MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, January 6th, 11:27 GMT

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

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Rename Mario & Sonic (series) to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (series) (discuss) Deadline: January 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Shadow to Shadow (enemy), and rename either Shadow (character) or Shadow (disambiguation) to Shadow (discuss) Deadline: January 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Decide what to do with Category:Siblings and Category:Twins (discuss) Deadline: January 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• What to do about Wiggler Family (discuss) Deadline: January 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Ink Bomb (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Giant Bowser battle Refreshroom (discuss) Deadline: January 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Tighten Category:Thieves (discuss) Deadline: January 14, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Delete The Legend of Zelda (television series) (discuss) Deadline: January 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Merge individual Special Shots from Mario Hoops 3-on-3 into Special Shot (Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix) (discuss) Deadline: January 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Remove “references” from the front page header (discuss) Deadline: January 16th, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Robo Kikki to "Robo Monchee" (discuss) Deadline: January 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Move or Split id's Super Mario Bros. 3 Tech Demo (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename Comet Luma to Lumacomète (discuss) Deadline: January 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)

Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)

^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)

Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Stop integrating templates under the names of planets and areas in the Super Mario Galaxy games, Nintendo101 (ended December 25, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)

Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters, Hewer (ended December 27, 2024)

Merge ON/OFF Conveyor Belt with Conveyor Belt, PopitTart (ended January 1, 2025)

Keep or Delete File:Spiny Shell PMTTYD.png, LadySophie17 (ended January 5, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Establish a consistent table format for the "Recipes" section on Paper Mario item pages

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 8 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Recently on the wiki's Discord server, the user PalaceSwitcher brought up how inconsistent the recipe tables are for Paper Mario series item pages. They even went through every page and categorized how the tables on each differ, determining that 12 variations exist. 12! Dreadful. Where's the lamb sauce consistency?!

With that said, I think it would be best if we simply come up with a new table format altogether, and then implement it onto all these pages for both consistency and better readability - this format, which will utilize normal table coding, will replace the PM recipe list template in use previously. Many pages are also missing recipes, and having an outline to follow will make it easier for those to be completed. Another issue with all 12 current variations that there is one big table per page, requiring another column to specify which game(s) the recipe is in. Not only does an extra game column make the table clunkier, but it's harder for a reader to spot the exact game they're looking for. Sure, there might be repeated recipes on a page, but I feel the benefits of having one table per game outweigh this possible negative. A few pages also incorporate item icons into their tables, which I think should be the case on every page because they really help with readability; by splitting by game, we can use game-specific icons (names too, actually).

So, here's what I'm thinking the "Recipes" section of these pages could look like with the new table format. I'll use Mushroom Steak as an example, considering it's an item found in all three games. Note that each game will be its own subsection you can jump to on the actual pages, but doing so here could mess up the formatting of the proposal.

Paper Mario

Recipe	Result
Ultra Shroom	Shroom Steak
Life Shroom + Dried Shroom
Life Shroom + Mushroom
Life Shroom + Ultra Shroom
Ultra Shroom + Mushroom
Ultra Shroom + Super Shroom
Ultra Shroom + Volt Shroom
Ultra Shroom + Dried Shroom
Life Shroom + Super Shroom
Shroom Steak + Potato Salad	Deluxe Feast

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

Recipe	Result
Ultra Mushroom	Mushroom Steak
Life Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Ultra Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Volt Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Golden Leaf	Mushroom Steak (International) Life Mushroom (Japan)
Life Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Golden Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Mushroom Steak + Healthy Salad	Zess Deluxe

Super Paper Mario

Recipe	Result
Ultra Shroom Shake	Shroom Steak
Shroom Steak + Gorgeous Steak	Dyllis Deluxe
Shroom Steak + Roast Shroom Dish

For adding item links and their icons, any one of these three options is valid:

• Mushroom Steak — Template:PM item for all three games
• Mushroom Steak — Template:PMTTYD item for TTYD or Template:SPM item for SPM
• Mushroom Steak — linking a file normally

Feel free to leave any ideas you have for the new table outline in the comments!

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: January 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

MasterChef (Support)

1. Technetium (talk) As Gordon Ramsay proposer.
2. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposer.
3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - THANK YOU. Unshrink the icons and this'd be perfect, but this is a good start.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) - This is so thoroughly overdue. Per proposal!
5. Super Mario RPG (talk) - This works better than my solution.
6. Jdtendo (talk) Looks good!
7. Blinker (talk) Per proposal
8. LadySophie17 (talk) Looks good to me.
9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
10. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
11. EvieMaybe (talk) per all!!!
12. Zootalo (talk) Per all.
13. PalaceSwitcher (talk) Per all.
14. Waluigi Time (talk) Now we're cooking.
15. Tails777 (talk) Yes Chef! (Per proposal, the tables look good)
16. PopitTart (talk) Always a fan of a good consistent format for tables.
17. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all - consistency makes my brain happy!
18. Mario (talk) Huh. Why is the design for these recipe tables always an issue in this wiki???
19. Green Star (talk) Per all!
20. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Cooking Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick What size do you think the icons should be? I just did 25x25px since that's what they are on the Shooting Star page, one of the only pages to currently use icons. Feel free to make an example table here. Technetium (talk) 21:05, December 31, 2024 (EST)

I think that except for the TTYD remake, they should ideally just be their native size. Aside from the aforementioned remake, none get big enough for that to be an issue. (At the very least, the image links should work, because in the current setup, clicking on the icon does diddly-squat when it logically should do what clicking on an image would normally do.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:59, December 31, 2024 (EST)

I would prefer for all the icons to be the same size if possible. When at native size besides the TTYD remake, they look like this next to each other:

As for the links, I didn't include them because it felt redundant when the page links are right next to them too (and the Shooting Star page didn't have them). If people disagree, I'd totally add links, though - let me know. There still wouldn't be a link to the item a page is about, as you could imagine. Technetium (talk) 22:18, December 31, 2024 (EST)

When I click on a sprite I generally want to go to the image file page. Granted, I have used images to link to pages on rare occasions to match in-game formatting, but linking nowhere is just a waste - especially when it's shrunk, so you can't copy it to your computer's clipboard without it being compressed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:21, December 31, 2024 (EST)

Ah, I assumed you meant linking to the item's page, not the file link. That makes more sense. Technetium (talk) 22:22, December 31, 2024 (EST)

Recipe	Result
Ultra Shroom	Shroom Steak
Life Shroom + Dried Shroom
Life Shroom + Mushroom

Recipe	Result
Ultra Mushroom	Mushroom Steak
Life Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Mushroom

Recipe	Result
Ultra Shroom Shake	Shroom Steak
Shroom Steak + Gorgeous Steak	Dyllis Deluxe
Shroom Steak + Roast Shroom Dish

Here are some tables with native sized icons (besides TTYD). Yeah, it does make SPM stand out more, though each game will be a separate subsection... and maybe TTYD could be made a bit larger? What do you guys think? I still prefer how they look in the proposal proper, though maybe those icons could be made a bit bigger (don't know if that would mess up the quality of the PM64 sprites, though...) Technetium (talk) 22:36, December 31, 2024 (EST)

Generally speaking, I'd go with making the TTYDNS sprites appear the same size as the TTYD raw size. So they could appear side-by-side easily. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:19, December 31, 2024 (EST)

I mean, I don't think I'm ever going to use the original TTYD sprites for these tables, given I was just going to merge TTYD and its remake into one section. I'm aware there are some recipe differences, but I was just going to mark those in the tables with the GCN and Switch logo icons. Technetium (talk) 08:55, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Personally, I really don't see the point in having the icons be shown in their native size. Having them be different sizes like that just looks clunky for no good reason. Blinker (talk) 09:44, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Spriter's itch. Seeing incorrectly sized sprites is not a pleasant sensation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:42, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Well, now the icons link to the original sprite files. And I think far more readers would be bothered by the icons being different sizes. Your opinion is valid, but is likely very much the minority here. I'm going to keep the icons the same size as each other for this proposal, though I would be open to making them a bit bigger if people would prefer that (though I don't think the PM64 ones really can get much bigger without their quality being lowered). Technetium (talk) 13:48, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I really don't think the concept of a "correct" size really applies here? These aren't NES games or whatever. The resolution of a sprite doesn't dictate its size on the screen anyway. Especially across different games with varying resolutions. So why should it dictate it here, you know? Blinker (talk) 13:58, January 1, 2025 (EST)

PM64's sprites are, at the very least, generally consistent resolution to each other per shared camera distance. There are exceptions, like things that appear in multiple sizes (notably the Bloopers). Later games have more complex sprites in pieces that may or may not have a relatively consistent resolution, but "icon"-type sprites such as these invariably do relative to each other. Anyway, resized pixels just look kinda icky, so I prefer, personally, to minimize use of that if it can be helped. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:33, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Honestly, our only worry is if anyone is willing/able to go and implemenent this proposal in all the articles when this is done, so as to prevent a scenario like this... ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 10:40, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Oh don't worry, I plan on working on it. Just stinks the proposal won't end until after my winter break ends too… eh, I'll probably still have plenty of free time. Technetium (talk) 10:46, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I do prefer it recipe ingredients were separated by line breaks. It's just easier for me to discern where a recipe begins and ends. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:56, January 1, 2025 (EST)

What would this look like in a table? If you could make a little example. Technetium (talk) 13:02, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Something like this

Recipe	Result
Ultra Shroom Life Shroom + Dried Shroom Life Shroom + Mushroom Life Shroom + Ultra Shroom Ultra Shroom + Mushroom Ultra Shroom + Super Shroom	Shroom Steak
Shroom Steak + Potato Salad	Deluxe Feast

I also think it beats out using rowspan. The resulting code is easier to parse too. It was like this before btw, but it was changed to all those cells, and I just think this display is much easier to tell which ingredient list for a dish is the last one before the next dish begins. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:53, January 1, 2025 (EST)

The only issue is that some of the icons bump into each other, and I'd rather not remove the icons because they greatly increase readability. Technetium (talk) 15:01, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Yeah. I just want to find a way to help separate the dishes better. Maybe introduce a bolder line around the dishes+recipes while the individual recipes have thinner lines. It just needs some visual organization. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:03, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I was actually just thinking of that, lol. I'll definitely edit that into the proposal - just don't have my computer atm, though I should in the next couple hours. Technetium (talk) 15:04, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Here's a test of adding thicker lines between recipies.

Recipe	Result
Ultra Mushroom	Mushroom Steak
Life Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Ultra Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Volt Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Golden Leaf	Mushroom Steak (International) Life Mushroom (Japan)
Life Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Golden Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Mushroom Steak + Healthy Salad	Zess Deluxe

--PopitTart (talk) 16:20, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Thanks! I think the lines are a bit too thick - maybe they could be 3 or even 2 px? I'd also like the borders to be the same thickness so they don't stand out too much (and the lines beneath Recipe and Result). Technetium (talk) 16:23, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Okay, try #2 using lighter "internal borders" rather than thicker "external borders".

Recipe	Result
Ultra Mushroom	Mushroom Steak
Life Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Ultra Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Volt Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Golden Leaf	Mushroom Steak (International) Life Mushroom (Japan)
Life Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Golden Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Mushroom Steak + Healthy Salad	Zess Deluxe

--PopitTart (talk) 18:47, January 1, 2025 (EST)

This is perfect, thanks so much! I'll update the proposal shortly. Technetium (talk) 18:53, January 1, 2025 (EST)

All right! Let's try this out. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:47, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Our only real complaint we can think of is that on some screens, the faded border lines are a little too low-contrast. Aside from that, though, we think this is a very elegant solution! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:03, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Yeah, I’ve noticed that on mobile. Not really sure if there's anyway around that… Technetium (talk) 17:09, January 2, 2025 (EST)

With all of that figured out, does anyone have any suggestions regarding the width of the tables? Technetium (talk) 19:14, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I think they should be about 50% width. Small enough to not take up the entire width of the page but large enough to not have their content be cramped. PalaceSwitcher (talk) 13:36, January 2 2025 (EST)

Can you code an example of what this would look like compared to the current tables? And would this make the widths of each game equal? I was more so wondering here if each game's width should be equal or if that doesn't really matter. Technetium (talk) 13:41, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Recipe	Result
Ultra Mushroom	Mushroom Steak
Life Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Ultra Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Volt Mushroom
Ultra Mushroom + Dried Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Super Mushroom
Life Mushroom + Golden Leaf	Mushroom Steak (International) Life Mushroom (Japan)
Life Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Golden Leaf
Ultra Mushroom + Turtley Leaf
Mushroom Steak + Healthy Salad	Zess Deluxe

Here's an example at 50%. Every game should have the same table width for consistency. PalaceSwitcher (talk) 13:58, January 2 2025 (EST)

Ah, so that's how you do it. Thanks! Technetium (talk) 14:14, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Actually, there's one other topic I’d like to discuss. I talked about the icon links with Doc earlier, but people have differing opinions on the Discord so I thought I'd bring it up again. Should the icons link to the item's article, link to the file itself (as they do currently in the proposal tables), or link to nothing? I don't really have an opinion on it myself so I'd like to hear yours. Technetium (talk) 20:35, January 1, 2025 (EST)

Hmm, I'll summarize what has been discussed already. Having the icons link to their respective image file could be an issue as a reader could misclick on it instead of the actual article link. Having the icons link to the article more so just extends the size of the link functionally if anything, though it's redundant. Having no links just prevents the possibility of misclicking and makes the article links normally sized. While I can see the value in linking to the icon image itself, especially as they won't be natively sized here, the misclicking argument is compelling to me. Technetium (talk) 21:30, January 1, 2025 (EST)

As I see it, if a wiki reader is looking at the recipe tables of an item, they're more likely there because they want to know about the game mechanic of recipe making and the items involved, not their icon files. Sending them out of the main namespace because they misjudged where to click or tap slightly just creates a small bit of unnecessary friction. And if they do actually want the icons themselves, then its simple enough to follow the link to the respective item's own page and find the relevant images right in the infobox.--PopitTart (talk) 22:08, January 1, 2025 (EST)

???? The same argument can be made for icons in general. If you're already linking a subject in text, the image shouldn't just link to the same place. (That's irritated me several times... particularly on recipe tables.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:17, January 1, 2025 (EST)

This is why I'm wondering if we should just compromise by not linking to anything... which is how the proposal was earlier. Yeah, I'm really not so sure here, but I am starting to lean towards going back to that, and again, that's how it is on the Shooting Star page already. Technetium (talk) 22:39, January 1, 2025 (EST)

I don't really get where the assumption came from that no one could want to click the icons to go to the file page, despite that being the way images normally work on the wiki. Why is preventing misclicks more important than allowing intentional clicks? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:05, January 2, 2025 (EST)

In this case the images are both rather small and directly next to links to articles. I personally really like to avoid having links to different things right next to each other in general because it can mislead the reader into thinking there's one continuous link and, relevant to image links, makes it annoying to follow a specific link because missing it slightly (Which is especially likely on mobile) takes you somewhere totally different. Then you have to go back and try again, maybe even zooming in to get it properly. I feel like the annoyance this situation causes is worth avoiding at the cost of a slightly less convenient means of getting the image page. I'm only suggesting this because the links in question are going to the very same ingredient articles, which feature full galleries and infoboxes with easy to access images. Compare with {{World link}}.--PopitTart (talk) 19:23, January 2, 2025 (EST)

I'm definitely starting to lean towards not having the icons link to the files. I just don't know whether I should have the icons link to the item pages or link to nothing. Technetium (talk) 19:35, January 2, 2025 (EST)

Having them link to nothing is my least favourite of the three options. If we can't have them link to the file because people are actually trying to click the link next to it, we could at least have the image link to that same page for a better solution to that problem. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:25, January 3, 2025 (EST)

That's what I decided to do for now (see below). Technetium (talk) 07:31, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Sorry, but the idea of "accidentally" hitting a tiny image file trying to hit a much larger textual link is an utterly absurd idea, IMO, and even more absurd is it to cater to that already-tenuous hypothetical than the more likely scenario of clicking on the image to go to that image. Why add an extra step? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:31, January 3, 2025 (EST)

I decided to update the proposal tables using the PM item template, as this is easier to use. I used the PM item template for all three games, but feel free to use PMTTYD item or SPM item when implementing this proposal if you'd prefer, or even the file format I used previously - all of these lead to the same result. But yeah, I think I'm going to have the icons link to the articles - it only makes sense for a reader to want to click on the icon, as PopitTart mentioned on the wiki Discord server (also their comment above). Ultimately, the most important parts of this proposal are how the tables are formatted and the fact there are icons to begin with - I will remain open on what the icons should link to even after it closes / we see how readers feel when this is put into place and adjust if needed. I'm just not sure how to handle the item the page is about... idk if the item template would even work there, and I'd want it to be bold anyway, so I guess we can still use the normal file formatting there (as I said earlier, all that matters is if the result turns out the same; I just demonstrated the method I find simplest for this outline). Technetium (talk) 23:13, January 2, 2025 (EST)

If it were just the icon, that'd make sense. When the words are right there, having them link to the same place is arbitrary, annoying, and completely unnecessary. I don't even want to bother counting the amount of times I've clicked on a sprite for a PM item, hoping to go to that image's sprite, only to end up on its page because of that objectively poor design. Adding an extra step here is not the right option. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:59, January 5, 2025 (EST)

New features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Split image categories into separate ones for assets, screenshots, and artwork

This proposal will address the bloat some image categories have and make them easier to navigate.

Why is this useful? It makes adding to galleries or finding images to replace much easier. If you want to retake screenshots from a game, you can go to the screenshots category to find them. If you have sprite rips to replace, there's a category for that. The same goes for finding images from a game that aren't on the gallery already and being able to sort them more efficiently. This is also how we divide up character galleries already, such as Gallery:Mario (2010-2019).

Now, I can see a few edge cases, like when games have screenshots of themselves for credits images (i.e. Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)). I would still classify these as assets, since they are ripped from the game. Artwork that is used in smaller forms in-game, such as in Super Mario Maker 2, would be classified as artwork if externally released or an asset if it was ripped from the game files. Edge cases shouldn't be too common and they're easy to work out: it's not too different from how we license images or put them in character or subject galleries.

I think the name "assets" would be more useful in shorthand than "sprites and models," in addition to covering textures, so I propose for the category to be called that, but I can change it if there's opposition. The global images category can still exist in the case there's scans, merchandise, video screenshots, or such images that cannot be further categorized.

And in accordance with Waluigi Time's comment, this won't be necessary for each game, especially smaller ones like WarioWare: Snapped!. As a rule of thumb, I'd say about 25 images minimum of a certain type would be enough for a sub-category.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: January 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) I support this in principle, as long as there's room for discretion on what gets split and what gets left alone. A game with only ten or so pieces of artwork doesn't need a separate category for them, they can just stay in the main images category for that game. Otherwise, this seems useful, I just don't want users to go overboard by purely following the letter of this proposal.
3. Salmancer (talk) I've tried to see if an image I wanted to use was already uploaded via the category, which would encourage me to make the text and get the article up. Due to the sheer number of images, this is a bad idea. This proposal will make that less of a bad idea for cases where an asset or artwork is being searched for.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) hell yea
5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per proposal, as long as Waluigi Time's feedback is taken on board.
8. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Waluigi Time.

Comments

This is already being done (e.g. Category:Mario Kart Tour item icons). Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:02, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Removals

Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images

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

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

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

Delete

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Given the lack of any glitches to even spawn a Proto Piranha in these areas, the dubious origin of the images themselves, and the fact that calling them "unused content" is a bit of a misnomer, we don't see any particular reason to keep these around--even the "the goop reflects the area it's loaded in" is already thoroughly demonstrated thanks to the images of the Proto Piranha as it already appears, in vanilla, in Delfino Airstrip and both Bianco Square and Bianco Hills. This, to us, would be like listing the thing where if you hack a Yoshi into a Castle stage in Super Mario World its head becomes a Lava Bubble as "unused content" for that game.
2. Tails777 (talk) I'm leaning towards this. I feel this would be different if there was a video showcasing what happens when you insert a Proto Piranha in a place it otherwise doesn't spawn in, mostly because it's not uncommon for us to cover possibilities only possible through hacks. If we had a bit more to back it all up, that's be fine, but images without anything else doesn't really prove a lot. At best, this is like a small trivia point for Proto Piranhas, not unused content. They still look cool though..
3. Jdtendo (talk) If it was not intended, then it is not unused content.

Comments (delete alternative proto piranha images)

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

Changes

Allow blank votes and reclassify them as "per all"

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

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

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

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

Blank support

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

#Fun With Despair (talk) I am arguably in agreement with some of the opposition who argue that even "per all" should go in favor of each voter making an argument or explaining themselves, but if "per all" stays, then I don't really have a problem with allowing blank votes as well. I would prefer a proposal on getting rid of "per all" overall as its a bit of a lazy cop-out (at least name a specific guy you agree with), but a blank vote ultimate just means they agree with the OP's point and chose to vote with them - and I don't have a problem with that.

Blank Oppose

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

Blank Comments

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

I think every sort of vote (on every level, on every medium) should be written-in regardless of whether something has been said already or not; it demonstrates the level of understanding and investment for the issue at hand, which in my opinion should be prerequisite to voting on any issue. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:53, December 17, 2024 (EST)

There is no way to actually determine this: we are not going to test voters or commenters their understanding of the subject. Someone can read all of the arguments and still just vote for a side because there's no need to reiterate a position that they already agree with. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:55, December 17, 2024 (EST)

My personal belief is that "test[ing] voters or commenters their understanding of the subject" is exactly what should be done to avoid votes cast in misunderstanding or outright bandwagoning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:06, December 17, 2024 (EST)

My personal view is that a change like the one you are suggesting potentially increases the odds of inexperienced or new users feeling too intimidated to participate because they feel like they do not have well articulated stances, which would be terrible. I think concerns about "bandwagoning" are overstated. However, more pressingly, this proposal is not even about this concept and it is not even one of the voting options, so I recommend saving this idea for another day. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:32, December 17, 2024 (EST)

@Mario I agree. Banning people from saying that in proposals is restricting others from exercising their right to cast a vote in a system that was designed for user input of any time. I'd strongly oppose any measure to ban "per" statements in proposals. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:11, December 18, 2024 (EST)

In my opinion, saying "per OP" or "per (insert user here) is just as much effort as saying "per all" and at least demonstrates a modicum of original thought. I think that a blank vote is essentially the same as just voicing that you agree with the OP, so I did vote for that option in this case - but I think per all does an equally poor job to a blank vote at explaining what you think. At least requiring specific users to be hit with the "per" when voting would give far more of a baseline than "per all". That's not really what this proposal is about though, so I won't dwell on it. --Fun With Despair (talk) 00:22, January 2, 2025 (EST)

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

Fair point, I didn't know that. Not changing my vote just yet, but I'll keep this in mind as the proposal continues. Technetium (talk) 20:48, December 17, 2024 (EST)

There's a lot of variation in how other wikis do it. WiKirby, for example, doesn't even allow "per" votes last I checked. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:13, December 18, 2024 (EST)

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

Do not treat one-time Super Mario RPG names as recurring names

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 10 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

This proposal is mainly aimed at Mini Goomba and Lava Bubble, though there may be others in this regard that I'm not aware of. Both of these enemies had names that were only used for the original version (Goombette and Sparky respectively) but we continue to use these names for the enemies for other appearances where no name is given for them until an appearance which they do e.g calling Lava Bubbles "Sparkies" in regards to Super Mario 64. Considering this is a game which had some questionable translations and the game's remake used properly translated names, I think we should only use these names in regards to the original Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and instead use whichever name had been used beforehand for later appearances.

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

Support (Super Mario RPG names)

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
2. Waluigi Time (talk) We shouldn't be treating a one-off oddball localization job as earnest renames.
3. Sparks (talk) Per all.
4. Technetium (talk) Per all.
5. Hewer (talk) Yeah I always thought this was a bit dumb, this is definitely a case where a bit of discretion is necessary. Per all.
6. Jdtendo (talk) Per Sky Troopas, Spookums, and Shy Aways.
7. OmegaRuby RPG: Legend of the Dragon Balls (talk) Per all.
8. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
9. Blinker (talk) THANK YOU. I remember years ago reading the Super Mario 64 section on Lava Bubble and thinking that was an actual name they were called in that game. It doesn't help that history sections are often not completely in chronological order.
10. LeftyGreenMario (talk) It's quite a marvel to see how thorough of a negative impact these names have on the wiki.
11. EvieMaybe (talk) per WT
12. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Neosquid.

Nintendo101 RPG: Legend of the Silver Frogs (talk) Per proposal.

Comments (Super Mario RPG names)

There are a few instances in which recurring names are listed for other one-off games, like Spark Spooks from Yoshi's Story, if information serves correct. Perhaps the maintenance done if this proposal passes could be extended to instances from games other than Super Mario RPG? OmegaRuby [ Talk / Contribs ] 08:32, January 3, 2025 (EST)

I actually disagree with pointing fingers at the original game while NOA in general was still clearly figuring things out as they were going along (Lava Bubble isn't the greatest example since Podoboo lasted for quite a while). Maybe rephrase this as "names that were changed in the remake" because that's what this proposal is really targeting. I have a separate idea on how to handle unchanged one-offs like Yo'ster Isle that might conflict with another proposal I had in mind. EDIT: Actually, come to think of it, the Yo'ster Isle example should already be dealt with by this proposal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:12, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Actually, this has been on my mind even long before the remake came out so I won't be rephrasing the proposal. Nightwicked Bowser 15:08, January 3, 2025 (EST)

The remake is handing you something quantifiable to work with on a silver platter besides "translation bad." Why not? LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:12, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Because it's my proposal and I'll phrase it how I see it. Nightwicked Bowser 15:17, January 3, 2025 (EST)

You'd get the same overall effect but with a better precedent behind it is my point. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:24, January 3, 2025 (EST)

I don't see how the Podoboo -> Lava Bubble rename affects this in any meaningful way? Blinker (talk) 15:41, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Lava Bubble didn't appear in a manual or game yet, so by present rules, this passing would result in swapping Sparky with Podoboo in Super Mario 64 (released a mere 3~4 months apart) - one non-current name for another. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:47, January 3, 2025 (EST)

That is my exact intent here. Nightwicked Bowser 15:49, January 3, 2025 (EST)

This reminds me that my original idea was to use the term "Bubble" for Super Mario 64, given the peculiarities, albeit still covering it in the Lava Bubble article. That would just leave resized Goomba, as mentioned below. LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:46, January 4, 2025 (EST)

"Lava Bubble" is employed in Mario Mania, and while I understand this is a lower-priority source since instruction booklets are physically packaged with the games, I do personally hold that at equal value since Mario Mania is a guidebook for Super Mario World written by Nintendo of America, who also translated and wrote the instruction booklet. (I don't know if NoA has ever felt inclined to specify this anywhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if the guidebook and instruction booklet even involve the same individual staff members.) I understand how it is intuitively confusing to see how an enemy called "Lava Bubble" in the Super Mario World section of its own article suddenly be called "Sparky" in the Super Mario 64 section (which, technically, it is not called anywhere at all in the English material for that game), only for it to be called "Lava Bubble" again in the next immediate section. So I understand the appeal.

This is tangential, but personally, I am not even really certain the "Lava Bubble" in Super Mario 64 is supposed to be the recurring enemy we see elsewhere since it looks like an ambient plume of fire, and we only refer to it as a "Lava Bubble" because the internal filename for this thing is "BUBBLE." I dunno if that literally means it is intended to be the same subject. If it really is the same subject, I know the Japanese name for Lethal Lava Land is ファイアバブル ランド (Faia Baburu Rando, Fire Bubble Land). Is the land named after the enemy? Because if that is the case, maybe it would be more accurate to refer to Lava Bubbles as "Lethal Lavas" in Super Mario 64-related portions of the wiki, not "Sparkies." - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:09, January 3, 2025 (EST)

Responding to your tangent, as mentioned in the Lava Bubble article, the enemy's design in 64 DS was reused in New Super Mario Bros., which further indicates that, at least in the remake, those are intended to be Lava Bubbles. Blinker (talk) 16:28, January 3, 2025 (EST)

If memory serves, there's no real name for the object designated as "BUBBLE" in any material (or at least, nothing jumped out to me). For whatever reason, it's harder to find than Keronpa Ball, having completely fallen by the wayside. Having said that, I think a reasonable conclusion has been drawn in the absence of anything better to go off on. Doc added the part about the course name, I think. But - since this proposal is mainly eyeing Lava Bubble and Mini Goomba - I should mention that Mini Goomba is another can of worms. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:36, January 3, 2025 (EST)

@Nintendo101 - Not until we start listing the Magikoopa species in SMRPG as "Merlins." Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, January 5, 2025 (EST)

Organize "List of implied" articles

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

• List of implied characters
• List of implied entertainment
• List of implied events
• List of implied items
• List of implied locations
• List of implied organizations
• List of implied people
• List of implied species

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

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

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

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

Both reorganize and deglobulize

1. EvieMaybe (talk) primary choice.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Seems reasonable. I never liked how confusing these pages are.
3. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.
4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
6. Technetium (talk) Hmm what's the Globulator? *checks page* Oh. Oh god. Yeah that's a per proposal if I've ever seen one.

Only reorganize

1. EvieMaybe (talk) secondary choice.

List of implied comments

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

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

Miscellaneous

Normalise splitting long References to/in other media sections

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

• Super Mario Bros. 2 (references in later media)
• Super Mario Bros. 3 (references in later media)
• Super Mario World (references in later games)
• Super Mario Odyssey (references to)
• Super Mario Bros. Wonder (references to)

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

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

Support

1. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.

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

Oppose

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