense at all'' in the latter case?<br>In no uncertain terms: how exactly should one be expected to set up a proper proposal if they're only met with silent disapproval? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 03:35, January 17, 2025 (EST)
:There's a reason we've thus far yet to even think about touching proposal colors for darkmode; among other reasons, like "who has ever used wikitable wario?", we're kinda hoping a more sophisticated thing comes along for the colorblind on the off-chance we can actually incorporate that thing somehow. Symbols in particular sounds very nice. <s>also the idea of having to darkmode white ''and'' gray is a Nightmare Scenario so here's hoping this can rectify that one!</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 10:54, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::What the hell are you talking about? What's the difference between 20 per all votes against you or 20 blank votes against you? An ass kicking is an ass kicking. I'd feel the exact same way either way "wow people really hated my idea." Again the idea that there's this huge difference between 20 people saying per Shoey and 20 people not saying that, especially if the rules say that blank votes should be considered the equivalent of a per all or a proposal. What is a person supposed to do in any scenario where they lose in a landslide? They accept that there idea is unpopular and move on (or they throw a huge fit and get told to fuck off) {{User|Shoey}}
:Wasn't a feature recently added where you can scroll over the result and it states what it means? Or does this not work on screenreaders? [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:58, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
:::This is about wiki maintenance, not social dynamics you'd find in middle school. If you're going to have a landslide loss, the least everyone in the room could be bothered to do is at least ''say why.'' Because otherwise, well, as far as the proposal creator is concerned, ''any'' blank vote could be telling them to fuck off. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 11:53, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::that feels like more of a bandaid fix. i think a better solution would rework how [[Template:Proposal archive]] looks to present the data in a cleaner way. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 12:49, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
::This proposal passing wouldn't even allow this scenario to happen. The point is to classify all blank votes as "per all", and if you have 20 blank votes with not actual reasoning, then none of them would actually count because there's no reasoning for them to per by. The first vote would have to have a reason, and in that case both situations you've come up with here are exactly the same. {{User:Shy Guy on Wheels/sig}} 11:12, January 17, 2025 (EST)


I don't understand the majority of the oppositions. The idea that blank votes could encourage drive by voting or bandwagon voting like what are talking about? Do you think people can't bandwagon vote with a per all or a per proposal? There's already nothing stopping somebody from voting and then never checking the proposal again in the current system. If people wanna make bad faith votes they already can! They just say per all, or per proposal, or per so and so. There's no eliminating least of all with some arbitrary per proposal requirements. {{User|Shoey}}
===Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title===
:That's assuming bad faith in written "per" votes. I already said that a blank vote can be equated to ''anything'', constructive or frivolous, it ultimately depends on how you personally imagine it to be. It can have the exact same exact rhetoric value as fandom-driven voting, as in "I vote to make a page for X game/character because it is my favorite game/character!" and you wouldn't be able to tell. Unless you ask that user for clarification, at which point you might as well cut the middleman and enforce users to state something in their vote like currently. An explicit "per" is not only more on-point, but takes only a few keyboard presses to type out. I'd be more open to a proposal that seeks to allow blank votes as an express "I agree with the proposer in particular but not necessarily the voters", because as it stands, a blank vote can be worth jack-all. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 08:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)
To be as clear as possible, '''this proposal will not affect any article titles.''' It is specifically about article content. With that out of the way...


Read from here:
So [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/52#Citing the Super Mario Encyclopedia|this classic proposal]] passed to ban any citations of the English version of the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]. Then [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjects|this later proposal]] passed to allow the book to be cited, but only for subjects with no other official English names. I think this makes sense and doesn't need changing as far as article titles go, but the problem is that it creates an awkward inconsistency where only articles whose titles come from the book are allowed to acknowledge it. For example, [[Pipe Fist]] can use the encyclopedia as a citation for the name, but [[Winged Strollin' Stu]] can't even mention the existence of the "Soarin' Stu" name.


There are a few reasons why I think it would make sense for wiki articles to be allowed to mention weird names from the encyclopedia:
*It's official information, so it makes sense to document it if we want to be informative and comprehensive. An all-or-nothing system where the names have to be either the title of the article or not mentioned at all feels unintuitive.
*There seem to be some cases where this is already done. For example, the [[Yellow ledge]] article mentions Encyclopedia's "Ladyfinger Lift" name, with a citation and everything, despite it not being the title.
*The information is also already covered on the wiki on the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] page itself, which has a nice list detailing all the stuff the book got wrong or took from the wiki. If we're covering it anyway, I don't see why we shouldn't also put this relevant information on the pages about each individual subject.
*The wiki normally is allowed to mention official names even if it thinks they're wrong. For example, the [[Cleft]] page makes it clear that the "Moon Cleft" name from Super Paper Mario is a translation mistake, but it still mentions it anyway. And there are other cases similar to Encyclopedia where we do this kind of thing: the [[Polterpiranha]] page isn't called "Ghost", yet it still explains that "Ghost" is the name used for them in Smash games. The [[Nipper Dandelion]] page even explains the situation of how its name was a fan name before it was an official name.
*Although the aforementioned [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/60#Partially unban citing the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia as official names for subjects|proposal]] that allowed the Encyclopedia to be cited was intended to have it as a special case with the absolute lowest priority on the [[MarioWiki:Naming|naming policy]]'s list of sources, that has since been overridden by [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source|another proposal]] that introduced website filenames as an even lower-priority naming source, and the naming policy explicitly ''encourages'' mentioning those weird alternate names. So if we're allowed to mention names that are less trustworthy than Encyclopedia's, why shouldn't we mention Encyclopedia's names too?


If this proposal passes, articles will be allowed to mention alternate names from the Encyclopedia even if they are not being used as the title. For example, [[Comet Luma]]'s article could start with something like:
<blockquote>
'''Comet Luma''', referred to as '''Lumacomète''' in the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'',<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> is a unique [[Luma]] found in ...
</blockquote>


Or, if we want to make it more clear that we think the name is wrong, maybe even:
<blockquote>
'''Comet Luma''', erroneously referred to by its French name '''Lumacomète''' in the English ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'',<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> is a unique [[Luma]] found in ...
</blockquote>


Or maybe we could exclude the name from the intro and mention it later in the article, perhaps in a [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/74#Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section|"Naming" section]], similar to what [[Nipper Dandelion]] and [[Yellow ledge]] are already doing. Perhaps that could even give us more room to explain where the name came from like the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] article does.
<blockquote>
;[[Comet Luma#Naming|Naming]]
Comet Luma is one of the few characters in ''Super Mario Galaxy'' to not have a published official name for English releases of the game, nor in any official paratext for ''Super Mario Galaxy'' like the instruction booklet or [[Prima Games]] guidebook. In dialogue, [[Rosalina]] refers to it as "the Luma who knows about such things [about Prankster Comets]" and [[Polari]] does not mention its name in the English localization. The English translation of the ''[[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]]'' erroneously refers to it by its French name "Lumacomète",<sup>{{color|blue|[1]}}</sup> which was used as the title of its article on the Super Mario Wiki fan website from 2012 to 2018 (being briefly changed in 2014 and 2015).
</blockquote>
Or we could cut out that last bit mentioning the wiki by name. The point of this proposal is less to decide exactly how we integrate these into articles and more just to clarify that we are allowed to.


Again, to be incredibly clear, <big>'''this proposal is not about changing any article titles. The current naming policy will not be changed at all by this proposal.'''</big> This is merely about allowing articles to mention alternate names that aren't being used as the title. If this proposal fails, I suppose [[Yellow ledge]] and any other articles mentioning the Encyclopedia names will have them removed (though I'd imagine the [[Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia]] page itself would still be able to keep its list of errors).


'''Proposer''': {{User|Hewer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support (allow English Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)====
#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, referred to as "Per all" in the ''Super Mario Wiki Encyclopedia'', is a common vote reasoning found in proposals.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} This sounds very reasonable! I especially like the clarification regarding the names from the encyclopedia not being fully correct.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is exactly the kind of stuff i envisioned for the Naming sections! very good idea, per proposal


Do you know what I mean if this was my vote? {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:37, January 17, 2025 (EST)
====Oppose (ban English Encyclopedia names from being mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)====
:Yes, depending on whether the vote is placed in "Support" or "Oppose", I would know that your opinion is that you either agree with my proposal or you don't. I don't really see the problem with this personally. All that matters is whether you agree or disagree. As it stands, someone could vote against a proposal by just saying "No.", which is just as productive if not less.--[[User:Fun With Despair|Fun With Despair]] ([[User talk:Fun With Despair|talk]]) 10:56, January 17, 2025 (EST)
::That's only your read of a blank vote. A blank vote can also just mean that the user agrees or disagrees with the proposal out of sheer sympathy for the fictional thing described in the proposal, for example. It doesn't just matter if you agree or disagree, because that can be purely subjective towards the subject at hand. If a "per" vote is already difficult to derive intent from, then a blank vote provides even fewer clues, with no way of knowing until the user clarifies their choice ''somehow''. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:09, January 17, 2025 (EST)


===Allow users to remove friendship requests from their talk page===
====Comments Encyclopedia====
This proposal is not about banning friendship requests. Rather, it's about allowing users to remove friendship requests on their talk page. The reason for this is that some people are here to collaborate on a giant community project on the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Sure, it's possible to ignore it, but some may want to remove it outright, like what [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Arceus88&diff=4568152&oldid=1983365 happened here]. I've seen a few talk pages that notify that they will ignore friendship requests, [[User talk:Ray Trace|like here]], and this proposal will allow users to remove any friend requests as they see fit.
(Is the tier below ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' even presently used for ''any'' article title?) The <nowiki>{{encyclopedia}}</nowiki> template was modeled after <nowiki>{{conjecture}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{another language}}</nowiki>, and in the latter case, the information is normally relegated to the "Names in other languages" section. I think that the revamped "Naming" section would be a good place to put ''Encyclopedia'' names if this passes. There are too many instances, like with several ''Super Mario Galaxy'' instances, where the ''Encyclopedia'' name is outright confused with something else, and putting those details in the introductory paragraph could cause even more confusion. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:10, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
 
:Yeah, that sounds fair enough. And I don't think any articles currently use titles from website filenames, it was just added to the naming policy as a failsafe in the off chance we ever get a subject not named by any other sources. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:41, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
If this proposal passes, '''only''' the user will be allowed to remove friendship requests from their talk pages, including the user in the first link should they want to remove it again.
 
This proposal falls directly in line with [[MarioWiki:Courtesy]], which states: "Talking and making friends is fine, but sometimes a user simply wants to edit, and they should be left to it."
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Excuse me?? We actually prohibit this here? Wtf?? That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Literally ''any other platform that has ever existed'' gives you the ability to deny or remove friend requests... They don't just sit there forever. What if your talk page just gets swamped with friend requests from random people you don't know, taking up space and getting in the way? I also don't think it's fair, or very kind, to say "just ignore them". It'll just sit there as a reminder of a less-than-ideal relationship between two users that doesn't need to be put up on display. Honestly I didn't even know we did "Friends" on this site...maybe the better solution is to just get rid of that entirely. This is a wiki, not social media.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per Shadow2's comment.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} IMO, the spirit of the no removing comments rule is to avoid disrupting wiki business by removing comments that are relevant to editing, records of discipline, and the like. I don't think that removing friend requests and potentially other forms of off-topic chatter is harmful if the owner of the talk page doesn't want them.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per WT
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If someone doesn't want something ultimately unrelated to the wiki on their talk page, they shouldn't be forced to keep it. Simple-as. It would be one thing if it was "remove ''any'' conversation", as that could be particularly disruptive, but for friend requests, it's so banal that we can't see the harm in allowing people to prune those if they deem it fit.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} <s>Per proposal and Waluigi Time.</s> No, I do think this is principally fine. Though I do not support the broader scope envisioned by Shadow2.
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|Ray Trace}} This hasn't been a problem as if lately and doesn't really fix anything. Just ignore the comments unless it's warning/block-worthy behavior like harassment or vandalism.
#{{User|Hewer}} I don't really see the point of this. A user can ignore friend requests, or any messages for that matter, without having to delete them.
#{{User|Sparks}} Friend '''requests''' are not any kind of vandalism or flaming. However, if they falsely claim to be their friend and steal their userbox then it would be an issue.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} I don't see why we would allow the removal of friend requests specifically and no other kind of non-insulting comments.
#{{User|Technetium}} No one even does friend requests nowadays.
#{{User|Mario}} Iffy on this. The case was a fringe one due to a user removing a very old friend request comment done by a user that I recall had sent out friend requests very liberally. I don't think it should be exactly precedent setting, especially due to potential for misuse (removing friend requests may be seen as an act of hostility, maybe impolite even if unintentional; ignoring it also has the problem but not as severe). Additionally, friend requests are not as common as they used to be, and due to this I just rather users exercise discretion rather than establish policy I don't think is wholly necessary. My preference is leaving up to individual to set boundaries for friend requests; a lot of users already request no friend requests, no swear words, or no inane comments on their talk pages and this is where they reserve that right to remove it or censor it. Maybe instead we can have removing friend requests be within rules, but it ''must'' be declared first in the talk page, either through a comment ("sorry, I don't accept friend requests") or as a talk page rule.
#{{User|Tails777}} I can see the logic behind allowing people to remove such requests from their talk pages, but at the same time, yeah, it's not really as common anymore. I just feel like politely declining is as friendly as it can get and flat out deleting them could just lead to other negative interactions.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} It’s honestly rude to just delete them. If they were not nice, I guess it would make sense, but I can’t get over it when others delete your message.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} A friend request ain't gonna hurt you. If you have a problem with it, you can always just reject it.
 
<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} It is not our place to remove talkpage comments — regardless of comment — unless it is harassment or vandalization, to which stuff like this is neither. I really think this energy and desire to helping out is best spent trying to elaborate on our thinner articles, of which there are many.</s>
 
====Comments====
{{@|Nintendo101}} Ignoring friendship requests and removing them are basically the same thing. It's not required to foster a collaborative community environment, whether a user wants to accept a friendship request or not. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:52, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:I think it is fine for users to ignore friend requests and even remove them if they so choose. I do not think it is the place of another user — without being asked — to remove them, especially on older user talk pages. — [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 10:03, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Nintendo101}} The proposal is for only the user whom the talk page belongs to removing friend requests being allowed to remove friend requests, '''not''' others removing it from their talk page for them. I tried to make it clear with bold emphasis. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:04, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Do we really need a proposal for this, though? And besides, I don't think friend requests are much of a thing here anymore. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:24, January 15, 2025 (EST)
::::I would've thought not, though a user got reverted for removing a friend request from own talk page (see proposal text). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 10:26, January 15, 2025 (EST)
:::::My bad, I thought you had removed it to begin with. Apologies for the misunderstanding. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 10:50, January 15, 2025 (EST)
Adding on, there's a BIG difference between "Removing a warning or disciplinary action", "Hiding or censoring past discussions"...and "Getting rid of a little friend request". Sure it's important to retain important information and discussions on a talk page, but if it's not relevant to anything or important then the user shouldn't be forced to keep it forever. Perhaps a more meaningful proposal would be, "Allow users to remove unimportant information from their talk page". I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a '''lot'''. Like, a ton of roleplay stuff, joking and childish behaviour, gigantic images that take up a ton of space. Is it really vitally necessary to retain this "information"? Can't we be allowed to clean up our talk pages or remove stuff that just doesn't matter? Stuff that doesn't actually relate in any way to editing on the wiki or user behaviour? Compare to Wikipedia, a place that is generally considered to be much more serious, strict and restrictive than here...and you ''are'' allowed to remove stuff from your talk page on Wikipedia. In fact, ''you're even allowed to remove disciplinary warnings''. So why is it so much more locked-down here? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 08:55, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:I've been trying to convey this very thing. I'm not against people befriending on the wiki, or even WikiLove to help motivate others. But there's a big difference between removing friend requests to removing formal warnings, reminders, and block notices from one's talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 09:24, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::"''I've looked at the talk pages for some users on this wiki, and some of them are filled with...a lot. [...] Is it really vitally necessary to retain this 'information'?''"
::It absolutely is for those users on the talk pages. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:12, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::...Right...And it's their choice to keep it. But as I understand it, the rules of this website prevents those users from ''removing'' it if they should so choose. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::I just don't see the issue. Those talk pages you cited are typically content exchanged between two users who know each other well enough. It doesn't happen with two strangers. If you don't want the content in the rare case some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again. If they do it again, it's a courtesy violation and it's actionable, just ask sysops to remove it. It's not really violating the spirit of the "no removing comments" rule. Our current rules are already equipped to deal with this, I don't think it's a great idea to remove this content in most cases without at least prior notice, which I think this proposal will allow. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:59, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::That's the problem right there, you've perfectly outlined it. "some random person decides to post an image you don't like, then reply to it to indicate such, and it shouldn't be posted again". But the image is ''still there'', even though I don't want it to be there. Why does the image I don't like have to remain permanently affixed to my talk page, taking up space and not doing anything to further the building of this wiki? Rather, I should be allowed to say "I don't like this image, I am going to remove it now." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
I want to make something clear: under [[MarioWiki:Userspace#What can I have on my user talk page?|the current policy for user talk pages]], "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling". Comments that you can remove are the exception, not the norm. If this proposal passes, should we change the end of the sentence to "unless they are acts of vandalism, trolling, or friend requests"? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 13:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:No. This is about letting users to decide whether to remove friend requests from their talk page if they do not want that solicitation. "you cannot remove conversations or comments, unless they are acts of vandalism or trolling" would be more along the lines of, "You are not allowed to remove any comments irrelevant to wiki-related matters, such as warnings or reminders. The most leeway for removing comments from talk pages comes from vandalism, trolling, or harassment. Users are allowed to remove friend requests from their own talk page as well." [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:43, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Super Mario RPG}} receiving a friend request does not mean you have to engage with it or accept, does it? So I am not really sure it constitutes as solicitation. Is the idea of leaving a friend request there at all the source of discomfort, even if they can ignore it? Or is it the principal that a user should have some say as to what is on their own talk page as their user page? I worry allowing users to remove their comments from their talk pages (especially from the perspective of what Shadow2 is suggesting) would open a can of worms, enabling more disputes between users. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:13, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::It's the principal of a user deciding whether they want it on their talk page or not. It would be silly if disputes occur over someone removing friendship requests. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
:No, we should change it to "acts of vandalism, trolling, or unimportant matters unrelated to editing on the wiki." [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 18:28, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I believe users should have ''some'' fun here and there. The wiki isn't just a super serious website! Plus, it gives us all good laughs and memories to look back on. {{User:Sparks/sig}} 20:32, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::{{@|Shadow2}} What are some specific examples? [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Examples of what? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:44, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::Of what other "unimportant matters" you'd like for users to be allowed to remove from their own talk page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Unfortunately it might be in bad faith to say "Look at this other user's page, this is considered unimportant and if it were on MY page, I would want it deleted." But like, when I first started on Wikipedia a friend of mine left a message on my talk page that said "Sup noob". I eventually fell out of favour with this friend and didn't really want to have anything to do with him anymore, so I removed it. It wasn't an important message, it didn't relate to any activity on the wiki, it was just a silly, pointless message. I liked it at first so I kept it, then I decided I didn't want it there anymore so I removed it. There's a lot of other very silly, jokey text I've seen on talk pages that I'm sure most users are happy to keep, but if they ''don't'' want to keep it then they should have the option of removing it. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:00, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
{{@|Technetium}} That's true, no one does, but me and some others still would prefer a precedent to be set. This proposal began because someone blanked a friend request from own talk page recently, so this may occur every once in a while. The reason that one was allowed to be removed (by {{@|Mario}}) is because it was a single comment from long ago that had no constructive merit when applied to this year and wasn't that important to keep when the user decided to remove it. This proposal would allow it in all cases. Removing such messages from one's own talk page is the equivalent of declining friend requests on social platforms. It stops the message from lingering and saves having to do a talk page disclaimer that friend requests will be ignored, since some people may choose to accept certain friend requests but not others. This opens room for choices. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:21, January 16, 2025 (EST)
 
{{@|Mario}} So if this proposal fails, would there be some clarification in rules behind the justification of such content being removed?  [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:35, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:Toadlose.gif]] Maybe? I don't know. This proposal was kind of unexpected for me to be honest. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::I do believe that the intentions of this proposal are good, but the scope is too narrow. It should be about granting users the freedom to remove unimportant fluff (Friend requests included) from their talk page if they so choose. Discussions about editing and building the wiki, as well as disciplinary discussions and warnings, do ''not'' fall under "unimportant fluff". [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 20:47, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::{{@|Shadow2}} have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there? The users who send jokes and images to certain receivers view them as good friends - these are friendly acts of comradery, and they are harmless within the communal craft of wiki editing. Are you familiar with anyone who would actually like to have the ability to remove "fluffy" comments from their talk pages? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:18, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Some narrow-scope proposals have set precedents. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:20, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::(edit conflict) I would also add that they help build a wiki by fostering trust and friendship (which is magic) and helping morale around here, but I do think Shadow2 is arguing that if they receive such content, they should see fit to remove it. However, the hypothetical being construed here involves a stranger sending the content (which probably has happened like years ago) and I dispute that the scenario isn't supported in practice, so I don't think it's a strong basis for the argument. In the rare cases that do happen (such as, well, exchanges years ago), they're resolved by a simple reply and the content doesn't really get removed or altered unless it's particularly disruptive, which has happened. If it's applicable, I do think a rule change to at least allow users to set those particular boundaries in their talk pages can help but I don't see how that's strictly disallowed in the first place like the proposal is implying. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:38, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::"have you considered that the users who receive images and jokes on their talk pages like having them there?" Yes? Obviously? What does that have to do with what I'm saying. Why does everybody keep turning this whole proposal into "GET RID OF EVERYTHING!!" when it's not at all like that. If the users want the images and jokes on their talk page, they can keep them. If they ''don't'' want them, then there's nothing they can do because the rules prohibit removal needlessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:49, January 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I think you misunderstand my point - why should we support a rule that does not actually solve any problems had by anyone in the community? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 23:03, January 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::That's an unfair assumption. It would be a problem for me if someone left something on my page, and there's probably plenty of others who would like to remove something. Conversely, what is there to gain from forcing users to keep non-important information on their talk page? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 02:11, January 17, 2025 (EST)
This proposal says: ‘You may get your edit reverted for being nice, but because swearing is not being nice, you can swear the şħįț out’ {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 07:55, January 17, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections===
''None at the moment.''
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.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per Waluigi Time. Definitely split the articles when necessary, though I agree that it makes sense to follow the standards already set in place rather than making a new criteria solely for reference sections.
 
====Comments====

Latest revision as of 21:32, March 20, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, March 21st, 01:32 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Implement crossover articles, Nintendo101 (ended March 17, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)
Remove information on Super Mario Maker series big Para-Beetles from Heavy Para-Beetle, Blinker (ended March 18, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.

Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)

If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if Builder Mario had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if Mole Yoshi had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the Super Pickax had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)

But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:

I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared to base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.

Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would Mega Yoshi be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Even though one needs to know how to Tail Swipe to beat all Mega Yoshi areas? Would Penguin Mario be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? Which is main unique thing about it, given Ice Balls are from Ice Mario and good swimming is from Frog Mario? If we gave the field form of Luiginary Ball a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer? Again, something necessary to complete the ball's tutorial area?

As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a {{main}} article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how Dash handles the Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) (Relevant Edit) and the Spin Dash (Relevant Edit). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.

This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on Spin Jump, Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on Swim, Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on Roll, and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely Fireball, Ice Ball, Hammer, and Bubble. Builder Boxes are Crates, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with Superball Mario years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. Yoshi's Swallow, Egg Throw, et al, Baby DK's DK Dash Attack, Diddy Kong's Diddy Attack and Barrel Jet, and Rambi's Supercharge and Charge are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. SMB2 Mario is bizarre, but charge jump is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, and the article doesn’t have a Super Mario Maker 2 section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.

Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut Fly, an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of {{main}} templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a userpage, based on the existing List of power-ups. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article. As the various contexts of Fly are not the same kind of action to begin with, the article will become List of methods of flight. This broadens the scope to fit all of the components. (Note how "flight" is not a proper noun).

Tail whip was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. Tails are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to Cape, which used to compile the yellow capes of Cape Mario and Superstar Mario into a listicle before this proposal reduced it to only the Smash Bros. attack.)

Oh yeah and I guess Strike of Intuition is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to Detective Peach. Given everything else, it gets merged too.

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert Fly into a list with the name List of methods of flight

  1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is

Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list with the name List of methods of flight

Oppose: Status quo

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate Mariowiki:Once and only once EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find. Furthermore, we do not merge character-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-Mario characters in the Super Smash Bros. series) - for instance, look at Scuttle and Flutter Jump - so why should we do so with forms?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.

Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)

I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. Salmancer (talk) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Question; would this merge Fireball Punch, and would this failing result in re-instating Dangan Mario? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. Salmancer (talk) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been retired. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Thanks, wish I'd known that before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the Luigi Cap. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..

After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies.

- Penguin Mario

The system works! It's repeated for White Raccoon Mario in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for Power Squirrel Mario to Flying Squirrel Mario, with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". Salmancer (talk) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? Salmancer (talk) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until Super Mario 3D Land, despite it being usable by that form in Super Mario Bros. 3? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine.

In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves, making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing X Button or Y Button) and glide (now done by holding A Button or B Button, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.
Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"
In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

On the leading "Princess" for Peach/Daisy/Rosalina, and/or lackthereof

Brace yourselves--this is gonna be a long one.

In July of last year, jan Misali created a proposal to remove the leading "Princess" from the article name for "Princess Daisy". This failed 15-18, as people were interested in a proposal to move Peach alongside this. In November of last year, jan Misali created a follow-up proposal do exactly this, which failed again; among other concerns regarding redirects, most of the support was split between moving both Peach and Daisy to their Princess-less counterparts, and just moving Daisy, leaving the opposition in the lead. Guess third time's the charm.

The question is simple; do we remove "Princess" from the names of the Princess Peach and Princess Daisy articles? Time and time again, we've removed or truncated full names or particles to more common names. However, for whatever reason, the "Princess" particles for Peach and Daisy stick, despite Nintendo being very hit-or-miss about how required these are, especially for Daisy, whose "Princess, despite never doing anything royal outside of her debut" status has been acknowledged, officially, multiple times.

To recap the cases in favor of these renames for people that didn't read those first two proposals, the case for Daisy in particular is very strong, so we'll start with her. Simply put, Nintendo so rarely calls her by the name of "Princess Daisy" that it's starting to become a surprise when they do call her that in things like HotWheels character cars. To re-iterate a point made in jan Misali's original proposal, the count of times where Daisy is overtly referred to as "Princess Daisy" outside of manuals or other such paratexts can be counted on two hands, and even then, only barely; once in Super Mario Bros. Print World (which also erroneously calls Peach "Daisy" at one point), the two baseball games and Fortune Street interchange "Daisy" and "Princess Daisy" in dialogue but all UI uses just "Daisy", Super Mario Run being in a similar boat but with in-game descriptions for Remix 10 instead of dialogue, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, where Palutena calls her that. In every other case, including her own debut game, she is generally called "Daisy".

For Daisy, there is also the strange asterisk that is her film equivalent, but given the context of the plot of the film itself--that Daisy is unaware of her own royal status for the bulk of the film, and is simply referred to as just "Daisy" for most of it, we personally think it's fair to move her to "Daisy (film character) and add a Full Name parameter to clarify her "Princess Daisy" title she has towards the end. That being said, even her own official trading card just calls her Daisy, and apparently the "Princess Daisy" title only gets dropped on the back of "Sad Goodbyes", which we lack an image for.

The case for Princess Peach is less strong, partially thanks to the release of Princess Peach: Showtime!, a game in 2024 that makes rather overt use of "Princess Peach"; however, it is worth noting that Nintendo still does play rather fast-and-loose with the "Princess" particle for her as well. Most spinoffs will truncate the "Princess" off of her name, as far back as Mario Kart 64 and even after the release of Showtime, later that same year, Super Mario Party Jamboree also truncated the "Princess" off of Peach's name. While we acknowledge it's odd to laser in on exactly one game, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe just calls her "Peach", and that is one of the best-selling games in the entire Mario franchise.

We've seen various arguments against these, and aside from "personal preference for preferring particles", which we obviously can't argue with (at least, not without looking silly), we can't say we understand the majority of them:

  • Concerns were risen about removing royalty particles from other article names, such as Princess Shokora or Princess Shroob or King Bob-omb or Prince Mush (never mind that in his case, it's a stage name and not royalty). In those cases, the characters have never been referred to without their particles that we could find unless there was already an older name in the first place, such as "Big Bob-omb" for "King Bob-omb" (it's possible there's remote dialogue or an obscure Manga appearance we don't have on-record, but we're doubtful). These would retain their particles, as per our Naming policies determining that the most common English name is what is used, and in these cases, the particle is included almost 100% of the time. In contrast, Nintendo has been fairly interchangeable with Peach and Daisy's "princess" particles, and in Daisy's case, her particle has only become increasingly rarer as time goes on. If instances were located where the aforementioned characters lacked their particles short of the Big/King Bob-omb example, that would be something worth acknowledging, but in their cases, the particles being excluded is overwhelmingly the exception, not the norm.
  • Concerns have been risen about the Peach and Daisy article titles potentially referring to generic subjects; however, as of writing this proposal, both "Peach" and "Daisy" directly lead to their corresponding princesses anyways by means of redirects. Other subjects are instead given a "For <x>, see <y>" in the Princess' articles introductions. These redirects are already present as-is, and these changes wouldn't change how a search lands.
  • For internet traffic, given Peach and Daisy already lead to these articles, we still fail to see how this would impact much, unless we intentionally chose to not leave a redirect after a move; it should go without saying that, if we were to make a move of this magnitude, we would absolutely be leaving a redirect.
  • On a meta level, for the "would prefer one, but not the other" angle that was part of the reason the second proposal failed, we have since introduced a poll format to more adequately determine more nuanced situations like this, without risking support being split between two groups and being out-numbered overall.
  • While this was not mentioned in the original proposals to our awareness, we do acknowledge that some people may be concerned about the costs of labor of changing a bunch of links; however, not only could this trivially be an automated rename, something our proprietor already does fairly regularly with template names, even if this were somehow unworkable, we already have ample tools to manually perform such a change built into MediaWiki itself. We are well-aware of what this wiki's userbase can do when it comes to making these mass-changes, and we think we have a very capable userbase when it comes to deploying a change like this, either automatically or by hand.

There are also two characters we think are worth acknowledging, one brought up by jan Misali when we shared this proposal's draft with them, and one we noticed ourselves. For jan Misali's part, there's Bowser, or rather, King Bowser... Or rather, how in-frequently Bowser is known as "King Bowser". It's to the point where mentions of "King Koopa" as he appears in the DiC cartoons severely outnumber the amount of times Bowser is actually called "King Bowser" outright. This is exceedingly non-contentious, and while a King Bowser redirect has existed since 2006, we can't tell when the last time "King Bowser" was overtly used in dialogue. All we can really say is, having played Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser recently, it's not in that, with Bowser usually just being referred to as, well, Bowser, with the occasional uses of "Lord" or other offbeat honorifics instead of "King".

However, to us, the real smoking gun for why a move like this would not only make sense, but be perfectly fine for the wiki, has been sitting right underneath our noses the entire time. Rosalina, or should we say Princess Rosalina? Rosalina has been called a Princess from sources dating as far back as 2010 and as recently as 2023. She's commonly colloquially known as a Princess by fans. Heck, Princess Rosalina is, as of writing this proposal, a valid redirect to her article, and her infobox states her full name is "Princess Rosalina". However, her article has sat at the title of "Rosalina" since its inception back in 2007, with the Princess redirect only being made in 2014. Rosalina is a Featured Article, so her page naturally receives a lot of traffic and scrutiny, but nobody seems to have questioned if it would be worth moving her article to "Princess Rosalina" to match the other two princesses; and while one could argue that Rosalina is "not much of a princess", that naturally begets the response that neither is Daisy, who keeps the particle anyways. There's not really any reason we can think of why Daisy should keep her particle if Rosalina hasn't ever held one and it's seemingly never been questioned, and from there, we could understand removing the particle from Peach's name for parity's sake. (Even still, if you really wanted to, we've provided an option to, in addition for what to do to the "Princess" particles in Peach & Daisy's names, if we should add one to Rosalina's name, or keep it absent. We don't really intend to include something like this for "King Bowser" as, while "Princess Rosalina" at least has a plurality number of cases we could find of that name being used, we could literally only find one "King Bowser", in Nintendo Comics System.)

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Peach?

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Waluigi Time (talk) Per past me: "I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. [...] Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it." Considering Nintendo used her full name in a game title last year, this would be a really odd time to do it, and it sheds some light on how awkward it is putting so much focus squabbling over the specifics of character select screens and the like, IMO. I don't see a consistency issue with Daisy regardless of what happens with her, they weren't designed to be perfect analogues to each other and are used in different contexts, which also informs Nintendo's usage of their full titles.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time, past and present.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Much like Daisy, "princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Peach, potentially because they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts where you play as her, or they want to be conservative with text on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Peach" erroneous, archaic, unused, or inappropriate for the title of an article. This is an even stronger case for Peach because she shows up more often in non-playable appearances, where she is typically called "Princess Peach," and they represent the bulk of her history. It is the name used in most instruction booklets, toys, and even in-game. It is not the end of the world for her article to simply go by "Peach," but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining that. "Peach" is more so a shorter derivative of "Princess Peach" than "Bowser" ever was of "King Bowser" or anything like that (and certainly more so than "Princess Rosalina" is for "Rosalina.") You can probably count the number of sources that prefer using that name for him on one hand, unlike Peach.
  4. Rykitu (talk) All 5 Princess Peach games have "Princess" before "Peach" (with the exception of Peach's Puzzle and Parasol Fall, unless you count it's full title being Super Princess Peach — Parasol Fall). It is also used way too commonly by Nintendo so I think it should stay the way it is.
  5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Waluigi Time and Nintendo101
  6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  7. Pseudo (talk) While I can understand the desire for consistency with the other two princesses, Princess Peach is clearly her full proper name, being used in the titles of games as well as regularly in various bits of dialogue and paratext. It's true that she's usually just Peach in a character select screen, but I don't think this defines how she is overall perceived... in my subjective experience, she would usually be known by the average person aware of Mario as Princess Peach.
  8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. She is called Princess Peach a lot more than she is called Peach. I asked my sister (who is a very casual fan) who her favorite character is and she specifically said Princess Peach. General audiences and Nintendo still more frequently call her Princess Peach than they do just calling her Peach.
  9. Sdman213 (talk) per all.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. While we think the arguments for keeping Peach's particle are the strongest, namely since we have an entire game from 2024 with the particle in the name, we do think if we remove this from Daisy, we should naturally remove this from Peach for the sake of parity.
  2. LinkTheLefty (talk) Abolish the monarchy.
  3. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  4. Super Mario RPG (talk) "Princess" is not part of the name, it's just a title and not as integral to Peach's identity as, for example, Dr. Mario.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) It's just "Peach" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  7. Blinker (talk) Per all. And the use of "Peach" in character select screens is an intentional choice, not due to character constraints, as shown by the existance of names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)".
  8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all. I'm still not a fan of using abridged names—especially for crossover characters like Fox, Sonic, etc.—but if we want to be consistent about it, something's gotta give.
  9. Pizza Master (talk) per all
  10. PopitTart (talk) I was initially hesitant because of the existence of Princess Peach Showtime, but I was quickly swayed by looking at the game's online store page, which displays the simple "Peach" name no less than a dozen times.
  11. Arend (talk) Look, if Daisy doesn't get to be called a princess anymore (even if she's still being referred to as the princess of Sarasaland to this day), neither can Peach. Should be noted that in Dutch, whenever Peach gets called a princess, it's typically spelled "prinses Peach" without an uppercase P.

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Daisy?

Based on the vote so far, this option may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 26, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the option if applicable.

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess (status quo)
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) In my view, "Princess" is scrapped in material where you play as Daisy, which happen to represent the bulk of her appearances. Perhaps they want a more familial sounding moniker for such contexts, or they want to be conservative with space on character selection screens. That does not make "Princess Daisy" erroneous, archaic, or unused. It is the name used in Super Mario Land, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and licensed promotional toys and products of Daisy, where she is called "Princess Daisy." It is not the end of the world for her name to go by something else, but there is also nothing incorrect or erroneous with maintaining the status quo.
  2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101
  3. Pseudo (talk) Even if she is to be referred to as Daisy most of the time, Princess Daisy is still clearly her "proper" name in my view. This falls into a similar category to my views on the Peach situation (or Princess Peach, as the case may be); even though it's less supported by in-game usage and the like, this is still the main name that she is known by.
  4. Technetium (talk) Per all.
  5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
No Princess
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. To be honest, this has never been a contest for us; as far back as flavor text in Mario Party 9, Nintendo has acknowledged the weird lack of Damsel-in-distress-ness to Daisy's character, and the usage of "Daisy" in lieu of "Princess Daisy" is as old as Super Mario Land itself. That Daisy's royalty is bordering on in-name only post-Land is practically a defining trait of hers.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per the trilogy of proposals, this is the name that is almost always used for this major character and it is bizarre that we aren't reflecting that. This should've happened long ago, hopefully this new poll format will finally allow it to. I think I'm neutral regarding whether to move Peach, since it's much less immediately obvious which of her two names is most commonly used.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per last times.
  4. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my previous proposals.
  5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Since I'm supportive of "Princess" being removed from Peach's article title, the same would apply to Daisy, who has made fewer appearances, including with the "Princess" title.
  6. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all three past proposals.
  7. Ahemtoday (talk) Forgive the copy-paste job, but: it's just "Daisy" on stuff like character select screens, which I think are the most comparable source for article title formatting.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
  9. Blinker (talk) Per all
  10. Tails777 (talk) Per all the points made on past proposals. I feel nothing more needs to be added.
  11. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal.
  12. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  13. Pizza Master (talk) per all.
  14. PopitTart (talk) Hi, She's Daisy!
  15. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal. Many of the points made in support of this change have been made and extensively debated, and this proposal does an excellent job outlining them and addressing potential counterarguments.
    Above all, though, I remain steadfast that the concern about the impact of this shortening of names over search visibility is a complete non-issue. To reiterate what I said in the previous discussion, this site isn't a corporate product; it doesn't need to optimize every single little aspect of itself in the pursuit of visibility. That's not to say that visibility isn't important, but I reckon the wiki already enjoys an ample amount as is, and while only the site's owner ultimately can pull figures and projections, something tells me that calling Daisy, "Daisy" is not going to amount to much. On my machine, looking up "larry mario" or "larry koopa" still pulls up the mariowiki.com article of Larry as the top result, outranking even Fandom's aggressively promoted children--same holds true for other Koopalings--so I have to ask, if this isn't what motivates the opposing views, what exactly is the problem? Because so far it's only made these subjects easier to look up, less annoying to type out and link to, and ultimately more accurate to the creator's current vision, with visibility nigh intact. Furthermore, if Mario Wiki's purpose ever was to be perfectly optimized for search hits and clicks, I figure there would be more lucrative directions for the site to take than to be an game encyclopedia for niche things that only 0.1% of Mario fanatics realistically care about. Let unwavering accuracy be the "selling point" that elevates this wiki over all other fan resources for the Mario franchise.

Do we have a "Princess" particle for Princess Rosalina?

Based on the vote so far, this option may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 26, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the option if applicable.

Deadline: April 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes Princess
No Princess (status quo)
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. We hope we've made it apparent that we think adding the particle to Rosalina's article is very silly indeed, especially decades after the fact, when Rosalina has obtained a featured article without the particle, and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy.
  2. Hewer (talk) She's barely ever called that.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Queen it up.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) Unlike the other two, there is no substantial media that refers to Rosalina as "Princess Rosalina." It is presented only in larger descriptive material on Rosalina, and even then, only occassionally.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) If anything, cases where Princess Rosalina is used are the clear outlier.
  6. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - She's clearly a queen, just sometimes lumped as one of "the princesses" for convenience.
  7. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. It's unclear if Rosalina is even really a princess in the first place.
  8. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think I ever recall it being used.
  9. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
  10. Ahemtoday (talk) Princess of what, by the way? Princess of space? Can you be the princess of space?
  11. EvieMaybe (talk) princess of acoustic rock, obviously.
  12. Blinker (talk) Per all
  13. Tails777 (talk) Per all.
  14. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  15. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. Her backstory implies she was one, and she carries the appearance of one, but it is certainly not one of her defining characteristics.
  16. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  17. Pseudo (talk) She's straight-up never referred to this way except in supplementary material like websites, not even the Super Mario Galaxy manual calls her Princess Rosalina. This is pretty clear cut to me.
  18. Pizza Master (talk) In Chapter 7 of Rosalina's Story, there is a castle in the background that is implied to be Rosalina's house. Quote Rosalina, "I want to go back to my house by the hill!" The only visible "house" by the hill is the castle. So it's likely that she was born to royalty on her home planet. That said, Daisy has no princess particle, so Rosalina shouldn't either just going off precedence.
  19. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Unlike Princess Peach or Princess Daisy, Rosalina is almost never referred to as a Princess.

Comments (Princess Particle Party!)

Should be of note that Palutena's Guidance is not the only part in Ultimate in which Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" (obviously this also applies to Peach). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 14:23, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

I can't track down the article (iirc, it was translated by SourceGaming), Masahiro Sakurai prefers dropping royal monikers in Smash Bros. games. If I recall correctly, it is to make the character more familial to the player and conserve textual space on the character selection screen. King Dedede is only called "Dedede" in the Japanese releases of the Super Smash Bros. games. That does not mean "King Dedede" is not a more complete rendering of his name. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:44, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
King K. Rool is called that in Smash, so it's clearly case-by-case (and I thought the "saving space on the character select screen" argument was debunked last time by Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)). Anyway, why should a "complete" name automatically be more desirable than the name that is actually used in pretty much every appearance of the character? As was mentioned in the proposal, we've established in cases like the Koopalings that the longest name doesn't have to be the name we use. What makes Daisy different? (Honestly, "Princess Daisy" probably has less of a claim to being an article title than the Koopalings' full names do.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:01, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer I was referring to the Super Smash Bros. series and the people involved in the decisions for that series. None of them made Mario Kart Tour, a more contemporaneous game. Peach has been playable in spinoffs since the 1990s and Daisy has been since 2000, where trends like this would be established on hardware more limited, and by people who may have different views on how to render their characters' name on selection screens. In Melee, for example, a game with Peach, they call Captain Falcon "C. Falcon" on the selection screen. They probably could have rendered his name in full like they did for the Ice Climbers, but they didn't. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:15, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
I was replying to your vote on Daisy as well as your comment, sorry if that wasn't clear. Either way, I don't really understand the point you're making here. My point stands that Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer) is in the same game as just Daisy. Captain Falcon is in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate with just Daisy. Can you name any games that call her "Princess Daisy" on a select screen (or other similarly prominent context besides "random line of dialogue", for that matter)? I'm not aware of any. Surely if all the different people working on different games came to the same conclusion that it should be Daisy rather than Princess Daisy, that's more reason for us to move it? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, March 19, 2025 (EDT)
@Hewer In regards to "King K. Rool" - that's probably because every single language literally calls him that (at least in-game). In contrast, the reason Peach, Bowser and Dedede aren't Princess Peach, King Bowser and (JP-set) King Dedede is likely because they're literally Peach-hime, Daimaō Koopa and Dedede-daiō, respectively. Yes, these are simplified translations, but the nuance is different. The titles are probably getting mostly phased out because Nintendo likes it when the names of their major characters don't have to change much between regions. For example, one interview where Takaya Imamura regretted not unifying Star Fox's Andorf as "Andross" from the start. This was also done with the big Legendary Pokémon, as I recall, etc. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:10, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

How is Rosalina a queen, exactly? I don't think that's ever been stated anywhere, and Peach is still Princess even though she explicitly rules the Mushroom Kingdom, so Rosalina ruling something wouldn't make her Queen necessarily. Speaking of, even if she's not technically ruling anything now, she's still a princess by birth (backstory and Baby Rosalina's design), and I don't think titles become null and void like that / "oh it's been (blank) years I guess I'm not a princess anymore". Technetium (talk) 16:03, March 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Pseudo: In what way is Princess Daisy "the main name that she is known by"? It certainly isn't officially, and in my experience it isn't even the more used name by fans either. And since Nintendo101 didn't really answer this question: why does a name being the "full name" mean it should automatically take priority? It didn't with Conker the Squirrel, Admiral Bobbery, Sonic the Hedgehog, Professor Elvin Gadd, Rambi the Rhino, Colored Pencils, The Missile Maestro, Baby Donkey Kong, Wendy O. Koopa, Sir Grodus, Glad Red Paratroopa, TEC-XX, and indeed, Princess Rosalina. So why is Princess Daisy different? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:57, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

I do agree with the argument, but I do want to just correct the mention of Glad Red Paratroopa. Super Princess Peach enemies don't actually ever show longer names than the abbreviated ones. the "full" names suggested by that proposal are technically conjectural.--PopitTart (talk) 05:30, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
Fair enough. That's one example down, eleven more to go. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:33, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
I guess what I mean is that "Princess Daisy" is sort of her brand name; it's the main name that marketing materials use for her and, in my subjective experience, is what she is known as in the public consciousness. For what it's worth, I heavily disagree with the Sonic character and Koopaling renames, and would vote against them if they were relitigated today (while I abstained from these proposals at the time, my feelings on this have become more clear to myself over time). Some of these renames do make sense to me, such as E. Gadd's, but it's a case-by-case thing I guess and I don't personally see Daisy as comparable to E. Gadd in this way. I just can't see either of these renames as at all helpful to the wiki's goals. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 09:01, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
In what way is "Princess Daisy" her "main name that marketing materials use"? Much like the games, marketing materials occasionally use it as an alternate name, not usually as her primary name. Here's a selection of official websites that list the Mario characters: this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"), this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"; it does use "Princess Daisy" after you click on her, but not on the main list, and said list uses "Princess Peach" so length can't be the issue), this ("Peach" and "Daisy"), and this ("Princess Peach" and "Daisy"). Notice how all of them use "Daisy" as her primary name rather than "Princess Daisy", with most of them even having "Daisy" used alongside "Princess Peach". As for the "what she is known as in the public consciousness" point, I think it's fair to say popular wikis such as this one have some influence on that (and there's also the case of Blue Shell if you want an example where the official name doesn't match the common fan name, though I'd argue that "Daisy" is also a commonly used name by fans in this case). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:50, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

For reference, here's how Play Nintendo (a division of Nintendo's American website) handles the names of Peach and Daisy.

  • On the "Friends" page, the former is "Princess Peach", while the latter is "Daisy".
  • A puzzle activity featuring both characters renders the former as "Princess Peach", while the latter as "Daisy".
  • Similarly, coloring activities that feature the former ([1], [2], [3]) render her name as "Princess Peach". Compare Daisy's own coloring activity, where she is rendered as simply "Daisy".
  • In this quiz, at question 2 you'll notice the "Daisy" answer; question 4 invokes "Princess Peach".
  • A poll uses the shortforms of both ("Peach" and "Daisy").

Now, for a change of pace:

  • Daisy is displayed as "Princess Daisy" on her own profile, which doubles as the hub of Daisy-related stuff on that site.
  • Another pop quiz uses "Princess Peach" and... "Princess Daisy".
  • This poll, likewise.

Note that the pages linked above are not tied to any particular product, but rather the Mario series in general. Most were nevertheless published during the Switch generation, and I strived to highlight as much cross-reference material as I could find from both Daisy's profile on the site, and the search results for "daisy" (which aren't all that different for "princess daisy"). It appears that activities which promote specific games overwhelmingly invoke characters using the same name they use in those games. In other words, "Peach" for Peach, and "Daisy" for Daisy, as expected. Some examples: [4][5][6][7][8]. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:17, March 20, 2025 (EDT), edited 17:00, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock "[...] and when Rosalina is about as much of a princess as Daisy."
I don't think that's true. Daisy has been called the princess of Sarasaland as late as Super Mario Bros. Wonder. Rosalina, on the other hand, I cannot recall her ever being referred to as a princess of anything. Or royalty at all, for that matter. People presumed she was "Princess Rosalina" or "Princess Rosetta" in the early years before Mario Galaxy released purely because she has that "Princess Peach"-esque look, but canonically, she's been referred to as the protector of the cosmos, the keeper of the Comet Observatory, and the mother of the Lumas; none of which are titles of royalty. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:40, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

I agree, but the proposal is specifically about whether the characters' articles should be called "Princess Peach/Daisy/Rosalina", not whether they are canonically princesses. Let's stay on-topic. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:53, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Merge the "did not reach consensus" and "tied" proposal outcomes on the archives

This came up in the comments at the tail end of my poll proposal archive proposal. A grand total of four proposals have "tied" and are therefore represented by brown. Notably, nobody decided this proposal would be brown even though, by any reasonable definition of "tie", it is one. I take this as a sign that this distinction isn't really... suiting the reality of the proposal page. After all, what makes a tie so different that it needs its own color, when it's just a particular arrangement that a failure of consensus can land on?

By the way, one color has to win out in the merge, and my view is: it will be brown. This is going to sound hugely pedantic, but I don't think white is good for a proposal archive color, at least not one with this meaning. Outside of the new dark mode, it looks like it doesn't have a background. That makes it look like some state inherently separate from the others, or like some kind of blank state with no meaning, or like it's related to what gray means. This isn't any of those; it's a pretty normal fate for a proposal to meet. Brown is more in line with the look of the others, and it looking close to "no quorum" better conveys its similar meaning. (Arguably you could merge in "no quorum", too. I'm not here to make that argument but if I was, we should obviously use orange.) Therefore, I say we're merging them to brown.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) makes perfect sense
  4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; as it stands, both "ties" and "failed to reach consensus" are in this weird spot where it's unclear which of the two you're meant to even use outside of, y'know, if the vote count literally ties, which isn't a particularly helpful distinction as far as the archive is concerned.
  6. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

there's something to be said about the fact that the proposals are color-coded in the first place (which is VERY inaccessible to colorblind folks, people using screenreaders, and people who do not remember each color-outcome connection by heart), but that's for another proposal. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:09, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed, having some kind of symbology or just writing out the outcome in the proposal listing alongside the current color schemes would be a big improvement. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 10:12, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
There's a reason we've thus far yet to even think about touching proposal colors for darkmode; among other reasons, like "who has ever used wikitable wario?", we're kinda hoping a more sophisticated thing comes along for the colorblind on the off-chance we can actually incorporate that thing somehow. Symbols in particular sounds very nice. also the idea of having to darkmode white and gray is a Nightmare Scenario so here's hoping this can rectify that one! Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 10:54, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
Wasn't a feature recently added where you can scroll over the result and it states what it means? Or does this not work on screenreaders? Technetium (talk) 10:58, March 20, 2025 (EDT)
that feels like more of a bandaid fix. i think a better solution would rework how Template:Proposal archive looks to present the data in a cleaner way. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 12:49, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title

To be as clear as possible, this proposal will not affect any article titles. It is specifically about article content. With that out of the way...

So this classic proposal passed to ban any citations of the English version of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Then this later proposal passed to allow the book to be cited, but only for subjects with no other official English names. I think this makes sense and doesn't need changing as far as article titles go, but the problem is that it creates an awkward inconsistency where only articles whose titles come from the book are allowed to acknowledge it. For example, Pipe Fist can use the encyclopedia as a citation for the name, but Winged Strollin' Stu can't even mention the existence of the "Soarin' Stu" name.

There are a few reasons why I think it would make sense for wiki articles to be allowed to mention weird names from the encyclopedia:

  • It's official information, so it makes sense to document it if we want to be informative and comprehensive. An all-or-nothing system where the names have to be either the title of the article or not mentioned at all feels unintuitive.
  • There seem to be some cases where this is already done. For example, the Yellow ledge article mentions Encyclopedia's "Ladyfinger Lift" name, with a citation and everything, despite it not being the title.
  • The information is also already covered on the wiki on the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself, which has a nice list detailing all the stuff the book got wrong or took from the wiki. If we're covering it anyway, I don't see why we shouldn't also put this relevant information on the pages about each individual subject.
  • The wiki normally is allowed to mention official names even if it thinks they're wrong. For example, the Cleft page makes it clear that the "Moon Cleft" name from Super Paper Mario is a translation mistake, but it still mentions it anyway. And there are other cases similar to Encyclopedia where we do this kind of thing: the Polterpiranha page isn't called "Ghost", yet it still explains that "Ghost" is the name used for them in Smash games. The Nipper Dandelion page even explains the situation of how its name was a fan name before it was an official name.
  • Although the aforementioned proposal that allowed the Encyclopedia to be cited was intended to have it as a special case with the absolute lowest priority on the naming policy's list of sources, that has since been overridden by another proposal that introduced website filenames as an even lower-priority naming source, and the naming policy explicitly encourages mentioning those weird alternate names. So if we're allowed to mention names that are less trustworthy than Encyclopedia's, why shouldn't we mention Encyclopedia's names too?

If this proposal passes, articles will be allowed to mention alternate names from the Encyclopedia even if they are not being used as the title. For example, Comet Luma's article could start with something like:

Comet Luma, referred to as Lumacomète in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or, if we want to make it more clear that we think the name is wrong, maybe even:

Comet Luma, erroneously referred to by its French name Lumacomète in the English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia,[1] is a unique Luma found in ...

Or maybe we could exclude the name from the intro and mention it later in the article, perhaps in a "Naming" section, similar to what Nipper Dandelion and Yellow ledge are already doing. Perhaps that could even give us more room to explain where the name came from like the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia article does.

Naming

Comet Luma is one of the few characters in Super Mario Galaxy to not have a published official name for English releases of the game, nor in any official paratext for Super Mario Galaxy like the instruction booklet or Prima Games guidebook. In dialogue, Rosalina refers to it as "the Luma who knows about such things [about Prankster Comets]" and Polari does not mention its name in the English localization. The English translation of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia erroneously refers to it by its French name "Lumacomète",[1] which was used as the title of its article on the Super Mario Wiki fan website from 2012 to 2018 (being briefly changed in 2014 and 2015).

Or we could cut out that last bit mentioning the wiki by name. The point of this proposal is less to decide exactly how we integrate these into articles and more just to clarify that we are allowed to.

Again, to be incredibly clear, this proposal is not about changing any article titles. The current naming policy will not be changed at all by this proposal. This is merely about allowing articles to mention alternate names that aren't being used as the title. If this proposal fails, I suppose Yellow ledge and any other articles mentioning the Encyclopedia names will have them removed (though I'd imagine the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia page itself would still be able to keep its list of errors).

Proposer: Hewer (talk)
Deadline: April 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (allow English Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)

  1. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, referred to as "Per all" in the Super Mario Wiki Encyclopedia, is a common vote reasoning found in proposals.
  2. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) This sounds very reasonable! I especially like the clarification regarding the names from the encyclopedia not being fully correct.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) this is exactly the kind of stuff i envisioned for the Naming sections! very good idea, per proposal

Oppose (ban English Encyclopedia names from being mentioned on articles where they aren't the title)

Comments Encyclopedia

(Is the tier below Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia even presently used for any article title?) The {{encyclopedia}} template was modeled after {{conjecture}} and {{another language}}, and in the latter case, the information is normally relegated to the "Names in other languages" section. I think that the revamped "Naming" section would be a good place to put Encyclopedia names if this passes. There are too many instances, like with several Super Mario Galaxy instances, where the Encyclopedia name is outright confused with something else, and putting those details in the introductory paragraph could cause even more confusion. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:10, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, that sounds fair enough. And I don't think any articles currently use titles from website filenames, it was just added to the naming policy as a failsafe in the off chance we ever get a subject not named by any other sources. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:41, March 20, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4793024"