MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Thursday, November 21st, 18:17 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. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

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 {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. 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}}.
2. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end 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 accepted (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 "(banned)" 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. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
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 the {{proposal check}} tool 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
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. If the wiki staff 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.
15. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six 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.
16. 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.
17. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
18. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
19. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my 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. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 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)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 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.

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)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 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)

Writing guidelines

Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages

Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the naming system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "Hefty Goombrat," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated here. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for Shoot was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "vehicle with surfboard."

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per.
2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's not what this site is even remotely about
4. Axis (talk) Per all.
5. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over actual names if they exist.
7. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm pretty sure this all started here, and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
8. Blinker (talk) Per all.
9. Somethingone (talk) Per the arguments raised above.
10. Metalex123 (talk) Per all.
11. Super Mario RPG (talk) Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
12. DrippingYellow (talk) Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.
13. Mushzoom (talk) Per all.
14. Jazama (talk) Per all
15. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Doc in the comments. If there's an official name, there's an official name, and we shouldn't just ignore it.

Oppose

1. Archivist Toadette (talk) While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is not the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "Fire Spike" or "Wonder Hoppycat"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per opposition.
4. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
5. Tails777 (talk) Per all.
6. Shoey (talk) Per all.
7. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all of yall (collectively)
8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
9. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
10. Mario (talk) Not a good idea.

#Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.
#DrippingYellow (talk) I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across multiple pieces of English Mario media (i.e. gabon to Spike, kakibo to Goombrat, deka to "Big" enemies, admittedly kodeka for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have Hefty Goombas as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. Sensuikan Heihō does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")

Comments

@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just begging to be misused. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name that is a name exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, these have plenty of potential for misleading people. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

Then what about the examples I brought up? ^(T|C) 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them explicitly conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can already take some liberties with Japanese titles I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "Assume". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like Sunaipā to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "Koopa", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! Hooded Pitohui (talk) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)

For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)

Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. Tails777 Talk to me!

Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)

Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing

A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me nuts is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:

From the Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser article:

The group runs into Prince Peasley, and after a battle ensues with a few Piranha Beans, Captain Goomba humorously sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.

Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.

From Goomba Mask:

In Paper Mario: The Origami King, a different Goomba Mask resembling a Paper Macho Goomba appears in the Shogun Studios storage area. If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, with the humorous appearance making Olivia laugh.

Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the writer thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:

If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.

The article for Kruller has quite possible the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:

When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (humorously getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being humorously revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi humorously copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...]

All of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an audience.

And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:

Humorous/Comical/etc.

"Humorous", or other similar words, are used from a first-person perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character finds something amusing.

Proposer: DrippingYellow (talk)
Deadline: May 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DrippingYellow (talk) This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.

Comments

"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff

Take a look at the gallery section of any Mario Kart race course that has been featured in Mario Kart Tour, and you will find the majority of the gallery is filled with a ton of mostly-identical images of the course "icons" with various playable characters superimposed on them. Why? Why is this necessary, what positive purpose does this provide to the reader? Take Wii Mushroom Gorge for example. The gallery contains seventeen duplicates of the same three screenshots of the course, each with a different stock artwork of a character on top of it. SNES Mario Circuit 1 has thirty of them. Tour New York Minute has forty-five, which probably contributed to the page lagging as it loaded for me. This is really excessive and they don't need to be there. Nothing is gained by the reader from seeing the same screenshot with a different stock artwork over them. I propose we remove these and only leave ONE version of each icon. (IE for Mushroom Gorge, only three four icons would remain)

Proposer: Shadow2 (talk)
Deadline: May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Shadow2 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Unpopular, but I'm backing this. I really don't see what these images accomplish that, say, a textual list of characters that have been pictured on the course icon couldn't. And when I say that out loud, it sounds like unusefully nitpicky information to include, so I'm really not sure why we're dedicating swathes of the gallery to it. To be honest, if we can get the course icons with no character on them whatsoever, I'd rather put those on the pages than just picking one of the character course icons.
3. Glowsquid (talk) After seeing the Kanaami Road page that was pointed out in the comments - yeah. If, for whatever reason, someone wants to read which Mario characters had their mug featured on a given Mario Kart Tour course, a textual list does not actually lose information.

#Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...?

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) What? It's relevant information that has every reason to be there, it not being that interesting to most is a very bad reason to single it out and remove it at the expense of the wiki's comprehensiveness, and I have no idea what the problem is with galleries having all the relevant images. Removing stuff just because you aren't interested in it feels short-sighted and way too slippery a slope.
2. Koopa con Carne (talk) They're relevant to their pages. I don't think it's the fan encyclopedia that should take the blame for their excessiveness.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per all. If there's too many images in the gallery, that's what making a gallery subpage is for.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't see any reason why the images shouldn't stay.
5. Arend (talk) A gallery is the best place for preserving images like these. That Nintendo made an excessive amount of course icon variants that each feature a different (compatible) character, is not our fault.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all
7. Axis (talk) Per Hewer
8. ExoRosalina (talk) Per all, but that was a very bad idea for that.

Comments

Changing our vote to an abstain, and figure we should ask--would it be too much to ask for a move to make gallery subpages/split these off to those over a full removal from the galleries? We don't think these should be anywhere near the main article, but we do think that a gallery subpage is a perfect fit. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 15:58, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

What's wrong with them being on the main page, exactly? I feel like separate gallery pages for them would probably be a bit too small to be tenable, and I'm unsure what harm they're doing being treated like all the other images. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:44, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

Mainly performance, as the original proposal briefly mentioned--Tour New York Minute's excessive number of these icons caused our Firefox to genuinely lag upon loading that article. When it gets to the point where an article starts to have a noticeable pause in loading in because of the size of the gallery, we think it's only fair to at least consider moving the bulk of the images to a gallery subpage. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:59, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

Fair enough, but it ought to still be on a case-by-case basis. New York Minute could be argued to have a problem, but that's probably more because of how many variants it's got (between 1, 2, 3, 4, and the R, T, and R/T versions of each, plus B), and other courses seem to have more reasonable numbers, like GBA Peach Circuit's eight. So I don't think they all need to get their galleries split necessarily (not sure what the cutoff point would be though). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:21, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, some articles definitely don't have it as bad when it comes to these icons causing loading problems. Still, we should probably be less afraid to split off track galleries if they get quite that large in the future--though, that statement is bordering on being unrelated to this proposal entirely, so... Make of that what you will, we suppose? ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 21:02, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

"(IE for Mushroom Gorge, only three icons would remain)"
Why only three? Doesn't Mushroom Gorge have four versions (normal, R, T, and R/T), like (almost) every other course in Mario Kart Tour? And I wouldn't know which one you want to leave out: we've got to keep at least one version of the normal variant, R versions and T versions are somewhat on the same level, and not only is R/T the most different out of all of them, but there's only one icon for that one too. rend (talk) (edits) 18:01, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

As Arend (talk) said, I am inclined to agree with the proposal if it is changed so that we keep one icon for each version of a course. Additionally, I'd like some clarification on where the cut images would go, as I don't want them to just be lost in the depths of the Wiki. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 20:49, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

Even if they were to be removed from course articles, they'd still be used on tour articles, such as New York Tour, to act as visual aids in their course listings. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Oh, I may have made a mistake there. But yes, the point would be for one icon for each course. Shadow2 (talk) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer @Koopa con Carne , what exactly is the "relevant information" being presented to the reader? "This image has Mario on it, this one is the exact same but it has Luigi on it." Okay? What's the point? To me, this is on a similar level to uploading every individual sprite in Mario's walk cycle. They're different, they're from the game, but they're not important enough on their own to convey any useful information to the reader, compared to actual screenshots which DO present useful information. Shadow2 (talk) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

That's still information, and as I said in my vote, "I don't like this information and find it boring so let's just remove it" is an extremely slippery slope and goes against the point of the site as being a comprehensive encyclopedia about the franchise. Who are we to decide what's "useful information to the reader"? Someone might well be curious to know what characters were used for Yoshi Circuit's icons, I don't think it's that unreasonable. For the Mario walking sprite thing, we've got GIFs to accomplish that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I find I'm getting tired of people just stating that I want something removed "because I don't like it", when I provide reasoning for why it shouldn't be there in the first place (Excessive, does not provide information). That kind of argument only serves to devalue my own argument, and I do not appreciate it. Furthermore, I would like to ask again what "information" is being presented with these? I have never played Mario Kart Tour, so I don't know WHAT these icons denote. There is no information about them. All I see as a reader is an excessive amount of repeated images with different characters on them. What does that MEAN? As you quoted below "a picture is worth a thousand words", but not in this case because these images do not provide information on their own. The caption says "The course icon with Daisy (Farmer)" ...Okay? What does this mean? Shadow2 (talk) 15:53, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

What I'm trying to get at is that there is nothing objectively wrong about the inclusion of these images, since they constitute valid, relevant information, so the only arguments for their removal are that they're subjectively excessive and repetitive (i.e. boring), and I don't agree that that's a good enough reason to remove stuff. There being "too much" information to cover shouldn't be a factor in whether we cover it, we're trying to be comprehensive. What's uninteresting to you, or even to most, might not be uninteresting to everyone. As for what information they provide, you pretty much already identified it: what the icons look like, and what characters are shown on the icons for each course. Perhaps not very exciting, but valid, relevant information nonetheless. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I would like to request that you stop assuming my intentions in a manner that attempts to belittle my side of the argument. I am not suggesting we remove these just because "I don't like them", I have provided reasoning for why multiple times. I am not suggesting we remove information "because I find it boring". There is plenty of "boring" information on this site that I do not care about, but my argument is that there is no information in these images. A screenshot of a Mario Kart course provides at least some insight as to what parts of the course look like. While this can be accomplished by leaving one MKT icon per course variant, there is no additional information to be provided because this picture has Luigi instead of Mario. WHY does it have Luigi instead of Mario? Likewise, the List of Daily Challenges you presented absolutely has information, but there is none here. I have asked multiple times for you to explain what information these images present, but you have not done so. Rather, instead of denying my arguments, I would like to hear a specific reason why you think they should stay, then maybe we can get somewhere... Shadow2 (talk) 18:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

The Mushroom Gorge icons are relevant to the Mushroom Gorge article because they are Mushroom Gorge icons. 🧐 -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:37, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

In the past we've removed uploads for being excessive, character information for being esoteric or off-puttingly detailled, trivia sections for posting blunt statement of facts that are overly specific or don't have any greater point. Our own good writing guidelines page warn about going overboad on details and while it's specifically about page writing, the same philosophy could be extended to uploads and when "comprehensive" becomes too much. I'm not saying not necessarily that's the case for these icons here (though I would likely vote in favour if the ammendments Sophie suggested above were made) but we've in fact cut information before for being uninteresting/useless/irrelevant. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I feel those good writing guidelines are more about condensing information, moving details to more appropriate places, and not reading between the lines about characters' personalities and the like to pad articles with, than they are about completely throwing out relevant information like this. If they actually are meant to be saying "feel free to not cover stuff and completely remove relevant information if you think it's boring", then I disagree with that. I'd rather cover the whole franchise (which is the point of the encyclopedia) than only covering most of it and removed what we subjectively deem to be excessive. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"One icon for each version of the course" was what I intended with this proposal, but I may have worded it poorly. (And I miscounted how many versions of Mushroom Gorge there were) Shadow2 (talk) 15:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Food for thought, but am not going to engage in extensive argument: Following similar line of reasoning we removed these sprites from Mario's gallery page[1] and the overall idea of what content to show and what content to omit on the wiki: I don't believe these points address the criticism being made. If information is available, it doesn't mean we must document it; this is why we try to limit quotes on our pages, cut down on the face sprites for favored tour courses, remove these thumbnails of Mario from the Mario page and we don't place every screenshot of Mario we have in Mario's gallery or upload every single sprite animation Luigi has in Dream Team. Following opposition's logic we would have to readd/keep these images on Mario's gallery[2]; it's an extreme example but IMO it illustrates the questionable necessity of these images. Game developers create these thumbnails to illustrate a game's interface, so they probably have to vary it by imposing stock art of characters over backgrounds. By no means we as a wiki should follow suit and try to serve as an asset dump for this information especially when these assets are repetitive (unlike, say, the swath of sprites from Miracle Book, though one could question from a copyright angle the necessity of all these assets but that's another topic all together) and serve to interfere with the usability of this wiki through loading times. Every Tour page I've came across (such as Cat Tour (2022) as only one example among many) is severely bogged down by all these images that are placed in table to replicate the game UI, which is not appropriate use of table in my opinion. I do support the spirit of this proposal but we need to keep probably just one example of a thumbnail each rather than throw it all out, and from the discussion I linked early in my comment, some thumbnails may contain useful hints. I do think we should be deleting the images too after they're removed from the pages, and information relevant to the image (like if Builder Toadette on a T variant of Ghost Valley thumbnail is a required or favorited character) should just be already shown in a table. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:28, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think those are very good examples, in those cases we weren't completely erasing the images, just removing them from places they were less relevant (and in the case of the face sprites thing, those weren't even galleries and the sprites were just replaced with text for better load times, whereas the purpose of a gallery section/page is to show relevant images). Deleting the images and then putting information about them in tables also seems pointless, a picture is worth a thousand words. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

>"let's use conjectural titles instead of official ones because readers or something"
>"let's remove icons from historical records because readability or too utilitarian or something"
Yeeeaaaah, I don't like where this is going. There's this recent sentiment that users should be able to mould official material and information to create a more preferable image for the wiki at the expense of its encyclopedic mission. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

To play a bit of devil's advocate, we feel like if you wanted to really point to concurrent proposals signifying an odd pattern in proposals about not covering things as written in favor of what people want, we feel like the proposal about treating the Paper versions of characters as though they're entirely separate from their non-Paper equivalents in some 2007-esque "Extended Marioverse" nonsense is probably far more important on that end than "should we remove 27 roughly-identical icons on the Mushroom Gorge article, or move those to like, a side-gallery or something." ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 17:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Personally, I think the pattern of "Let's remove and non-standardize franchise headers in the History section" (e.g. separate and spread the Yoshi game, DK games and Wario games away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's separate the Super Mario Bros. sidescroller games from the Super Mario 3D games" (aka separate and spread the 3D Super Mario titles away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's treat The Super Mario Bros. Movie as an installment of the Super Mario game series" is a relatedly worrisome weird pattern in proposals, one that could throw organization of History sections in disarray in the hypothetical of them all passing. Granted, these are all from the same person, so it might not mean that much... rend (talk) (edits) 18:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock @Arend My criticism wasn't aimed at particular proposals or their authors, but the prevailing sentiment among a number of editors here that just happened to surface in proposal-adjacent discussions. I'd like if we didn't backhandedly single out one or two people on the basis of how popular or unpopular their perspective is. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:19, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Oh okay, sorry. I was just pointing out an observation I had, based on what Camwoodstock was saying, it wasn't meant as a personal attack to Super Mario RPG. In the end, it was kinda irrelevant to your worries. rend (talk) (edits) 18:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

"let's remove from historical records [...] encyclopedic mission." I find it curious to invoke a notion of "being encyclopedic" as an argument for keeping anything and everything because that's the opposite of real encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are curated. Encyclopedias are condensed. Encyclopedias shorten quotes, obmit events and historical figures. They are selective in what they write about and what they include. You're never going to see a real encyclopedia advertise itself as listing the name of literally every single person known to be involved in World War II or including every photos know to have been taken in relation to the Nuremberg Trials. Knowing what to leave out is as important to any encyclopedia as defining what to include. Digital hoarding is not necessarily "encyclopedic". --Glowsquid (talk) 19:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that the Kanaami Road article has only one of these images per course. If we're really not drawing a line anywhere, then that article has to go up from an already massive 248 course icons to — and yes, I counted — eight hundred and ninety-three. I would not consider it a failure of the wiki's coverage to not have every course icon on the articles in the same way I do not consider it a failure that the Kanaami Road article does not have 893 images on it. (It isn't lost on me that the only reason I could get that number is because the course icons were on this wiki, though, so I am in favor of having them somewhere.) Ahemtoday (talk) 19:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

If we may go exceedingly not-formal for a moment... HOW IN THE HECK HAS THAT NOT AT THE VERY LEAST BEEN SPLIT OFF INTO ITS OWN GALLERY. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:54, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections

This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.

I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.

I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify Yoshi's Safari as a Yoshi game on par with the Yoshi's Island series, and I haven't seen Wario's Woods being listed among the likes of Wario Land series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of Wario's Woods, despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about DK arcade game). And Mario vs. Donkey Kong could either be a Super Mario game, since it stars Mario, or a Donkey Kong game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong, and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.

So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still Super Mario characters starring in their own games, not different than Captain Toad, Princess Peach, and Luigi's Mansion, all of which are explicitly Super Mario games but starring different characters.

In the Smash Bros. series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.

Edit: Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: ===Yoshi franchise=== ====Yoshi's Island series==== =====Yoshi's Island DS=====

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting Wario Land and WarioWare titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but Yoshi's Woolly World is a Yoshi's Island game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with Donkey Kong Jungle Beat and the other Donkey Kong platforms. Smash Bros. did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
2. JanMisali (talk) Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
3. Arend (talk) Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of this edit on the Icicle page (which is still in use btw). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it has a purpose, and is not entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would only make sense if we treated every game like this and have everything listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
4. MegaBowser64 (talk)Perall!
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.
6. Big Super Mario Fan (talk)I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
7. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

@Nintendo101: Except the Yoshi's Woolly World is not a Yoshi's Island game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

I would argue that Yoshi's Woolly World is a Yoshi's Island game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.

What is not subjective is that Woolly World (in addition to Yoshi's Story, Crafted World) has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized Yoshi's Island games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated Yoshi franchise article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the Yoshi platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for Donkey Kong and Wario titles, as I would for Mario Party and Mario Kart. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

Then there's the Yoshi, Yoshi's Cookie, and Tetris Attack puzzle games, supposedly with the Yoshi branding, though I think the former two are Super Mario games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the Super Mario franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.

Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Woolly World, and Yoshi's Crafted World not being part of an explicitly defined Yoshi platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a Yoshi franchise article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

Because the same question could apply to why does Super Mario franchise not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in Zelda, would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 come after Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island after Super Mario World (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on Yoshi's Woolly World being a Yoshi's Island title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group Woolly World with Yoshi's Island because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the Yoshi franchise on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a Yoshi franchise (also a Wario, Donkey Kong, etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.

Are the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario franchises themselves not within the Super Mario franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. Zelda would inherently be outside of that. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

The three you mentioned are part of the Super Mario franchise, that's true. And Tetris Attack, a puzzle game, is as much of a Yoshi game as Super Mario World 2. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put Yoshi puzzle game, the Super Scope game Yoshi's Safari, Yoshi's Island, and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to Yoshi's Island, which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the Super Mario franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: ====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====, ====Donkey Kong Land 2====, ====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!, Wario World, WarioWare: Twisted! This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)

The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, Cog (obstacle) has Donkey Kong Jungle Beat and Donkey Kong Country Returns listed under "Donkey Kong franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)

"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)

Except gears also appear in Mario Kart DS and Mario Kart 8 thanks to DS Tick-Tock Clock, the former being inbetween Jungle Beat and Country Returns (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the WarioWare: Twisted! and WarioWare Gold microgame Scrambled Egg (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). rend (talk) (edits) 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Come to think of it though, WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! already features gears in the microgame Gear Head Fred, so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before Jungle Beat anyway. rend (talk) (edits) 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, see this sandbox). Not sure if it's entirely necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed bold. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. rend (talk) (edits) 16:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not a CSS buff but if we have to consider editing the CSS to resolve the problem I just think introducing these subheaders is too much trouble for what it's worth. Use franchise subheaders for articles that can use them, but generally stick to just standard chronology otherwise. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:42, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles

This proposal aims to allow separating the Super Mario Bros. series of side-scrolling platformers (it's official) from the Super Mario 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the Super Mario Bros. series separately from the Super Mario 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from Super Mario Run itself), Super Mario Bros. Wonder is said to be the first Super Mario Bros. game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when New Super Mario Bros. 2 and New Super Mario Bros. U were released).

Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.

The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before Super Mario Bros. Wonder is that would mean Super Mario Maker, its sequel, and Super Mario Run would all be disqualified from the Super Mario Bros. series. The Super Mario series is the standard/main series, and Super Mario Maker 2 has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a Super Mario 3D World format. Super Mario Run is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in Super Mario series. This proposal is to help the Super Mario BROS. games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.

The Super Mario name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. Super Mario Strikers, for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "Super Mario", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

#SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I do not support severing the Super Mario Bros. series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "clade" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a Super Mario Bros. series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the Super Mario series, a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater Super Mario franchise as recently as 2020. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run are not within the same series as the original Super Mario Bros. or New Super Mario Bros. U, and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
2. JanMisali (talk) The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the Super Mario Bros. subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Jdtendo (talk) Per Nintendo101 and JanMisali. Plus, I see no point in separating proper 2D side-scroller Mario games such as Super Mario Land 1 & 2 from an ill-defined Super Mario Bros. series on the sole basis that those games lack the word "Bros." in their title.
5. Arend (talk) As one can see in the comments, people have vastly different views of what counts as a Super Mario Bros. game and what doesn't (e.g. Doc believes the Super Mario Land games don't count because Luigi doesn't appear in them, I think that's superficial and that the Land games should still be counted as at least related since the general gameplay is still the same otherwise). While a good idea on paper, it will lead to many arguments and disagreements until we get a definite answer from Nintendo what should count and what shouldn't... and all we get from Nintendo is that they lump every Super Mario game, from Bros to Land to 64 to Sunshine to Maker to Run to Odyssey, as part of the same series.
6. Hewer (talk) Per all, especially the fact that the Super Mario Bros. series is a subset of the Super Mario series anyway. If we separated SMB as its own thing, wouldn't that be implying the Super Mario series only contains 3D games and miscellanea like Maker? Because that's certainly not the case.
7. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, and also the mere fact that jan Misali did in fact make a 40+ minute video on roughly this same subject, juxtaposed with the comments below. This would be an extremely strange thing to try to enforce when there's no fewer than 4 major standards for what even counts as a Super Mario game, and one of them is literally our own.
8. Scrooge200 (talk) How do we know what's mainline? Everything is senseless 'cause there's no consensus. Opening us up to even more inconsistency would just make it harder to navigate and lead to pointless back-and-forth edits on what goes where.
9. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) While it is a good idea, there's just too many unanswered questions. So sorry, but I have to change to oppose.
10. Jazama (talk) Per all.

Comments

@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the Mario Maker (which implements 3D World in a sidescrolling format) and Run titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the Super Mario series. This is just the starting point. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

True, but only Mario Maker 2 implemented 3D World, and Run, from experience, has all the hallmarks of a NSMB game, whereas the Mario Maker games COULD be seen as related to the NSMB games due to having NSMBU as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as SMB, SMB3, & SMW. Otherwise that helps. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check here, for instance, has Captain Toad, Super Mario World 2, Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

And the official sources say this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

We already had a proposal reconsidering their respective association to the Super Mario series somewhat recently, and it failed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series here and one for the 3D series here. Land and Maker are additional subseries, while Run is its own thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has Mario Bros., Super Mario (series), & Wrecking Crew, but the Super Mario (series) bit is basically my main focus. I have Super Mario (series) into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the Super Mario name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same Super Mario Bros. name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, Super Mario Land (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & NSMB (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Super Mario Land can't be a sub-series of Bros. because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about Special, but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of Bros because it was listed with the Bros. games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Except that list wasn't referred to as "Super Mario Bros. games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

(facepalm) No, not THAT list. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:11, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Then what list? Care to link or show an image? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:30, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Look here. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 19:24, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

That list includes the 3D platformers too. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 19:41, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

So? It shows that the Maker games & Run are part of the same series as SMB, SMW & NSMB. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

So this is not an example of an official source classifying the games in the same way this proposal suggests. The fact that this list includes Super Mario Land does not demonstrate that Super Mario Land is part of a specific subset of Super Mario games that includes Super Mario Bros. and excludes Super Mario 64. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 19:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

No, but it proves my main point. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:01, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

It proves that Super Mario Land is a mainline game, but that wasn't under question. The thing that was asked was why your list of Super Mario Bros. games, as a separate subseries, includes the Super Mario Land games as a sub-subseries. This source could also justify classifying the 3D games as a sub-subseries of the Super Mario Bros. subseries for exactly the same reason. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Ok. 1. this lists the Super Mario (Bros.) series. 2. The Super Mario sub-series (3D games) ARE listed here, but are separate due to recent official stuff. 3. The Super Mario Land games are listed as a sub-series to the Super Mario Bros. series (2D games) because, despite the different shared names, which are a reason of them being a sub-sub-series, ARE Super Mario Bros. games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:14, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

The Super Mario Run notification is very specific in how it phrases its statement. Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first "side-scrolling entry" in the Super Mario Bros. series in 11 years. That specificity means that there could be entries in the Super Mario Bros. series which are not side-scrolling games, because otherwise there'd by no reason to specifically say "last side-scrolling entry". I believe these sources taken together could imply that at least some of the 3D games are Super Mario Bros. games, and that using "Super Mario Bros. subseries" to refer to the 2D platformers is not helpful. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

They are not "Super Mario Bros." games, Luigi isn't in them. Hard to be "Bros." without the Bros. (Though again, Special is the exception due to its watered-down nature). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Luigi is only in the (early) Super Mario Bros. games because of the 2-player mode. If Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2 had the possibility of a 2-player mode, then Luigi would obviously be added in those games (we know that Nintendo tried adding Luigi in Super Mario 64 but scrapped it due to difficulties with adding multiplayer). If we had to hard-gatekeep the Mario Land games out of the Super Mario Bros. subseries (even as a spinoff to it like Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run, then logically, we should do the same with New Super Luigi U, which features no Mario at all (and since New Super Luigi U has been released at one point as a standalone game, and we've been counting campaigns like Bowser's Fury as official entries, I think that should count).
To me, I think we should view the Land games, the Maker games, and Run at least as related games to the Bros. titles, since they feature basically the exact same kind of gameplay as any other Super Mario Bros. title. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 2, the USA version, is more different than Land 1 in terms of gameplay, yet we're counting it as an official entry. I don't think the Land games should be exempt purely because of something as superficial as "there's no Luigi in it". rend (talk) (edits) 06:14, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I mean, by virtue of all those games being Super Mario games, they (along with the 3D games) should be "related" to the Super Mario Bros. series by default, right? To distinguish "related" beyond that, deciding if a game is "related" to a subseries that it shares a larger series with anyway, feels a bit hair-splitting. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

The notification does also specifically say that Super Mario Bros. is a "series of side-scrolling action games", so to then say afterwards that Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first side-scrolling game in 11 years... I feel like their intent is pretty obvious here. I was an SMB series doubter for the longest time, but first with that quote in one of the interviews leading up to Wonder, and now with this notification in-game in Super Mario Run, it's definitely giving the impression that Nintendo considers Super Mario Bros. a sub-series. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:26, May 9, 2024 (EDT)

Well, it said "side-scrolling" games, & Maker is a game-maker game, while Run is like one of those auto levels but you have some control, so at that point we'll need at least one extra layer. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:25, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Maker and Run both have cameras that scroll to the side. That's the literal definition of "side-scrolling game". -- KOOPA CON CARNE 09:51, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

(facepalm) It said "side-scrolling action games", which, yes, Maker & Run fit in, but both Maker & Run also fit under other categories, whilst this notification only specifies side-scrolling action games, NOT other categories of games OR games that mix categories (like Maker & Run). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

But you admit that Run and Maker also fit the definition of "side-scrolling action games". Your idea that the classification excludes "games that mix categories" is not supported at all by the text of the notification. By that logic, would the minigames included in New Super Mario Bros. somehow disqualify it from the series too? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:35, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

No, because NSMB's minigames are not the main game. Maker being a game-maker game AND a side-scrolling game, or Run being an "automatic movement with some control" game, ARE the main game. The text of the notification ONLY says "side scrolling action game", but not anything else in terms of type of game. And I never said anything about games being disqualified, because of other official sources including games like NSMB, Maker, etc. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Indeed, the notification only says "side-scrolling action games", not "side-scrolling action games except those that also feature other elements". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Has anyone considered that the reason they stated that "Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first side-scrolling entry in the Super Mario Bros. series in 11 years", because they may consider Super Mario Run and the Super Mario Maker games as spinoffs to the Super Mario Bros. series? I mean, for comparison, Mario Party: The Top 100 and Mario Party Superstars only includes information from Mario Party 1-10, leaving out Mario Party Advance, Mario Party DS, Mario Party: Island Tour, Mario Party: Star Rush, and in Superstars's case, Super Mario Party; but these are all undoubtedly Mario Party games as well, with DS and Super in particular featuring the same basic gameplay as the first eight Mario Party titles. rend (talk) (edits) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Well, Super Mario Bros. for NES is the first game in both the Super Mario Bros. series and the broader Super Mario series, so anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:16, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer That's one of the things I used for my Super Mario (series) sub-series split. Also, I don't think that this will affect Maker and Run's mainline status. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I don't understand what you mean. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

You brought up this (which the second part of my reply was directed to), & as for the 1st part, I don't really remember what that was supposed to be directed to. Seems to be directed to one of the various things you said here, but it could've been for someone else. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

For the second part, I'm aware this proposal won't directly affect Maker and Run's mainline status, but Super Mario RPG said that this "could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the Super Mario series", which is why I brought up that past proposal that tried to do exactly that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

"Anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right?" By that logic, with the Mario Bros. beginning both the Mario Bros. series and the greater Mario franchise, shouldn't the entire mainline Mario series, being a "spinoff" of Mario Bros., all be merged under one "Mario (mainline series)" header? Not only is that an organizational mess, but Nintendo has never treated it as being such.
While you could argue it was ambiguous before, I feel now that Nintendo has given us a very clear delineation of a separate "Super Mario Bros. series of side-scrolling action games" that excludes the Maker games and Super Mario Run (which were released in the 11 years between Wonder and "the last side-scrolling entry"). Let me emphasize: A series of side-scrolling action games, and this is a side-scrolling entry in the series of side-scrolling action games. It seems like a stretch of logic to infer from this that there could be non-side scrolling and/or non-action games in a side-scrolling action series. DrippingYellow (talk) 12:10, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Under the logic of the 1st 2 setences, we should merge all 4 franchises and all the series into 1 article! Also, for the last sentence, what about games that are both side-scrolling action games AND non-side-scrolling action games (like game-making or "automatic movement with some control" games)? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:24, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

If a game is a side-scrolling action game, it can't also be a non-side-scrolling action game, this isn't Schrödinger's game genre. Being able to make levels in the Maker games doesn't mean their side-scrolling action elements somehow don't exist. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with you about the classification of the Super Mario Bros. series as part of the Super Mario series, my point was more that "spinoff" is a bit of a useless classification when we're dealing with sub-sub-series and what have you. However, I don't think we need to have a Super Mario Bros. series article separate from the main Super Mario series article, if that's what you're suggesting. I feel like the Mario Bros. example isn't really comparable because of how obviously untenable merging most of the franchise's distinct series into a single page would be. In my opinion, series contained within series shouldn't get articles, but series contained within franchises should. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

But then what about DKL? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:28, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

What about it? It's a related yet separate series to DKC. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

It could be considered a sub-series of DKC, due to its numerous similarities (& especially DKC2/DKL2 and DKC3/DKL3), and thus wouldn't deserve an article. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:34, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

A sub-series is a series contained within another series, not a related yet separate series, which is what DKL is. Compare Mario Tennis and Mario Golf - they're similar, related series of sports games developed by Camelot, but are separate as neither can be said to contain the other. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:39, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

And yet Mario Golf & Golf are part of the same overall series, which has to do with golf, and all the sports games are all part of the same overall sports series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:41, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, no? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:44, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

1, "...eventually leading to the Mario Golf series...". 2. NES Open Tournament Golf is part of both series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Good point, but I still think it's a stretch to call them part of the same series, and that doesn't seem to be the wiki's current interpretation, with the Mario Golf (series) article referring to the "previous Golf series", and much like with DKC and DKL, "leading to" doesn't necessarily mean "containing" (though admittedly some kind of re-evaluation of the golf games might be in order since Nintendo seems to consider Japan Course and US Course as Mario Golf games). Anyway, to return to the topic of the Super Mario series, I still don't think there's any sub-series that need splits here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:19, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I never said that DKC LEAD TO DKL, but DKC2 is almost the same as DKL2, and same with DKC3 & DKL3. Also, what do other people think concerning "there's any sub-series that need splits here"? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, I thought we were in agreement that DKC led to DKL, that much at least seems inarguable (Donkey Kong Land (series) article tells us "The series is based on the Donkey Kong Country series"). I just don't think that makes DKL a "sub-series" of DKC, but rather a related series, since neither series contains the other. But I digress. Anyway, this quite recent proposal dealt with splitting sub-series, and it failed by quite a margin. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I never said DKC led to DKL. All I was saying was that DKC2/3 are basically the same as DKL2/3. As for that linked proposal, see my comments on that proposal. Also there are other contributions I made that are still "current", so anyone (including you) needs to reply so that they can keep going. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Ah, wait, I think I misunderstood the proposal at first. Is this basically an extension of the proposal to get rid of "franchise" headings, to be able to separate the SMB games and other Super Mario games into different places in the History section? DrippingYellow (talk) 14:45, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think that would work since the Super Mario Bros. series would be regarded as a part of the Super Mario mainline series. Meaning that the Super Mario Bros. series would be listed under a subheader of the Super Mario series alongside Super Mario 64, Super Mario 3D World and the like. I had thought that this was what Super Mario RPG was aiming for, instead of putting the 3D game headers in different places like you seem to be suggesting what he's talking about, since, well, the Super Mario 3D games are also mainline games, but not the same as the sidescrollers. What I was thinking would allow the Bros. games to be listed together and still be listed among the 3D titles at the same time.
But if what you're suggesting is what Super Mario RPG actually wanted... well that's probably just as bad, if not worse, than removing the franchise headers, as it effs up the organizing even further (because, again, the 3D Super Mario titles are just as mainline as the sidescroller ones). rend (talk) (edits) 12:39, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Move Super Mario Odyssey kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for Odyssey kingdom articles

It is strange that, while infoboxes for courses in Super Mario 64 or Galaxy feature useful data for players (like missions and comets for galaxy articles), we don't have any of that type of info in the Odyssey Kingdom infobox (such as number of Power Moons, number of regional coins and bosses). The infobox template for Odyssey kingdoms include just the brochure data, like population and industry, but, since that is fictional and irrelevant data, we should move it to the kingdom article's brochure details section, as it is just brochure data.

I propose:

• Moving the current kindom infobox (centered on brochure info: kingdom and location taglines, population, size, locals, currency, industry and temperature) to the Brochure details section. The kingdom tagline could be displayed as the quote at the top of the article as well.
• Use the course infobox instead for the opening of the article, as that is already used for the 3D games' courses and galaxies without distinction.
• Adding info for the number of Power Moons and number of regional coins into the course infobox template.

In order to maintain the layout of the Brochure details sections intact, we could make the kingdom infobox into a horizontal box like so:

Horizontal box idea
Cap Kingdom "Home of Tradition, Propriety, and Hats" Bonneton "A land of haberdashed dreams." Population Middling Size Smallish Locals Bonneters Currency Hat-shaped Industry Hats, Airships Temperature Average 71°F (22°C)

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: May 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per my proposal.
2. Hewer (talk) Sounds reasonable, per proposal.
3. Arend (talk) As long as we still use the (revised horizontal) infobox in the brochure details, per all.
4. MegaBowser64 (talk) Nice idea! Per all.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Good idea, and I like the horizontal box.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Oppose

1. LadySophie17 (talk) I like the infobox as it is. It's charming and harmless. If necessary, we could just add the relevant info like number of Power Moons, Regional Coins and following/preceding kingdoms to the template itself.

Comments

Actually, given that the brochure infobox's info is already displayed in a similar table in the brochures in-game, wouldn't it be a good idea to simply just move the kingdom infobox to the article's brochure details section, instead of removing the infobox altogether? That would be the simplest way to move all the info to that section and keep both the kingdom tagline and area tagline neatly in the brochure where it already belongs in-game, instead of separating it to the top of the page. The course infobox can still take the kingdom infobox's initial placement on the article, it's not like we haven't had articles with multiple infoboxes before. rend (talk) (edits) 20:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I think I'd prefer that too. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I guess, but that would mess up the layout used in the brochure details sections, which I personally think looks pretty nice and clean the way it is, which is why I didn't consider it (unless we made the box horizontal). You think it is worth it? Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 21:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

You've got a point there. Maybe we could try to revamp the infobox to be horizontal so it wouldn't have to mess up the layout. rend (talk) (edits) 22:59, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

I updated it and kept the box as you suggested. If you have any ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 23:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)

Looks great! I'd probably set the colspan for the Kingdom name/area name/taglines to 4 instead of 2 so it would look nice in 4:3 screens (i.e. iPad), and I'd probably try to keep the styles that the infobox had as much as possible (e.g. with the dark khaki border and area tagline), but it's perfectly serviceable regardless. rend (talk) (edits) 07:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

I should probably note though, that all Super Mario Sunshine courses (e.g. Sirena Beach, Pinna Park) appear to use the location infobox instead of the course infobox. Would that also have to be changed (or at least determined via another proposal)? rend (talk) (edits) 17:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)

Create {{DLC infobox}} template

The Super Mario DLC articles are missing a {{DLC infobox}} template. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to create the {{DLC infobox}} template. The following parameters are as follows:

• name - The name of the DLC (italics are optional).
• image - Image(s) of the topic.
• game - The game(s) the DLC applies to.
• release - The release date of DLC in all regions (use the {{release}} template).
• languages - The languages the DLC is playable in (use the {{languages}} template).
• cost - The cost date of DLC in all regions (use the {{release}} template).
• platforms - The platforms that the DLC has been released on.
• content - A brief summary of the content in the DLC.
• related - Any subjects related to the DLC.

Once this proposal passes, the we'll be able to put the infobox on Mercedes-Benz × Mario Kart 8, The Legend of Zelda × Mario Kart 8, Animal Crossing × Mario Kart 8, Donkey Kong Adventure, the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass, The Tower of Doooom, The Last Spark Hunter, and Rayman in the Phantom Show.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal
2. Scrooge200 (talk) I've always found it strange that these don't already have an infobox. Considering DLC for Mario games is getting more common lately, it definitely has a use.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we're surprised this hasn't been created sooner with the absolute deluge of DLC Mario Kart 8 has received across literally multiple consoles, running the gambit from the Mercedes-Benz crossover to the Booster Course Pack. And if that wasn't enough, the Rabbids games' DLC campaigns show this isn't even just a Mario Kart 8-only thing. (We have a bit more to say, but we'll leave that to comments.)
4. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work.
5. Arend (talk) Per all.

Comments

Depending on how you choose to define "DLC", we think you could even throw in a few other things as well. Admittedly, the DLC category is a little muddied at the moment with... mumble grumble... smash redirects, so we couldn't get the best look at this hour, but from what we saw, you could even throw in those Coin Rush packs pretty easily. We think the only real exception is New Super Luigi U, since that one technically did see a standalone release without the game it's DLC for, meaning we already use the game infobox for that one. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 01:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Then do you have any better ideas than create the {{DLC infobox}}? GuntherBayBeee 11:52, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

...I don't think they were implying that a DLC infobox is a bad idea... at all. All they were saying (aside from complaining about the Smash FLC redirects) was that the Coin Rush DLC packs could implement a DLC infobox as well (which I'm unsure about, given that {{NSMB2 pack infobox}} already exists), and that only New Super Luigi U doesn't need it since it's got a standalone physical release. rend (talk) (edits) 12:03, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Split the Super Mario universe and the Paper Mario universe

I think the articles about the Super Mario universe (characters, levels, worlds, etc.) should be split between the Super Mario uiverse and the Paper Mario universe. As those are 2 different universes. This is confirmed in Mario & Luigi Paper Jam for Nintendo 3DS. Also in Super Paper Mario, there is a wedding scence with Mario, Bowser & Peach in the Paper Mario universe. In the Super Mario universe there's a wedding scene in Super Mario Odyssey. Kamek and Bowser Jr. appear for the first time in the Paper Mario verse in Paper Mario: Sticker Star. In the Super Mario universe they appear earlier. Bowser Jr. in Super Mario Sunshine and Kamek in Yoshi's Island. For example there would be an article about Mario and a seperate article about Paper Mario from the Paper Mario series. This would be a pretty big, important change for this wiki, to be even better, more accurate. And I think that's what matters. To make the Super Mario wiki more organiced and easier to use for Mario Fans. Thanks!

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk)
Deadline: May 19, 2024, 23:59

Support

1. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per my proposal.

Oppose

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per the proposal that split the Paper Jam characters and my comments here. I will also again point out MarioWiki:Canonicity.
2. Hewer (talk) Paper Jam does not confirm that the Paper Mario games happened in a different universe, it merely confirms that there is another universe with paper versions of the characters based on those from Paper Mario. To extrapolate from that that Paper Mario and everything else are set in different universes is a forbidden speculative reading between the lines, as described in MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology. And speaking of the latter, you can't also deem things as occurring earlier or later in a timeline, because there isn't one, and games in the franchise are allowed to contradict each other's stories as much as they please without requiring us to reshuffle everything and speculate about how they connect (doesn't Mario meet the Lumas for the first time in both of the Galaxy games?). This would very much not make the wiki "more organiced and easier to use", but rather be perhaps the biggest organisational disaster to ever befall the wiki.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Not sure what a "universe" is.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer. The fact is, prior to Paper Jam, the Paper Mario series is not treated as any kind of separate world and this seems to hold even in the later Paper Mario games. This would be a huge mess and wouldn’t help anyone navigate anything on the wiki.
5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is a reading that literally only makes sense in the context of Paper Jam and no other video games--both ones before it and after it. There's a reason Paperfolk was deleted on-the-spot, without proposal; treating the Paper versions of characters as being different from their not-Paper versions outside of the context of the one video game where they basically had to do that out of necessity is a complete and utter nightmare.
7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yeah no. And if it weren't for Paper Mario and Luigi acting so different from the normal Mario and Luigi, I'd prefer we merged these characters outright since the counterparts are almost always seen together and have the same personalities (ie with the Peaches, the Kameks, the Bowsers, and the Juniors)
8. Mario (talk) Not a good idea. Per Nightwicked Bowser.

Comments

The scene mentioning the paper Koopalings seems like it's foreshadowing Color Splash, but other than that, there's little hard evidence. If we can compile quotes from interviews and other promotional materials, there might be something to work with, but I've more or less given up on this one. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:00, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

The games didn't really start acting like the Paper Mario games had their own continuity until Sticker Star, but even then it was just some throwaway lines and a multitude of dialogue-based paper jokes (as opposed to the solely visual gag-based ones from before). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:41, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I'd argue that the first Paper Mario - conceived as the direct sequel of Super Mario RPG - almost feels like an intentionally separate continuity to that game in its finalized form. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Paper Mario (character) has as much right to be his own article as Rabbid Mario in my view, as do the other Paper/Rabbid characters. And for the record, Paper Kamek is fought at one point without the normal Kamek. Nightwicked Bowser 11:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

He is. But his role could have just as easily gone to normal Kamek, because aside from the art style, they are exactly the same. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:11, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

But it didn't. We're covering the game as it is, not as it hypothetically could be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

That's not the point. The point is they are completely interchangeable. If it were written on one article, it would flow more organically and be more concise. Contrast that with the Rabbid characters Keyblade brought up, who have their own very distinct wacky personalities and differently specialized abilities. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

But it would be less accurate to how they're presented in the game as two distinct characters, even if their roles are similar. If a game has two very similar but separate characters, then by all means, we should have two very similar but separate articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are now merged. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:36, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Fair point but they're never seen apart and share all of their appearances whereas the paper characters are Paper Jam-only, so they have much fewer appearances than their counterparts, and they have at least some separation even in Paper Jam whereas Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are always exactly identical and even considered a single character in NSMBU Deluxe. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:45, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Consider The Super Mario Bros. Movie as an installment of the Super Mario series

Now this may seem like an unusual proposal, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does not pass, but there's something that could be worth considering: The Super Mario Bros. Movie actually being part of the mainline Super Mario series. There are homages to the Super Mario series (like the Training Course), Lumalee makes an appearance, and there's a scene where Donkey Kong uses a Fire Flower, and another where Princess Peach uses an Ice Flower; these two power-ups are most commonly associated with the Super Mario series.

One of the key factors of consideration is Shigeru Miyamoto's involvement in this film, as well as in the sequel. Breath of the Wild, developed around the same time as Super Mario Odyssey, had its proper sequel, Tears of the Kingdom (Zelda was also created by Miyamoto), released around the time when Super Mario Bros. Movie premiered in theaters and had home release. While there's no established connection between Super Mario Odyssey and The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the fact that Miyamoto co-produced this film, and will be doing the next, makes me think he wants to diversify the Super Mario mainline series with more media formats, no longer confining it to just video games.

Edit: Crossed out weak points irrelevant to the proposal.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: May 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

#Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.

Oppose

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, since the movie is getting a sequel, the proposal could be its own series by then, or just another film within the Super Mario series.
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Unless we're gonna consider the 1993 movie, the Valiant comics, the various anime and manga, and the DiC cartoons as part of it as well, I don't see why we should specifically do this one.
3. Hewer (talk) ...What? The Super Mario series is a video game series, none of Nintendo's official lists of entries have any non-game stuff, the entire franchise has homages to the Super Mario series (the Fire Flower has far more appearances than just the platformers), and Miyamoto wasn't involved in Mario Odyssey or either of those Zelda games as far as I'm aware (not that that's relevant anyway). And why did you vote for both options when that's functionally the same as not voting at all (and I don't think is even allowed for a two-option proposal)? Is this a month-late April Fools' proposal? EDIT: It's also telling that, now that the weak points have been crossed out, the proposal has pretty much no arguments left.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) - The Super Mario series of games is just that--a series of video games. This would make about as much sense as saying the Donkey Kong Country cartoon counts as a part of the Donkey Kong series of games.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all. I understand why one would want to establish a more concrete classification system, but this seems diluting and unhelpful.

Comments

Uh, is Super Mario RPG allowed to vote for both options? Rule 2 states that "Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices." I think that implies that when there's only two options, you can only choose one of them.
I could've sworn there was also a rule that states you're not allowed to choose for all options, even in multi-choice proposals where you're allowed to vote for more than one option, but I couldn't really find one like that quickly. Still, the implication that you can only choose one option in a two-options in a two-choice proposal would also imply that you can choose all but one option in a multi-choice proposal, I think. rend (talk) (edits) 11:57, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

There's no restriction on how many options you can vote for in a proposal with more than two choices, it's just pointless to vote for all of them because it doesn't change the ratio of how many voters each option has, so it has no effect (I guess besides adding to the minimum required votes to not get no quorum). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer No, it's a real proposal. It was something I had on mind for a while and wanted to get off of my chest to see if films really were being inducted into the series or if it was just my own headcanon. I crossed out my support and will let the proposal run its course. Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I feel like we need to have a broader discussion on what criteria we even look for when categorizing subjects as siblings within the same "franchise" or "series". To me, it does not really matter how involved Shigeru Miyamoto is with a particular project because: (1) Miyamoto has a history of involving himself with a wide diversity of projects both within and outside of Mario just to provide development guidance or maintain brand integrity with external parties (like Illumination Studios); and (2) I generally feel like published works should be interpreted independently for their own criteria for classification. Nintendo did not always consider Super Mario Land a mainline Super Mario series game, a game that saw almost no involvement from Miyamoto, but I always considered it so because there are no objective reasons within the game itself for it to be excluded. It is nice to see that Nintendo themselves have come to that same perspective. Additionally, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, in all languages, explicitly states that the remakes of mainline series games, like Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance, are not literal parts of the Super Mario series (pp. 238 - 255; note the star key on 238). Offhand, I am inclined to think a separation like that is very silly. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:50, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Miyamoto's involvement has never been considered as a factor in anything at all to my knowledge, not sure why this proposal brought it up. Whole development teams for games can change while still being in the same series, e.g. Donkey Kong Country. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.