MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
==New features==
 
''None at the moment.''
<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
#*Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
#*Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
#*Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#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 a Sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals can not be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
#If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
 
The times are in EDT (UTC -4:00), and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
 
__TOC__
 
<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
 
==New Features==
 
===Make bestiaries or not?===
 
Ok so users have been arguing on if there should be a bestiary for enemies or not(like a collection of all the enemies from a game in one article). Really, why do we need a bestiary? I'm not the best at explaining, but my reasons on why there shouldn't be a bestiary are below.
 
#First of all, bestiaries are worthless because you're just deleting a list of enemies from a main article , and then putting that content into a new sub-article and adding stuff, like where the enemies appear. But why don't we just keep all that in the main article and not have a whole article on enemies and where they appear? In fact, writing about where enemies appear in main articles or bestiaries, as you can just click on the link to that enemies page and read about where they come from there!
#Some users made a huge table for the BiS enemies. I can tell that it took them a lot of work, and if the BiS enemies are put in a bestiary, than those tables have to be deleted! And there's no point of erasing great work!
#Bestiaries can make some stubs. How? Some games such as Mario is Missing, Yoshi's Cookie, Super Mario Bros., and Mario Bros. have very few enemies. Making their list in a bestiary will make a short list, resulting in an unwanted stub.
#Why do we need bestiaries when '''we have categories about enemies'''? You can just go to category:Paper Mario enemies or category: Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story enemies, then click on the link to their article, and read about where they appear.
#Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries! We may not be Wikipedia, but it is a much more experienced wiki. The users they probably know better than to put in bestiaries.
 
HOWEVER, games in the [[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario series]] and [[Super Mario RPG]] SHOULD have bestiaries because their games have psychopath thoughts/tattles and bestiaries. But yeah, no need for bestiaries on those other games. Happy voting!
 
'''Proposer:''' {{User|Fawfulfury65}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 5, December 2009, 15:00
 
====Make Bestiaries for all articles====
 
====Bestiaries should be developed for RPG game articles only; unnecessary for other genres====
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Per above.
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - Keep it!!! Bestiaries are for Paper Mario and MRPG stuff, since it actually tells about the enemies in the game. The Mario & Luigi series is RPG series and hav enemies too, but don't describe them in the game. Easy choice.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - I'd have to go with you guys on this one. I know how hard you all worked to finish the whole thing. Per FF65.
#{{User|Dry Paratroopa}} - Per BMB.
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per my comments below.
#{{user|Coincollector}} - Per all. Another thing really unnecessary. Most of bestiaries are small, poor and so-simple lists that can be created within main articles without any complication. Why making those simple things harder?
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per all,we don't need this,they make the pages of their respective games shorter and make the pages of the "bestiaries" a stub,Really not necessary!.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} Well, considering the fact that I think the gallery is stupid, at least I don't have to go to another article just to read info on the enemies.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - No, it's all right in the game article. However, in RPG games we may put them in alphabetical order.
#{{User|Frostyfireyoshi}} - Per all. Only the Paper Mario series actually requires bestiaries.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Bestiaries are, for the purposes of this wiki, a list of enemies found in a particular game, as well as their vital statistics, locations, and a description if the game provides one. Due to the nature of bestiaries, they can be quite long and thorough, so must be split from the main article. Bestiaries, however, are not always necessary, and in fact are only really helpful for RPG games. There are currently four Mario RPG games: [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], [[Paper Mario]], [[Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door]], and [[Super Paper Mario]]. A bestiary for each would prove legitimate and useful. I oppose this proposal because it seeks to make bestiaries unnecessary for ''all'' game articles, RPG or otherwise. I agree bestiaries are not necessary for the regular platformer and puzzle Mario games, but banning them entirely from the RPG games is simply too far.
#{{User|Rouge2}} I think the enemies of a certain evolution like Goomba and Gu Goomba, should be merged.
 
====Comments====
Is this proposal supposed to delete all bestiary articles or only those pertaining the M&L series? Lists of enemies should belong on the game's article (Paper Mario games shouldn't get any special treatment). I'd support preventing all bestiary articles.--{{User|Knife}}
 
Uhm... Does this Proposal actually intent to change anything? If so, then the header of the second paragraph is misnamed. If not, then what's the point? - {{User|Edofenrir}} 20:12, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
:I think it's only gonna change the newly added bestiaries of M&L series. I've gotta disagree with you Knife, though. Mario and Luigi series have no bestiary, while the Paper Mario series have bestiaires (Tattles, Catch Cards, and whatever the heck they are).{{User|Gamefreak75}}
::No this counts for all articles on games. Not the Mario and Luigi series. So if the most users think that there shouldn't be a bestiary, than we will only have any, unless it is really needed(like for PM games). But if the most users want there to be bestiaries, than we'll put bestiaries for all games. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
:::I'm not really too fond of bestiaries for the M&L series, but if this proposal passes, do we have to create bestiaries for SMS and NSMBW and other games?{{User|Gamefreak75}}
 
Yes but I honestly doubt we'll have to make any bestiaries. A lot of uses didn't like the idea of bestiaries, but I made this proposal to solve an argument. I hate when people fight on the internet. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
:Yeah, but I think the bestiaires for PM games should stay.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
::Yes, because PM has tattle info and stuff needed for bestiaries. Just for the PM series. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
 
:::Perfect! I shall vote now.{{User|Gamefreak75}}
 
Uhm... I just want to inform you, that, should the Proposal pass in favour of the site who is leading atm, absolutely nothing will happen, because the header says "Keep as is". - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
::FF65, when you mentioned the BiS table stuff, I think that one user made it, while another user fixed a grammar problem (not trying to be selfish, just stating that fact) :) - {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
 
So do have to change something because the header says "keep as is"? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:Wait, I have a question, does that mean that the PM bestiary will cease to exist if this is heading in the direction the atm side is on? {{User|Baby Mario Bloops}}
::The Proposal should probably be rewritten. It seems to cause much confusion.  - {{User|Edofenrir}}
:::Ok ok I fixed it a bit! Does it make more sense? {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::Well, it's more straight forward now, so I guess yes. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
 
There seems to be some confusion as to what a bestiary is. A bestiary is a complete list of all enemies found in a particular game, as well as the places they are located. It has absolutely nothing to do with tattle information, and in no way ends up as a stub. Really, Fawful is misleading you all as he apparently hasn't even read the current [[Paper Mario (Bestiary)|bestiary]] for the Paper Mario page. The intent of bestiaries are to avoid crowding main articles and expand on information that would otherwise be a list. Please, look at all the information before casting your votes. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:23, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:Ok forget about the stub parts. Yes, I read the bestiary for PM, a list that can be added to the main PM article but isn't. And if bestiaries don't include tattle info, than that just makes bastiaries more worthless. And putting all that in the main article won't clutter up anything, in fact, if you really want to know where certain enemies appear, than just check out their article, that simple! We don't need bestiaries, Wikipedia doesn't even have bestiaries on games! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::We're not Wikipedia. If we were, we wouldn't even be covering half the article as it is. And bestiaries aren't worthless... The entire point of them is to clean-up the main article, because no one wants to read a list of enemies found in that game. It takes up space for more important information. Splitting that list off into its own page, as well as expanding it to include location information, both cleans up the main article and keeps information presented in a more specialized location. Really, the only reason ''against'' this is because it's a little more work. The only reason you brought it up is because you don't like the things needed to be done to make the Mario & Luigi page worth Featuring. Laziness does not excuse professional standards. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:46, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::If you want to continue this discussion, then do it without accusations! Everyone, maintain a mature standard of debating please! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::::I would like to, but I don't approve of someone going behind my back and lying about what something constitutes just so they can avoid doing it. This entire proposal is based on personal misconception, which implies Fawful didn't even ''look'' at the bestiary page as an example. I just hope we can both resolve it and get people looking at the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 23:06, 29 November 2009 (EST)
 
CoinCollector: Bestiaries are '''not''' meant to be simple lists. They are a more thorough amount of information detailing locations in-game found, stats, and in-game tattle or player's guide information. These are things that should be there anyways, but if they were would take up too much room and so are moved. Several articles already do this and it's ''supposed'' to be done for all of them, but hasn't already. The only reason this is up for proposal is because Fawful and MATEO don't want to do the necessary work to make their articles worthy of Featuring, so are attempting to side-step it by creating a proposal to undermine current standard. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 02:20, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 
:Making a bestiary in that way is similar to create an article for each enemy found in the game. Adding too info for enemies in the game's article makes the enemies' articles themselves redundant and useless, even making an attachment on that issue. In other words, you would like to "merge" (or "copy" or whatever) the info seen from multiple articles into one... {{user|Coincollector}}
::It's not similar to that at all. Enemies stats differ from game to game, so in actuality this ''splits'' that information from the main articles to the related game articles, thus saving space. There is no merging at all. The main articles, such as a Goombas, for example, shouldn't be swamped with technical information from each game. It should only cover the history of that enemy throughout the games. Stats and such is better suited for the bestiary related to each game. An example of what a basic bestiary is would be the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]], which simply lists each enemy and the location they're found at. A more extensive bestiary is the one for [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Tattle Log)]]. This information is individual from game-to-game, specifically the RPGs, so the RPGs are the only games affected to such a degree. Other games, such as Super Mario Sunshine, only need to be filled out in the basic way. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:10, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 
:That info fits without problems in the main article, so, why move it? in fact, I see there is no official descriptions (eg: in-game info) or something like that as to fill the "missing space" for those lists, just technical information (HP, Attack, Defense, etc) and that's fairly short. Changing over the info for the character articles will look them more formal but less dynamic - and maybe is by the fact that looks like we abused the purpose of the information tables, but that's other tale. The tattle log of  Paper Mario looks like for me a walk-trough than real information... Well, that's just my opinion. {{User|Coincollector}}
::It should be moved because it's ''supposed'' to have all that essential information filled out, but if it did it would take up too much space. That's why bestiary pages are warranted. The problem is that the [[Goomba]] page, for example, used the correct table for an enemy while the [[Amazy Dayzee]] page does not. It uses the box associated with the RPG game. These main character pages shouldn't have all that technical information and should focus on the history, appearances, etc. The technical information should be moved to the corresponding game bestiaries, where they provide better focus and clean up the various related articles. Also, the Paper Mario bestiary looks that way because it's unfinished... It's supposed to look like the TTYD one. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 03:53, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::Hey, I made this proposal to solve arguments you know! And stop it, Redstar, here, you're calling me and MATEO lazy, you called me a liar(which I am absolutely not!), and you're telling everyone that I'm misleading them! And now you're arguing with a sysop! Just wait until Dec. 5th when more users decide. Until then, I'm done with this, I'm going to fix up my proposal's description and wait for other users to vote on which they want. I hate arguing! {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::It's called discussing, not arguing. I have perfectly valid reasons for believing you both lied and are lazy. For laziness, I discussed many points on why I felt the Mario & Luigi page wasn't yet ready for Feature-status, including splitting off the enemy list into a bestiary. Rather than give reasons not to do it, or simply split it (which was all I asked, was to split it and we could work on expanding it later) you came here and formed a proposal that, if passed, results in you ''not having to do it''. How is avoiding work or discussion not lazy? As for lying, your initial proposal stated that forming a bestiary would delete work already done and create nothing but a stub. Both are untrue because moving all this work to a new page as-is does not delete it, and if it would become a stub, then that's because it's ''already'' a stub. Splitting it doesn't change a single thing. It can't become something unless it already is that thing. You may not have lied, but you obfuscated the facts. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:02, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::::I made this proposal to stop the endless chat going around on those nomination pages. That's not lazy at all. My reasons on why we shouldn't make bestiaries are stated above. Therefore, we will wait for others user to make up their mind. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::::::That was ''not'' chatting, that was discussion on issues relating to the article that you could have easily argued there. Instead, you formed this proposal. If you didn't like the proposed work to make the article fit for Feature-status, then you should have provided legitimate reasons against it. Instead I find this proposal a means of sidestepping professional discussion for a chance to not do the work. I don't want to argue over this, but I would like you to admit to what is obvious. Wikis take compromise and collaboration, not finding ways to get around work or discussion. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 
Fawfulfury65 recently re-wrote his proposal to better explain reasons against forming bestiaries. I will now write a rebuttal to each point explaining why bestiaries are both a good idea, and why his reasons are misinformed. Here we go:
 
#Fawful asks why we can't just have the information on the main page. Well, truthfully, we can, but the reason why we ''shouldn't'' is because there are simply so many enemies that by naming them all, it becomes nothing more than a list. Even if they are fitted into tables, that list becomes much larger and, while more "pretty", takes up space. Splitting it to a new sub-article saves space on the main article as well as allows the information to be presented to its fullest where it won't distract from the main information. He also suggests simply clicking the enemy links to read on their main articles where they're located... Well, the problem with that is that enemies appear in more than one game. Any information on how and where they appear in ''this'' game simply won't be provided. The bestiary would provide actual locations in the game where they are found, giving far more information than can be found otherwise.
#Fawful's second point is that the current list of enemies are presented in a table, which took "hard work". I can personally vouch that the tables are very badly-written and lack in-depth information. I cannot see much of any work having been put into them at all. Regardless, these tables won't be deleted on splitting. There's no reason to, so there's nothing to fear.
#He suggests that bestiaries would create stubs for games that don't have a large amount of enemies. This is false thinking because bestiaries are only necessary for the RPG games, which both have a large number of enemies as well as a plethora of statistics for those enemies. No game articles besides the RPG ones are affected by this, because only the RPG articles need it.
#We need bestiaries because they provide quick and easy information for enemies found in a game. Categories are not a legitimate substitute because people don't often look up categories, and categories only list articles. Categories provide just as much information as using the search-function does, which simply does not work.
#Finally, Fawful points out that Wikipedia doesn't use bestiaries, so why should we? Well, Wikipedia also doesn't create articles about specific enemies, so I think that explains why Wikipedia does not apply here.
 
I hope all those points explain why I feel bestiaries are both necessary and logical. Perhaps a few people will change their votes, but if not, I hope you all feel you have the correct facts and are making an informed decision. Thank you.
:Just to point out, my proposal goes for all games. Also, be aware that I am a she, not a he. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
::Sorry. I don't know how I would have known, but sorry for the presumption. To respond to the clarification of your proposal, bestiaries are currently only meant to be for RPG articles, and since your proposal is to not have bestiaries, than technically your proposal wouldn't extend past RPG games anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 09:40, 30 November 2009 (EST)
:::MATEO: Did you even read any of my points or look at any of the bestiaries there already are? They're nowhere near being a stub! [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:23, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 
:::BabyLuigiOnFire: What Gallery do you mean? And the [[Paper Mario/Bestiary]] isn't exactly something that can fit on its main page. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:45, 30 November 2009 (EST)
 
:::: I think she(BL on fire) meant the separate page of images (such as artwork and screenshot) found in articles like [[Wario]] or [[Luigi]] because I'm not too fond of it either. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
 
I changed my vote because I realized this proposal changes nothing already done, and actually agrees with my initial position. It was just so badly presented I had no idea what Fawful was trying to get at, but in the end I realized we can both benefit from this proposal. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:55, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
Half of you need to re-vote, seeing as how this proposal is now changed to remove Paper Mario bestiaries.--{{User|Knife}} 14:20, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
I was actually thinking we could change the PM bestiary to Paper Mario/Tattle Information because most of it is tattle info. Then all the hard work going into the sub article wouldn't get deleted if the most users decide to get rid of all bestiaries. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
:It's actually a bestiary that contains Tattle information. Super Mario RPG doesn't have Tattle information, but it does have Psychopath thoughts. There's a clear different, so bestiary is a broad term that works for all four games. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 15:59, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
@Redstar: You can't make a new option without defining it. What exactly are you opposing? Instead, make the header something specific like "Allow RPG bestiaries only". Also, since the proposal has been changed, those votes without valid reasons will be removed. {{User|Knife}}
:Okay, I'm tired. Are you telling me I need to oppose something more specific? I'll re-work my oppose just in case. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:40, 1 December 2009 (EST)
 
No, you misunderstood me. I meant change the title of your section from "oppose" to an option more specific.{{User|Knife}}
 
Ok I agree that it should only be for Paper Mario games and SMRPG, but no other games, so my proposal wa, once again, edited. Hopefully, now I won't have to edit it anymore. So everyone can change their vote or whatever. {{User|Fawfulfury65}}


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


==Splits & Merges==
==Changes==
===Merge RPG Boss Aspects With Main Boss Articles===
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
This proposal is for support of moving a particular type of boss minion (as explained below) in the RPG games to their related main boss article. This is because these particular minions are ''only'' encountered in battle alongside bosses, because their Tattle information suggests they are either a part of or actually are the boss, because the main boss article is lacking complete information, and finally, because the splitting of these minions has largely resulted in stubs.
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].
 
The following are a list of which minions are proposed to be merged, to whom, and why.
 
#The four Elemental Crystals in [[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]], being [[Fire Crystal]], [[Water Crystal]], [[Earth Crystal]], and [[Wind Crystal]]. All but the Wind Crystal are stubs, composed of mostly only a single sentence and an enemy template. These enemies are only ever fought alongside [[Culex]], whose article already covers most of the information these stubs have. I propose merging these articles as sections of the main Culex page and creating redirects.
#The [[Bowser???]] article to the main [[Koopa Bros.]] article as a sub-section. This enemy is not another boss, but a different round of the Koopa Bros. battle. In fact, the Bowser??? is occupied and controlled by the Koopa Bros., making it more a weapon than an actual character/enemy. It should be noted that the Koopa Bros. article contains information on all four Ninjakoopas, rather than each of them having their own page. Merging would make this article more comprehensive.
# The [[Tubba Blubba's Heart]] article to the main [[Tubba Blubba]] article as a section. Though sentient, Tubba Blubba's heart is essentially the same character as Tubba Blubba and acts as the first round to that boss fight. Dividing them gives the impression that both are bosses, despite the fact they're the ''same'' boss, as well as treats them as different characters. The heart is more like a different personality than a character. Merging with the main Tubba Blubba page completes the article and joins together the fragmented description of the two-part boss battle.
#The [[Petit Piranha]] and [[Lava Bud]] articles with the main [[Lava Piranha]] boss article. They are only ever encountered during the boss fight with the Lava Piranha. In fact, Lava Bud's Tattle description says "Lava Buds are little flower branching out from the main stem of the Lava Piranha.". This clearly points out they're only different "heads" of the same enemy. Petit Buds are spewed from Lava Buds, making them also part of the Lava Piranha. All are really the same enemy, so they should be merged to provide comprehensive information on the singular character.
#The [[Tuff Puff]] article into the main boss [[Huff N. Puff]] article. Tuff Puffs are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Huff N. Puff, and their Tattle information even says "These are the Tuff Puffs that break off when you damage Huff N. Puff." This clearly makes them the same enemy, just different "heads". Merge as a section.
#And, finally, the [[Crystal Bit]] article into the main boss [[Crystal King]] article. Just like all the previous examples, Crystal Bits are only ever encountered in battle with the boss Crystal King. Also, like some of the previous examples, their Tattle description says " This is a Crystal Bit. '''Basically, Crystal Bits are just pieces of the Crystal King.''' You can drop 'em with ease. Their Max HP is 1 and they're only dangerous when the Crystal King spews 'em out. Their defense power is 0. These guys are pretty weak. They'll keep coming, though, until you've finally beaten the Crystal King." This clearly says they are the same enemy, just different "pieces".


In summation, here is a quick and easy list of what this proposal will accomplish:
'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
#Remove stubs by merging them with their main articles
#Create more complete articles by piecing together all the information in one place
#Remove unnecessary division of information
 
And reasons why:
 
#The information is divided. Putting it all in one place creates more complete articles as well as removes stubs
#Many of these divisions are enemies that are either different rounds of a boss, or just their weapon. Still others are just pieces of the boss, so aren't really a different enemy
 
If anyone has any questions or comments, feel free to use the Comments section below. Hopefully I provided enough information to make a decision. If you agree with this proposal in general, but you don't agree with some of the merges or are wary of the reason ''why'', feel free to comment about it and we can discuss it. This is a big proposal and I don't want anyone Opposing if they don't agree with just one aspect.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Redstar|Redstar]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' December 8, 2009, 17:00


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Redstar}} - Per proposal
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} First off, we'll just put their tattles in the same article. Not really any harm in that. Since those enemies are controlled of part of that enemy, they should be in the same article. So per Redstar's proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Baby Mario Bloops}} - First of all for all the opposers, they are battled at the same time, asist in the battles, and has too much information linking to the bosses. Also, do we want stubs, or articles? This is too little information for both the bosses and minions to be articles beyond stubs.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - This would combine all kinds of useful information into one place - making it easier to access.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}}- Per all, we '''need''' this!
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} These are stub-like articles that are just simply part of the bosses. I think it's ridiculous that projectiles or other stuff like that used by bosses have their very own article.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|Knife}} - Changed vote. I recently stumbled on [[Straw]], which technically is part of a boss. If this proposal fails, we would have to keep that article. We'd also have to split [[Exor]] for consistency (which is literally composed of body parts). Just because an enemy can be targeted and has a tattle, doesn't mean it needs an article.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Vellidragon}} - Per Knife, mainly. Having individual articles for different parts of the same boss/enemy seems unnecessary; it's like devoting an individual article to [[Corkpedite]]'s body (or the Goomnut tree in the [[King Goomba]] battle for that matter, since it can be targeted). I see no reason not to merge them, all it would do is make getting information on the respective boss fights easier since it's all in one place.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
# [[User:Lu-igi board|Lu-igi board]] at the very least merge the crystals with Culux


====Oppose====
====Oppose====
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Different tattles, different battles, different enemy, different article
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Vini64}} Per Tucayo.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Tucayo.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Edofenrir}} - The enemies you have listed there are minions of a greater boss. They are affiliated with him, they take out his orders without complaints, they even may go as far as to sacrifice themselves for him, but ther are not '''identical''' with him. We cannot just say that they are the same when there is no solid proof. On the other hand, there is evidence that they are separate beings by the different tattles! Under this circumstances, merging these articles would not be recommendable. This is why I disagree! So per me, and per Tucayo!
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|FunkyK38}} - Per Tucky and Edo. They shouldn't be merged, and with all these merges, where are we going to draw a line for what needs to be merged and what doesn't?
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}} Per Tucayo and Edofenrir.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per Tucayo and Edo.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|King Bean}} - Per Edo.
 
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
====Comments====
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)


===Make a standard for citing different pages/sections of the same source across an article, codify it at [[MarioWiki:Citations]]===
The formatting of citations has been a recurring, if sometimes contentious, topic of discussion around here. What I describe in the proposal's heading is something that happens more often than you'd expect, so it wouldn't hurt to reach a consensus over this practice.


====Comments====
If you're required to cite a source multiple times across an article, the Citations policy already explains a way to link to one instance of that citation multiple times, without the need to copy and paste the entire thing each time. However, this is not practical when you need to cite distinct parts of one source to support different claims across an article. For example, you may need to cite different pages from an issue of Nintendo Power on one article. The same issue may arise even when citing different quotes from a singular page of that publication.
@Tucayo: Lava Piranha before and after becoming covered in fire gets a different Tattle description... Does this make the two different enemies? No, it doesn't, and many other enemies are of the same circumstances. Many of these proposed merges have Tattles that specifically say they are a part of, or the ''same'' being as the enemy. The different body parts of [[Exor]] aren't divided among different articles, even though they each have different stat-spreads and tattles (Psychopath Thoughts). Likewise, all of these "minions" or extensions of the main boss are fought in the ''same'' battle, not different ones. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:51, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:Thanks for noticing, we should split Exor. {{user|Tucayo}}
::Uhh, yeah. I don't think anyone's going to support splitting a character just because they have different points of attack. But if this proposal fails, I suppose it would extend to Exor. I suppose next you'll want to make individual pages for the Koopa Bros.. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 16:57, 1 December 2009 (EST)
:::Of course we wouldnt split Exor, that was sarcasm. Its a single enemy. {{user|Tucayo}}


Quote Edofenrir: "And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal." Well, yes. I go to [[Lord Crump]]'s page and see a section very vague. If I want the whole story, I have to go to the [[Magnus Van Grapple]] page. Why do I need to jump around to get all the information? Magnus Van Grapple is ''not'' a character, and is ''not'' a boss... Lord Crump piloting it is, so the experience should be told from his perspective, not from an inanimate object. This proposal changes little. All it does is move all the information to one place where it is the most productive. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:18, 1 December 2009 (EST)
I consulted a few American style guides over the topic, and found their recommendations quite practical. [[User talk:Mario#Special:Diff/4429551|These were my observations:]]
<blockquote>I looked up some time ago how official American style guides do it and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20221203145608/https://www.studyhood.com/english/mla_style.htm this] <small>(studyhood.com, section "ORDER OF ELEMENTS FOR A BOOK REFERENCE" (2nd))</small> for MLA and [https://libguides.up.edu/chicago/short_form this] <small>(libguides.up.edu)</small> for Chicago Manual of Style. To synthetize what both these guides recommend: the first time a source is cited, list the rigmarole that you normally would (author last name, author first name, publication date, title, publisher etc.); if the document then requires that you cite a different page from the same source, use a shortened form that contains the bare necessities.<br>The two style guides may prioritize different such "bare necessities" for shortform citations. MLA dictates that you should use the author's last name and the relevant page if you source only one work by that author, and additionally list a shortened form of the work's title if you cite multiple works by that author on the same document. Chicago, on the other hand, dictates that you always use the author's last name, title of work (again, a short form!), and page name even if you only cite one work by that author.</blockquote>


Just to be absolutely clear, are you proposing that the 8 cases listed above should be merged, or that those and all similar cases should be merged? {{user|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
In my opinion, the ideal approach on this wiki would be to blend these two guidelines as such: '''fully elaborate on the source the first time it is cited, as is typically done. For subsequent references to that source, list a condensed version with only the bare minimum (title, page/section) to set them apart from other sources in the article, including the specific page or section cited. If the source shares a title with another work, consider adding a distinguishing detail in its condensed version, such as the author's last name or date of publication, at your discretion.''' The best justification for this practice is that it helps cut down on redundant information: the reader doesn't need to digest the particulars of a source, such as its authors, ISBN, website, language etc, more than once on a given page. You can view early applications of this standard at [[Stretch_Shroom#References|Stretch Shroom]] and [[Big Penguin#References|Big Penguin]]. The template {{tem|cite}} can be used in this case as with any other citation.


BMB: Yea, we dont want stubs, we want artciles, so lets ''expand'' those, merging is not a good solution. {{user|Tucayo}}
I noticed that some users prefer to '''instead fully list the details of that source each time it is referenced'''. This may be beneficial to better identify a source when it isn't referenced in close succession, but in disparate areas of an article. For this reason, the supporting option is divided between these two approaches. The winning option becomes the standard and is included in the wiki's policy for citations.
::I'm only proposing this for these 8 specific cases. There may be similar situations, but those won't immediately be affected. They should at least be discussed on their respective pages, though, if someone deems a similar merge necessary.


@FunkyK38: The line will be drawn quite cleanly. Merges will not occur all over, rendering this Wiki a copy of Wikipedia. There will still be articles dealing with a singular topic, hotlinked from main articles. The only reason these are brought up is because they are all aspects of the same enemy, just different "attack points", so to speak. Dividing them is unnecessary and only serves in spreading information which should be read in one place. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:58, 1 December 2009 (EST)
Edit (18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)): Added another option to '''integrate Wikipedia's "{{wp|Template:Reference page|reference page}}" system''', per {{user|Nintendo101}}'s suggestion in the comments section. In short, you call a source multiple times in the article using the "name" parameter (optionally listing all the pages you wish to cite throughout the article within the citation), and append the page number or section to a desired reference link to that source in superscript. To exemplify with a fictional source:
*one instance<ref name=SMB-guide>Smith, John (1985). ''Super Mario Bros. Official Guide''. ''McPublisher Publishing'' ISBN 0000-0000-0000. Pages 18, 20.</ref><sup>:18</sup>
*another instance<ref name=SMB-guide/><sup>:20</sup>


After reading over my list of suggested merges, I've decided that Chompy to Tutankoopa and Shy Squad to General Guy could easily be cut. They, to a degree, are individual enemies so are more on-the-fence compared to the other examples. Would anyone change their vote in favor of this proposal if these two were removed? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 22:06, 1 December 2009 (EST)
<references/>


Wait a sec, I'm not understanding. The Proposals page never had a ''removal of votes'' section. Why this proposal have? {{User|Vini64}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Alright, now you are fighting dirty. The rule you are refering to applies only in case of bad-faith or reasons that are so blatant that the wiki cannot support them. This rule is '''in no way''' a green card for expelling other people's opinions of their value. Tucayo's vote is valid, and mine was too! Stop this attempts to rig the Proposal! - {{User|Edofenrir}}
====Option 1: Fully list the details of a source upon its first reference, condense its subsequent references to mostly its title and relevant page/section====
:The section is not simply for bad-faith votes; it is also for votes with no given reason and I'm afraid your vote falls under that category. Your vote was: And next we merge Magnus Van Grapple with Lord Crump? It's the same guy, just surrounded by a load of metal. I disagree. per Tucayo. Where is the reason in that? If you want Magnus Van Grapple merged with Lord Crump or not then say so but do not put it as a vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
::I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote. Nintendo is horrendously vague about so many things ([[Bowser]] vs. [[Dry Bowser]], anyone?), so believing that a sentient heart (or whatever) is a character unto itself is a perfectly valid opinion. Tucayo belives they are separate beings - and so must the people per-ing him - and so believes they deserve separate articles; this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose this proposal. It's not misinformation, it's just one way of looking at things; you got a problem with it, take it up with him, but it's not enough to call a vote over. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Walkazo: Until further notice there is not removal of removal of support/oppose votes nominations or comments sections. If you wish to have either of these things done then propose it here or on the admin boards but don't just go ahead and do it. I disagree with the removal of Tucayo's vote but there should be no comments placed there at all. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:I'm sorry redstar, edofenrir's vote is valid as it pers tucayo's vote which is also valid so I will not be able to vote to remove it (thought the rest of the vote ''is'' invalid) {{User|Marioguy1}}
::The abuse of democratic values that were given to the users of this wiki in this Proposal is shocking. This foul display of abuse to gain personal advantages utterly disgusts me. I am disappointed. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


I believe that people should be able to vote about what they think without fear of their votes being rendered, "invalid" and getting removed. The people of this wiki should be free to vote about what they see fit, and neither Tucayo or Edofenrir's votes are invalid. {{User|Lemmy Koopa Fan}}
====Option 2: Fully list the details of a source in repeated references====
:I agree ATM but unfortunately what if I added the vote GOOD IDEA, I SUPORT LULZ!!!!!!!!!!!!? That vote would have necessary removal but, as edofenrir said, this function should be reserved for that function only - that is why I have removed my vote to remove his vote. {{User|Marioguy1}}
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Option 1 seems inconsistent — I'm not a fan of the concept of citing the same source in two different ways within the same article. It'd be jarring when they're next to each other and it'd be difficult to find the missing information when they're far apart. Option 2 has neither of these issues.


In the past, I saw votes saying "Good idea" that were not removed. Why these are being now? {{User|Vini64}}
====Option 3: integrate Wikipedia's "reference page" system====
:The rules were changed {{User|Marioguy1}}
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo101.
::There was always a rule against votes like that, but sometimes there was simply no one around to remove them. - {{User|Walkazo}}
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my suggestion below.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} makes sense!
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
#{{User|Mario}} [[File:Club Nintendo Classic SMB2 01.png|70px]]  Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.


How exactly is Tucayo's vote "not specific"? He's stating the fact that they are different enemies, so they get different articles. Just because he didn't write it in a textbook fashion (i.e. "They are different enemies with different tattles, thus they should have different articles") doesn't make the vote invalid. -- {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
====Don't make a standard====
:For everyone else, I don't understand what the big deal is. The option is there to remove votes, and three people voted. Obviously, two people agreed with me. That is very democratic, and Edo's vote was simply "I disagree". He should have provided a better reason then that, which he now has. As for my response to Stooben, Tucayo's vote is misleading and has two incorrect points. He states that these enemies are different, and fought in different battles. They are not. They are fought only in the same battle, and their tattles say they are part of or actually are the boss. So, he's lying. Saying their Tattles say they're different enemies is wrong. His vote has two wrong points to two valid ones, so the whole thing should be removed and, if he so chooses, re-added with entirely valid reasons. I don't want people to read his vote and think all those points are true when they're really not. If they're really such different enemies, then why do the Crystal Bits tattle say "They are pieces of the Crystal King", Tuff Puffs say "They break off from Huff N. Puff", and Petit Piranha's says "They are flowers that grow off the stem from the Lava Piranha"? Since when are pieces of my body not considering me? They also say that these different Tattles are indicative of different enemies... Well, then we should get to work splitting the different forms of Smithy and Exor, as well as any other boss that has multiple body parts and a different Tattle for each. Clearly, if my hand has a different description from my chest, they're not a part of me and different entities. They should be split for consistency. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 04:45, 5 December 2009 (EST)


I will not remove neither modify my vote, because I know it is perfectly valid. In the worst of the cases, I can just per Edo ;) {{user|Tucayo}}
====Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)====
:And yet, Edo's vote is ''still'' leaving much to wonder about. What exactly is this "solid evidence"? Likewise, how is your vote "perfectly valid"? You say they're different enemies, and different battles... Why and how? I've offered undeniable evidence supporting the contrary, while your vote simply states something and doesn't back it up. I felt Edo's vote and yours lack merit, and at least for Edo's I got two votes and that of an admin. How exactly is that "rigging" it? If MATEO and MG1 were socks, yes. But they're not. They're two people that agreed, and one person with authority-bound honor... You said that I was close-minded in that chat, but you're the one that has so far refused to offer any explanation for your opinion. I've explained my reasons and revised my proposal many times over, yet ''I'm'' the close-minded one? Please, all I'm asking is for a legitimate rebuttal, and not just a disagreement. You're biding your vote for MG1's Koopa proposal below, until the difference between Koopas and Koopa Troopas is defined, so why can't you define the difference between your own reasons? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:16, 5 December 2009 (EST)
On Wikipedia, as demonstrated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane#Production here], they have a system for articles where you write out a citation once, and can convey the individual page numbers in a superscript next to the spots it is invoked in the article. I have long thought that is a great system and could help reduce redundancies on Super Mario Wiki. Do you think this could be reflected in the proposal? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 17:33, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::For the record, none of the people who voted to remove Edofenrir's vote were administrators. And even if they were, it wouldn't matter, as this does not change the weight of a vote. Also, why did you think you can remove a vote that was supported by a valid reason? The rule said that a vote has to have ''no'' merit or be cast in bad faith. You've said yourself that Tucayo's vote had some merit, so it wasn't not eligible for removal under that rule. {{User|Twentytwofiftyseven}}
:I encountered this system before, but completely forgot about it for some reason. Seems like an excellent system for pages and even {{wp|Template:Reference page#How to use|other non-numeric parts of a source}} that could outshine the other candidates in the proposal. Still, what do you do, for instance, if you want to cite different quotes from the same page of a book? It's a bit of a fringe scenario, which is why I'm not stressing it in the proposal, but it's not far-fetched either. You can't rely on an in-line superscript, that would be unwieldy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:00, February 22, 2025 (EST)
:::He basically said that he doesn't want to merge the articles because they deal with different individuals. I got it, many other users got it, I'm sure everyone should be able to get it. Every information you need is up there, so use your eyes and read it! If you still say you don't get it then, then you probably don't want to get it to have a point to remove it. On a side note I recommend you to learn more about democratic values, and how abusing them leads the entire system to collapse. And please, don't type a respond to justify everything (once again). Use this energy to think about what other people told you, and what you attempted to do here. If you are not ready to do that, I have nothing more to say to you. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
::Good question. I think given the general lack of recurrence, It's okay treat them as different citations like normal. My personal preference is to cite more specific details pertaining to a source only once when the book is first cited (like ISBN number, publisher, location, authors), and then omit some of those details the second time (only mention the title and date, to convey it is the same source that was cited earlier). But I know that is tricky for longer articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 18:43, February 22, 2025 (EST)
::::@Twentytwofiftyseven: I'm fairly sure MG1 is an admin of some sort. And Tucayo's vote holds two invalid points contrasts by two valid ones, so shouldn't that make the entire vote invalid?


::::@Edofenrir: You and Tucayo say they're different individuals, but neither of you have provided a reason as to ''why'' while I have provided their Tattle descriptions which explicitly say they ''are'' the same individual... I also know as much about democratic values as I need to, and I in no way abused them. How did I? I used a system already in place, I put up a vote, and two people besides myself voted. If I was "abusing" it, then I wouldn't have received anything. You're the one abusing it through your position of sysop and basically changed the rule to negate true democracy and put the power to remove votes ''only'' in the hands of sysops. If sysops are voting, and sysops have votes that should be removed, then how is it democratic if no one can vote? It can only be "discussed" now... And after the discussion, then what? Is there a private vote for only sysops? I don't understand how that is any more democratic than what we already had, but you claim was somehow "rigging". [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:39, 5 December 2009 (EST)
===Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section===
:::::Your comment just showed me that you don't care about what other people tell you. I see no point in going on, since you don't even want to reconsider. I'm not that eager to waste my time talking to someone who won't listen. Good afternoon. - {{User|Edofenrir}}
{{Early notice|March 6}}
Redstar: I am not an admin of any sort unless you mean on userpedia and could we please, as Edo said, drop this subject? The admins are coming out with an advancement on rule #4 and we just have to trust them on that; wait a couple days until the rule has come out and then propose it. {{User|Marioguy1}}
I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.
:Edo, I don't even know what you're talking about. You keep accusing me of all these things and getting heated over a simple proposal. You're the one that's being rude and not listening... I mean, just look at the edit history. You say "Eat it" as the summary for editing your vote. Is that any way for a sysop to behave? You're supposed to be professional and courteous, yet you rudely attack me and accuse me of all these things. I'm just trying to help improve the wiki in ways I believe would be good. MG1, sorry, I thought you were one. On Bulbapedia, welcome templates are automated and any of that stuff is only handled by admins. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:59, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Well, as admin it is my duty to be impartial, and that's why I didn't give you a warning for nominating my vote to be partially removed (which is btw the same as proposing to rewrite my vote, which is a ''heavy'' violation the rules). As a human being it is my right to be pissed to have my vote and the vote of a friend of mine assassinated by dubious usage of rule no. 4. I also have to ask you to quote correctly. I said "Eat this" in a joking way, when I rewrote my vote. And now, as MG1 said, this discussion should be ended. I suggest you to re-read what I said, what Walkazo said, and what Stooben Rooben said at your talk page. - {{User|Edofenrir}}


'''Redstar''': as an administrator, i '''order''' you to drop this. If you continue this you '''will''' get a warning. Thanks and have a nice day. {{user|Tucayo}}
Some subjects ([[Taily]], for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely {{iw|pikipedia|Pikmin_family#Naming|Pikipedia}}, {{iw|inkipedia|Inkling#Etymology|Inkipedia}} and {{iw|bulbapedia|Bulbasaur_(Pokémon)#Name_origin|Bulbapedia}}, and push this a step further?
:You're ordering me to drop something that happened six hours ago? >_> [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:38, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::Yes, '''I AM'''. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::Why is that even necessary? I've been here for the entirety of those six hours, so it should be obvious it was already discontinued. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:46, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::Because there is no reason i could know you were here all that time. {{user|Tucayo}}
:::::The Recent changes page says which users are currently online. I'm currently online, and have been for six hours. Six hours have passed since the last comment on this page. Quite obviously, I had no intention of responding. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 21:52, 5 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Just a little pointer for everyone before this discussion is ended for good: The user list at the recent changes sometimes acts buggy and does not always acurately display who is online at that time. It's not the best source. - {{user|Edofenrir}}
#{{User|library_girl}}


===What's a Koopa?===
This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:
I think that the pages [[Koopa]] and [[Koopa Troopa]] should be merged together because, frankly, what on earth is a Koopa? The page lists all of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas and that could be done on the page Koopa Troopa or not done at all because it is not necessary. When I think of Koopa, I think of turtle enemy-thing in Mario but this page does not describe the turtle-enemy thing, it describes its sub-species and all of those subspecies descriptions are one sentence long with {{tem|main}}! I think that Koopa=Koopa Troopa and I'm sure you will agree.
*The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
*The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call [[Blooper]] by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
*Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of [[Mario & Luigi: Brothership|''Brothership'']]'s translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
*Internal name table, if applicable
*The "names in other languages" table


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Marioguy1}}<br>
'''EDIT:''' If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like [[bubble]] or a literal name like [[Mayor Penguin]]), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally ''iron valiant''." name explanations.
'''Deadline:''' Friday December 11th, 2009 (8:00 EST)


====Merge====
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per above
'''Deadline''': March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Reversinator}} Per MG1
#{{User|4DJONG}} marioguy has made a good point also, the "koopa" article is pointless, simply pointless, because "Koopa" is just another name for Koopa Troopa.


====No Merge====
====Retool====
#{{User|King Bean}} - No. Koopa is not the same as Koopa Troopa. Koopas are species, while Koopa Troopas are sub-species.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} The [[Koopa]] article is information on other Koopas (Hammer Bros., Dry Bones, Paratroopas) and the [[Koopa Troopa]] article is about a type of Koopa, Koopa Troopa. Look over those articles again, they are about two different things.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Having a catch-all Koopa page is good, since [[Bowser]] and [[Lakitu]]s aren't anything like [[Koops]] or [[KP Koopas]], but there should still be a separate "Koopa Troopa" page for the species. Saying the "Troopa" just refers to them being soldiers is just splitting hairs - are all Hammer Bros. brothers? Unlike Bowser's unnamed species, at least the little guys have a title that has been applied to their kin and no one else - unlike "Koopa" which has many meanings - and ignoring that would be foolhardy in the face of all the other organization issues Nintendo forces upon us (like Bowser's species).
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Walkazo. It'd make more sense in this case (to me, anyway) to leave [[Koopa Troopa]] at it's current location, than move it to [[Koopa]] and move the current Koopa article to {{fakelink|Koopa (species)}}. Besides, "Koopas" has been used several times in Mario games to indicate the ''species'' of Koopa. (And what is "Koopas" but the plural form of "Koopa"?)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section <small>(we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon.")</small>, so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
#{{User|RAP}} - Per Walkazo, and Stooben Rooben. {{fakelink|Category:Koopas}} pretty much sums up how all the arguments as well.
#{{User|Fakename123}} Per proposal.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per Stooby boy and Walka girl.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
#{{user|Vini64}} Per all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
#{{User|Redstar}} - Merge unnecessary. Simply re-write the [[Koopa]] article to more clearly describe the Koopa ''group'', rather than identifying them (incorrectly) as a species.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Makes sense to me!
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I like this idea.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Better organization of naming info. Can we [[Template_talk:Foreign_names#Retitle|retitle]] the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per ałł.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} Hm.


====Comments====
====Do not retool (status quo)====
I was having a discussion on a similar topic just yesterday, concerning the Hammer Bros. I think the entire thing is sort of speculative since the page amounts to more than a cherry-picked list of various turtle-like enemies, entirely excluding other candidates. If it was truly extensive, it would list a lot more. But by the same token, it'd be speculation because who knows what a "Koopa" really is? The manual says "Koopa tribe", but the term "American" covers a lot of different races and ethnicities. Whether they meant "Koopa race" or "Koopa social-group", who knows. I feel a complete overhaul of the way we classify the enemies is in order. I really don't feel Boomerang Bro., Sumo Bro., Fire Bro., etc. should be considered "sub-species" of Hammer Bro. Related (as in similar, not blood-related) enemies, yes, but the current terms really deliver inaccurate connotations. Care to make this proposal a bit more general, MG1? If so, I'd be happy to support. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 11:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:Reversinator: Aren't enemies species as well? Redstar: It's easy, Koopa and Koopa Troopa are the same thing. Koopa is like an expanded <nowiki>==Sections==</nowiki> section for Koopa Troopa. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::...I guess so... Fine, I'll change my vote. {{User|Reversinator}}
[[Super Mario World]] indeed lists Koopa Troopas simply as "Koopas" in the credits, which would suggest that only those are called "Koopas" and the enemies that aren't directly related to the Troopa are not. I don't think the Koopa article can be merged with Koopa Troopa like that however, since the majority of species listed in it are, in fact, quite clearly not Koopa Troopas. What it would need is a title change, or possibly a complete removal in favour of the [[Koopa Troop]] article.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:28, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:As I said, cut the speculatory-fat and rename it "Koopa tribe" (as you were great to bring up). I'm sure there would still be speculation involved, but far less. The name issue needs to be resolved the two articles' subjects re-defined, anyways. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:31, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::Will someone please explain to me What a Koopa is? This is why I named the proposal what I named it, because I have no idea what a koopa is. As far as I know, Koopas don't exist and are just another name used for Koopa Troopa. Whether they're listed as Koopas or Koopa Troopas in the credits, they're still the same thing and that thing can be renamed, like redstar said, ''after'' we figure out what they are. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I believe "Koopa", as suggested by the "Koopa tribe", is meant to encompass all the various turtle-races into a singular group. (Though, as far as we know, Piranha Plants could be Koopas as well under the "tribe") Koopa Troopas are just the catch-all, generic Koopa, which is why they can be called just Koopas. (Like in many sci-fi works, humans are so common that they're the "standard" in judging appearance and so on). I always just took the term Troopa, and thought it meant Koopa Troopas were "troopers"... Perhaps it's just a title? They're Koopas, unless they're a member of the Koopa ''Troop'', in which case they're "Troopas". Does that make sense? [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 12:48, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:::As far as I'm aware, "Koopa" in the Japanese games has always been no more than a name; that of [[Bowser]], to be exact. The mention of a "Koopa tribe" and names like "Koopa Troopa" are afaik exclusive to the English localisation (Koopa Troopas for instance are named Noko-Noko in Japan, Koopa Paratroopas are Pata-Pata), and I don't think it has ever been officially stated what a "Koopa" would be according to the translators. The closest information we can get is the Koopa Troopas being referred to as Koopas in SMW's ending, which as Redstar pointed out may just as well mean they are the most common members of a Koopa tribe (which would include other sub-species as well) as it may indicate that Koopa and Koopa Troopa refer to the same thing. No real clarity seems to come from official sources.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 13:04, 4 December 2009 (EST)
Vellidragon: That's what [[Koopa (disambiguation)]] and {{tem|articleabout}} are for :P<br>
Redstar: All of that goes under [[Koopa Troop]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:The Koopa Troop is the personal army of Bowser's (hence the "Troopa" part applied to Koopas that fight for him... Not that no Koopa that isn't sided with him has the Troopa part). The Koopa ''tribe'' would be a more broad grouping covering all Koopas regardless of political alignment. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 13:49, 4 December 2009 (EST)
::I agree with you on that part but we are straying off topic here, whether Koopa Tribe should be created or not is a topic for later discussion, right now we're talking about merging two articles together and I think we should get back to that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::King Bean: Can you elaborate on that? {{User|Marioguy1}}
Okay, how about this: Koopa is the species name for the generic-turtle enemies in the game, namely "Koopa Troopas". "Troopa", however, is a job title or position. Koopa Troopas are members of the Koopa Troop, making them troopers. This is supported by the Koopa Paratroopas, who take their name from paratroopers, or parachuting soldiers. This suggests that normal, wingless "Troopas" are also soldiers... Also take into account the RPG games, where we get most of our information. Enemy Koopa Troopas are specifically said to be working for Bowser. Compare this to Kent C. Koopa, an enemy that works alone, and note that his Tattle information calls him simply a "Koopa". No "Troopa" part. All the non-enemy Koopas in Koopa Village and, later, in Petalburg, are simply called Koopas. It seems highly likely that the difference is Koopa is species, and Troopa is title/position, much like the various "Bros." enemies carry the weapon or technique they use as a sort of job position-title. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 17:54, 4 December 2009 (EST)
:Fawfulfury: I have read the articles over again, again and again and, whether you like it or not, Koopas and Koopa Troopas are the same thing; just because the article is a list of different types of the sub-species of Koopa Troopas doesn't make it a valid article in the slightest. I could very well put {{tem|sectionstub}} under almost every single one of those sections! The article has many tiny sections displaying stuff that, if it should be here at all, should be under {{fakelink|List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies}}. If you still believe in your cause; what's a koopa? I'll tell you what it is, it's a Koopa Troopa; that article was obviously made by someone who didn't know we had an article on Koopa Troopas already. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::What makes that so "obvious"? I'd rather say the article was made by someone who believed "Koopa" to be a collective term for all the turtle-like enemies in the Mario games, which may or may not be true, since the games are rather vague on that.--[[User:Vellidragon|vellidragon]] 12:57, 5 December 2009 (EST)
:::Walkazo: Would you consent to having these articles merged but a "List of Koopa Troopa Subspecies" made? Because I think most people that type in "Koopa" are looking for a Koopa Troopa and not a list of their subspecies. We could add the list of subspecies to [[Koopa (disambiguation)]]. {{User|Marioguy1}}
::::No, because calling anything a "subspecies" is pure speculation: we can justify calling things like [[Chargin' Chuck]]s "species" on the Koopa page because of their unique biology, but that's not the case with things like [[KP Koopa]]s, [[Dark Koopa]]s, [[Shady Koopa]]s, [[Mask Koopa]]s, [[Koopatrol]s and many other variations of Koopa Troopas Mario has encountered. (See [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Koopa_Taxonomy|here]] for why this is the case; it's a long essay,  but I tried to make it interesting for all you non-biologists.) Why should we create a speculatively titled List page when the [[Koopa]] page is a perfectly good platform to list not only the types of Koopa Troopas, but of ''all'' Koopas, which, unlike the list-template {{tem|Koopa Troopas}}, hasn't been done yet? The same goes for adding a list to the disambiguation page. There's a link to [[Koopa Troopa]] in the first paragraph of the general Koopa page, as well as a link to the disambiguation page, and making one extra click of the mouse is not going to inconvenience anyone looking for the Troopas. It might even teach them something about Koopas in general if they choose to read the Koopas page first - especially if we clean it up a bit. The potential value of an annotated list of Koopa species far outweighs the benefits of saving that space with a merge and using templates and categories to list things instead; my reasons why are included in the essay I linked to above (primarily in the last two paragraphs), which also has [[User:Walkazo/Essays#Lakitu|an example]] of what the page could look like with a little expansion. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Can we at least establish that Koopa is ''not'' a species and that [[Bowser]]'s article should not be classified as having the species [[Koopa]]? That is the real reason I made this proposal anyways...{{User|Marioguy1}}
:Well, the Koopa page has been re-written and expanded a bit. "Koopa" is no longer presented as a species. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 00:52, 6 December 2009 (EST)
::It's ''not'' a species. It is (IMO) a fan-made subject used to describe the generic creatures carrying shells on their backs. I have no idea why we have [[Bowser|someone]] categorized as one but I plan to change that. {{User|Marioguy1}}
:::I didn't say they were a species.
:::@KingBean: Koopa Troopas aren't sub-species. They're simply Koopas working as soldiers (troopers) for Bowser. This is supported by the Paper Mario Tattle descriptions.
:::@Walkazo: It's not splitting hairs, it's fact. And ''none'' of the Bros. enemies are brothers; it's a title. The comparison to Troopas is moot. [[User:Redstar|Redstar]] 18:59, 6 December 2009 (EST)


==Changes==
====Comments in other languages====
I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
:::yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
::::I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
:::::...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
::::::I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)


Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
&nbsp;

Latest revision as of 10:55, March 2, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Sunday, March 2nd, 16:04 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Organize "List of implied" articles, EvieMaybe (ended January 12, 2025)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge the Ancient Beanbean Civilizations to List of implied species, Camwoodstock (ended February 13, 2025)
Make Dark Mode available to everyone, Pizza Master (ended February 20, 2025)
Make about templates on New Super Mario Bros. U courses and New Super Luigi U courses link to each other instead of a disambiguation page, but keep the disambiguation page, Salmancer (ended February 21, 2025)
Standardize the use of "English", "English (United States)" and/or "English (United Kingdom)" as languages in game infoboxes, PaperSplash (ended February 23, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Split the Ink Bomb, Camwoodstock (ended January 12, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Merge Dangan Mario to Invincible Mario, PrincessPeachFan (ended January 30, 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)
Rename Dark Horse Comics to "Dark Horse Books", Nintendo101 (ended February 26, 2025)
Tighten Category:Power-ups and its subcategories, SolemnStormcloud (ended February 27, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.

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

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

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

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my suggestion below.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nintendo101; this feels like the best compromise between curbing redundancy, while being more specific on a citation-by-citation basis.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) This also seems like a reasonable way of doing this.
  5. EvieMaybe (talk) makes sense!
  6. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea, as it will help refine our citation system.
  7. Mario (talk) Mario in Club Nintendo Classic. Let's not forget to cite this proposal once it's listed in the policy page.
  8. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

Don't make a standard

Comments (citing multiple parts of a single source)

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

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

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on March 6 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I've always felt like a subject's name is something we care about a lot in this wiki. However, the way we choose to cover that aspect of each subject could be improved tons. Information about each subject's name (or names) is scattered all over the article, with the English etymology often being at the top of the page, and the names in other languages at the bottom, and information about the various names a subject has gone by lost in History.

Some subjects (Taily, for example) have an "Additional names" section, putting its internal and foreign names in one section. I say, why not take a page out of our fellow NIWA members, namely Pikipedia, Inkipedia and Bulbapedia, and push this a step further?

This new section (called "Names", "Naming", "Etymology", whatever works best) would contain, in roughly this order:

  • The etymology of each English name the subject has gone by, including explaining puns and cultural references
  • The history of the subject's name/s (what was the first game to call Blooper by its modern name, and what was the last game to call it Bloober?)
  • Miscellaneous name-related notes (like how half of Brothership's translations give the Great Lighthouse bosses a common suffix)
  • Internal name table, if applicable
  • The "names in other languages" table

EDIT: If a subject doesn't have anything about its name to talk about (such as a generically-named subject like bubble or a literal name like Mayor Penguin), the section can be titled simply "Names in other languages" as we've been doing. This is to avoid non-sentences like Bulbapedia's "Iron Valiant is literally iron valiant." name explanations.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Retool

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal. I find explaining English names in opening paragraphs breaks the flow sometimes.
  3. Waluigi Time (talk) Solid idea, it's not very easy to figure this out since name changes are scattered around history sections which aren't sorted chronologically.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, putting the name explanation in the names in other languages section is maybe the one good thing about Bulbapedia's naming section (we will never not find their arbitrary skepticism extremely strange, such as the gem of "Toucannon may be a combination of toucan and cannon."), so we'd be fine to borrow that. Helps keep things organized and improves the flow of the section.
  5. Fakename123 (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in favor of consolidating this information. As for the resultant section's name — I'm pretty fond of how the Zelda wiki calls these sections "Nomenclature". That's a great word for it.
  7. PopitTart (talk) As a frequent Pikipedia editor, Yes all. Names are shockingly poorly documented despite their significance to wiki classification.
  8. Pseudo (talk) Makes sense to me!
  9. Nintendo101 (talk) I like this idea.
  10. Power Flotzo (talk) Never really liked how English name info is just haphazardly slapped on to some articles. Per everyone.
  11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Better organization of naming info. Can we retitle the "foreign names" template while we're at it?
  12. Mushroom Head (talk) Per ałł.
  13. Sparks (talk) Per all.
  14. Mario (talk) Hm.

Do not retool (status quo)

Comments in other languages

I've actually been thinking of maybe swapping the order of names in other languages and internal names. The idea was that internal names predate final names, but in practice, many internal names listed come from a subject's subsequent appearances. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:27, February 28, 2025 (EST)

considering most internal names are either English (which would be explained right above the NIOL box) or Japanese (which would be the first name in the NIOL box), i feel like keeping it between them makes the most sense. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:29, February 28, 2025 (EST)
So we're keeping English ones separate from the Niol section? I can get behind that. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)
yeah, the idea is to have it kinda like Inkipedia. of course it could be executed differently, but i think it's the best alternative — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:33, February 28, 2025 (EST)
I have no experience with Inkipedia or Splatoon in general, so that comparison means nothing to me, sorry. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:22, March 1, 2025 (EST)
...an example is literally linked in the proposal body... — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:21, March 1, 2025 (EST)
I just get a weird pop-up when I try to follow it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:35, March 1, 2025 (EST)

Regarding the overall name, I think "Naming" and similar words are the best. "Nomenclature" sounds a bit too.... try-hard IMO. Like, I know we want wording to be encyclopedic, but my own subjective opinion on that word is that it comes off as outright stuffy, going from "encyclopedic" to "distractingly looking like writing from the 18th century." "Etymology" is a fine word, but it refers exclusively to the origins of meaning, not just listing them all out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:03, February 28, 2025 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4764482"