MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Sunday, December 22nd, 05:02 GMT

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

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Move Shadow (character) to Shadow (Sonic the Hedgehog) (discuss) Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move "Rare Ltd." to "Rareware" or "Rare" (discuss) Deadline: December 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Make changes to List of Smash Taunt characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Tighten Category:Deceased characters (discuss) Deadline: December 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Cascading Stone, vanishing platform, and moon platform with Falling Platform (discuss) Deadline: December 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Add to-do tasks on the Main Page (discuss) Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Rename the NES Template (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT
• Merge the list of show hosts in All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. (discuss) Deadline: January 4, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)

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

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove video game console generations

I would imagine most people who have discussed video games in the past have heard of video game console generations. It is a tool to categorize video game hardware and its place in time. There is just one problem: the current video game console generation system is flawed. If you would like to further read into the specifics as to why I would recommend this Time Extension article by Jack Yarwood. But in short, the phrase "next generation" originates as a term used starting around the 1990s, as video games evolved over the many years, Wikipedia editors would create their own video game console generation system that has for the most part remained unchanged since its introduction in the early 2000s. This generation system would slowly be adopted by other sites, media, and the people who engage with video games.

Within the scope of the major Nintendo video game consoles, this is currently how the video game console generation system is categorized.

First generation: Color TV-Game
Second generation: Game & Watch
Third generation: Family Computer, Nintendo Entertainment System
Fourth generation: Super Famicom, Super Nintendo Entertainment System, Game Boy
Fifth generation: Nintendo 64, Game Boy Color
Sixth generation: Nintendo GameCube, Game Boy Advance
Seventh generation: Wii, Nintendo DS
Eighth generation: Wii U, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Switch
Ninth generation: Nintendo Switch

There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead. Because of this, it is not entirely clear where the Nintendo Switch is in the video game console generation system and the solution is to simply file it in both generations rather than one or the other.

Now the Nintendo Switch is a hybrid console, but what about portable consoles? The current video game console generation system lumps in both home and portable consoles. If the goal of the generation system was to be based on hardware specifications than it ultimately falls flat with consoles such as the 16-bit Super Famicom and Super Nintendo Entertainment System home consoles being in the same generation as the 8-bit Game Boy portable console. For home consoles there is absolutely nothing in the second generation, with the Color TV-Game consoles being in the first and the Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System consoles being in the third. Portable consoles have a similar issue with nothing in the third generation, with the Game & Watch line in the second and the Game Boy being in the fourth.

For these reasons, I think it should be considered to remove video game console generations from this wiki. It is ultimately a flawed tool that originates as something made up by various Wikipedia editors that stuck around for far too long without real consideration of its flaws. If video game console generations are removed, we should gravitate towards more factual descriptions that better represent the consoles.

Home consoles: 1. Color TV-Game 2. Family Computer, Nintendo Entertainment System 3. Super Famicom, Super Nintendo Entertainment System 4. Nintendo 64 5. Nintendo GameCube, 6. Wii 7. Wii U 8. Nintendo Switch
Portable consoles: 1. Game & Watch 2. Game Boy 3. Game Boy Color 4. Game Boy Advance 5. Nintendo DS 6. Nintendo 3DS 7. Nintendo Switch

Home console example: "The Nintendo 64 is the fourth Nintendo home console platform."
Portable console example: "The Nintendo DS is the fifth Nintendo portable console platform."
Hybrid console example: "The Nintendo Switch is the seventh portable and eighth home Nintendo console platform."

This alternative system does have flaws with the Switch being in two categories again, however that is due to the Switch being a hybrid between a home and portable console. The reason the console is in two video game generations according to Wikipedia is not as clear. Another much straightforward solution would be to simply list the predecessor and successor of each console.

Example: "The predecessor to the Nintendo 64 is the Super Famicom and Super Nintendo Entertainment System and the successor is the Nintendo GameCube."

This is the most likely solution if video game console generations were removed. It is easy to understand and already implemented to an extent. The work required is simply the removal process with minimal addition.

Proposer: Bro3256 (talk)
Deadline: December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
4. Bro3256 (talk) Per proposal.
5. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
6. winstein (talk) Per proposal.
7. PopitTart (talk) Per all.
8. Fun With Despair (talk) Per all, I've always found console generations to be confusing and unclear.
9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Regardless of contemporary awkwardness, it's still useful comparing the timelines for the ones of the past. I've still seen people not realize the GBC was in circulation around the same time of the N64 based on nothing but their respective bit-count.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) - This feels like a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". While we've always found the "console generations" thing really, really strange (as you can expect from a metric born from Wikipedia itself), we can't deny that it is still useful to a degree, and unlike, say, calling unused content "beta" content, the term "console generation" is still a term that sees active use in gaming circles, even if as of late Nintendo's side of it has gotten a bit desynced. In addition, as was pointed out in the comments, the Philips CD-i is noticeably absent, but in addition to that, so is the Virtual Boy, which is even more directly Nintendo related? Not that we'd particularly like this even if both of these were accounted for, mind...
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Without the Virtual Boy in here, this numbering scheme just flat-out isn't actually true. As such, I can't support this proposal.
4. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Perhaps a better idea is to use Cross-generation ({{wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}}—{{wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}}) on the Nintendo Switch page and use {{wp|[No.] generation of video game consoles|[No.] generation}} on pages on all other systems. As such, I'm opposing this proposal.
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick and Cam&woodstock.
6. Nintendo101 (talk) I personally do not invoke console generations when writing about video games - it is not a classification system that has much value to me. I do not think I would support the carte blanche integration of console generations as a large systematic classification system on the wiki. If this proposal was just asking to remove generations from the system infobox, I might be on board. However, console generations are still a widely employed way to separate game media into different eras, and I do not think it is intrinsically harmful to mention them in a paragraph if the editor finds it helpful to relay a specific piece of information. I think users should still have the ability to exercise that freedom.
7. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
8. SeanWheeler (talk) Do we have pages about console generations? I can't find any pages about generations. If you can link to any pages about console generations, I'd change my vote to support because pages about console generations on a Nintendo wiki wouldn't be useful. If this proposal is about removing references to the generations in each console page, then I have to oppose. The whole issue about which generation the Switch is from could be settled on the Nintendo Switch talk page.
9. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.

Comments

I disagree with the premise, since a tool that is helpful but flawed is still helpful. Moreover, we do cover a couple of devices that do not fit on a Nintendo-exclusive relative timeline, namely the Philips CD-i and the Triforce arcade boards. I guess "contemporary to the _____" works just as well, but there's a level of "semantics over broader public" thing that I'm a little iffy about if that kind of phrasing has to be used. Salmancer (talk) 13:51, November 29, 2024 (EST)

Where the HECK is the Virtual Boy in all of this? Nintendo's actual third portable console and part of the fourth generation (or fifth? It was supposed to keep customers occupied while waiting for the Nintendo 64), as it was released in 1995? rend (talk) (edits) 15:43, November 29, 2024 (EST)

I didn't include select consoles in this proposal since my arguments mainly focused on the major Nintendo consoles. That is not to say consoles like the Virtual Boy and non-Nintendo consoles like the Philips CD-i aren't important (they are!), but I wanted to prioritize the issues present with how the video game geration system currently works with the major Nintendo consoles since these alone already present issues with the system without the additions of what was omitted for the purposes of this proposal.

Regarding Triforce, that is a whole different category of hardware. Arcade hardware for the most part has never worked with this generation system since it was primarly designed with home and portable consoles in mind. How do you even slot in arcade hardware to begin with? Arcade games had a completely different evolution to their console counterparts and were usually cutting edge at the time before any console equivalents made it to market, and even if they did unlike consoles, arcade hardware differs depending on the game. How can you be sure what a certain arcade game is running on is in a certain generation? --Bro3256 (talk) 18:04, November 29, 2024 (EST)

I feel like this is a very picking-and-choosing type of situation. How in the heck is the Virtual Boy, something that gets equal amounts of merch as every other Nintendo console (Wii, Nintendo 64, Game Boy, NES, GameCube, etc) in the Nintendo Museum gift shop (meaning that Nintendo views this thing equally important as the other consoles), NOT a major console, but the Color TV-Game, a plug-and-play type of console that did NOT get any merch in the aforementioned Nintendo Museum gift shop, IS? This type of consideration also makes the Virtual Boy the ONLY non-major Nintendo console that isn't an upgrade or add-on of another previous console (e.g. Nintendo DSi, Famicom Disk System, Nintendo Switch OLED Model), and at that point, why make such a distinction at all? Wouldn't it be better to include the Virtual Boy among the other major consoles?
I also don't quite understand why you're mentioning the Philips CD-i or Triforce to my reply, when I didn't mention those at all. Unlike the Virtual Boy, I actually do get excluding those: the CD-i is not a Nintendo console at all, it's only relevant due to the licensed Nintendo games on them. That's like saying the Nintendo Switch is a Sony system because a handful of Playstation Studio-made games were released on the thing as well. As for Triforce, that and all other arcade hardware is a whole other can of worms that neither of us would like to get into. rend (talk) (edits) 11:23, December 3, 2024 (EST)

I was replying to both your comment and the one Salmancer made, I apologize that was not clear. To reiterate, the consoles I mentioned in the initial proposal were chosen to showcase the flaws with the video game console generation system. My intention was not to list out nearly every piece of Nintendo video game hardware that would have to be accounted for within this system as that was not the goal of this proposal. I feel the flaws with the video game console generation system and the confusion it has led should be more than enough reason to remove it from the wiki. If this were to be put into practice the questions you're currently asking would be all but redundant with the absence of this generation system entirely. --Bro3256 (talk) 12:09, December 3, 2024 (EST)

I still feel like you should include the Virtual Boy among the portable consoles you've listed, the way you've proposed your idea (which you are currently not doing). As I just stared before, Nintendo views the Virtual Boy on an (at least somewhat) equal level as their other major consoles historically speaking, and was basically meant to be a "third pillar" to the Game Boy and Nintendo 64 in the same way the Nintendo DS was meant as a "third pillar" to the GameCube and GBA (the obvious difference being that the Virtual Boy flopped hard while the DS became a commercial success). It's still a part of Nintendo's (portable) console history, so skipping the Virtual Boy feels disingenuous regardless of its failure.
Also, by counting the Virtual Boy as a portable console, it would also make the Nintendo Switch the eighth portable console, which also makes it way more convenient as a hybrid console, since it's also the eighth home console. rend (talk) (edits) 13:07, December 3, 2024 (EST)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: I don't really see how that's an argument against this proposal. We have the release dates listed for the consoles, and the Game Boy Color article's very first sentence describes it as "the handheld counterpart of the Nintendo 64". Why is it also necessary to call them "fifth generation"? I'd argue that it's probably the least clear way of showing the connection, because I can't imagine "fifth generation" means anything to someone who doesn't know about when those consoles released. Not to mention that being in the same "generation" doesn't necessarily mean they were being sold at the same time, as the Wii U and Switch demonstrate. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:30, November 29, 2024 (EST)

@Ahemtoday: Please read above the comment I made in regards to the absence of Virtual Boy. Keep and mind that I was presenting it as one possible solution if video game console generations were removed. That is not to say it should be the solution used hence why I provided another alternative one. If the first system was implemented into the wiki than I would imagine Virtual Boy being included. --Bro3256 (talk) 18:25, November 29, 2024 (EST)

Do we really discuss console generations extensively on the wiki? I do not know of any examples offhand. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:40, November 29, 2024 (EST)

The Family Computer and Nintendo Entertainment System articles are obvious examples but there's this article's trivia section as an example of non-console articles.--Bro3256 (talk) 00:08, November 30, 2024 (EST)

"There is one obvious problem that you might have noticed. The Nintendo Switch is in the eighth and ninth generation. This is due to when the Nintendo Switch first released: March 3, 2017. The current system begins the ninth generation in November 2020 with the release of the Xbox Series X/S and PlayStation 5 consoles. This is despite how for most of the lifespan of the Nintendo Switch, it has actually been competing against consoles that under this system is a whole generation ahead."

But then I have to question: what about the SG-1000 and the Mark III/Master System releasing just shy of a few years? I know it has a very time span compared to the Wii U and Switch, but if they are bundled under the third-generation, the Switch should also be this way for the eighth, right? -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:00, November 30, 2024 (EST)

There have been countless debates regarding the SG-1000 in particular due to it sharing nearly the exact same hardware as the ColecoVision yet both consoles are in different generations despite being released within one year apart. However this side of the console generations debate is not relevant to the scope of this wiki.--Bro3256 (talk) 01:20, November 30, 2024 (EST)

The wiki actually does currently consider the Switch to be "eighth generation", as seen in the infobox on its page. Which is a bit confusing since it puts it in the same generation as the Wii U even though the only thing making them less separate is the release timing of other consoles not covered by this wiki. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:42, November 30, 2024 (EST)

I personally feel that is more than enough reason to remove video game console generations from this wiki. We already have "Predecessor" and "Successor" as a more straight forward tool. --Bro3256 (talk) 23:33, November 30, 2024 (EST)

I agree. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:43, December 1, 2024 (EST)

I'm only here to say that I vehemently reject the Wikipedia consensus on Switch being 8th gen console. Sure, it competed with 8th gen Playstation 4 and Xbox One, but Nintendo officially regards Switch separate from Wii U. What about Sega Genesis or Turbografx, are they 3rd gen because they were released to one-up NES? Or is Playstation 1 4th gen because of its origins as a SNES add-on? Hell, since Nintendo considers Game Boy Color to be just another Game Boy iteration, shouldn't that really be a 4th gen handheld that happened to be released during 5th-6th gens and trounced its competition? I don't care which way this wiki goes with this proposal, but the Switch placement is one that irks me because 3DS and Wii U already cover Nintendo's 8th gen hardware lineup. Thus Switch should be the start of 9th gen and no amount of "because Wikipedia says so" is going to convince me otherwise. SmokedChili (talk) 03:12, December 1, 2024 (EST)

The main reason I started this proposal to begin with was to showcase the flaws in the system which include things you've mentioned here. The video game console generation system that is currently being used has its roots as something made up by Wikipedia editors and to this day they influence what consoles are in what generation. Even if you don't use Wikipedia you've felt this influence everywhere in the video games space which does include this wiki. Therefore, removing video game console generations would be beneficial to this wiki as it would allow the contributors to this wiki be able to decide for themselves how to handle describing video game consoles. I provided two possible solutions if this proposal passes but that is not to say they are the only solutions, but removing video game console generations is the first step towards better alternatives in the long run. --Bro3256 (talk) 04:57, December 1, 2024 (EST)

@SeanWheeler: I don't understand why you're opposing if you admit that console generations aren't useful to us. The Switch issue could be settled much more easily by removing console generations. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:35, December 3, 2024 (EST)

I'm confused as well. To reiterate a previous comment of mine, there is this article's trivia section that uses it ("...that design's only two appearances in any game originally for a seventh-generation or later console."). Regarding other examples, there is a merchandising section in the Donkey Kong (franchise) article ("During the seventh generation of video games, there were two arcade Donkey Kong titles released in Japan...") and the development section in the WarioWare (series) article ("...every Nintendo system from the sixth generation onwards has had at least one entry of the series released for it..."). I feel that is more than enough examples to show that the use of the video game console generation system is used well outside of the console articles. --Bro3256 (talk) 03:52, December 3, 2024 (EST)

I'm concerned that Sean doesn't read proposals before voting. This is not the first time either. Axii (talk) 04:07, December 3, 2024 (EST)

We feel like if the point of this proposal was to bring up issues with Wikipedia's own console generation metrics, then it would probably be... well, we don't know if it'd be more productive per say, we have some takes about how Wikipedia is managed and a very cynical part of us imagines there's a non-zero chance that they'd shrug it off, but it would definitely be more apt to hold that conversation at the source, rather than here. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:30, December 3, 2024 (EST)

Then why does this wiki use this generation system? --Bro3256 (talk) 13:44, December 3, 2024 (EST)

It's what other people use, and while it has issues (namely, the fact Nintendo has gotten themselves out of sync with it and there has been zero effort to try and address that), none of them are particular deal-breakers. It's also capable of handling weird edge-cases, which is a genuine boon for it. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:28, December 3, 2024 (EST)

This feels like a good time to raise the tried and true argument that we don't do things just because other wikis do them. I'm also a bit puzzled what you mean by "it's capable of handling weird edge-cases", which you state right after discussing its inability to handle the Switch's weird edge case. If by "weird edge cases" you mean stuff like the CD-i, I'm not sure why this wiki needs to "handle" them with a system like this in the first place. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:10, December 3, 2024 (EST)

The Switch is mostly a stumbling block because it's "technically" a part of the eighth generation due to how Wikipedia handles things, which. Is mostly a byproduct of Wikipedia themselves. Sure, we could do things our own way and call it part of the ninth generation anyways, but in this specific case, we feel like that would do more harm than good; inherently, the console generation metric is based entirely on what other people say it is, and again, while it's not perfect, it's decent enough for our purposes, and it would only be worth fixing if, for whatever reason, Wikipedia decided it should change too.
As for the latter, well, what, are we supposed to just not count the Virtual Boy or CD-i as part of Nintendo's console lineups? If the proposal passes in its current state, neither of those consoles will fall into any "predecessor" or "successor" order. In contrast, the console generation system does properly show that the CD-i released in the same era as SNES, but before the Nintendo 64, without us having to interject it in some list of succession. And the less said about how the Virtual Boy would fit into this equation, the better--it's kind of a hybrid console, but also kind of a home console... We're sorry, but we struggle to see how a line of succession is any "better" than just listing the console generation system in this case. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:38, December 3, 2024 (EST)

"Let's copy how Wikipedia does it as much as possible" strikes me as a very strange thing to argue. Nothing forces us to copy Wikipedia, and the significantly easier and better way to solve the generation system's problems is to remove it.
I admit that the way the proposal is currently written is odd and unnecessarily confusing: it suggests the numbered "line of succession" thing that some opposers are hung up about, but then suggests a better solution that seems to be the one that would actually be used, and lumps them both into the same support option. As I said in my vote, I am specifically supporting the second solution, which is to just say what consoles came before and after the one being discussed and leave it at that. (Also, yes we should exclude the CD-i from Nintendo's console lineups, it's not a Nintendo console.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:19, December 4, 2024 (EST)

Changes

Decide what to do with {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}}

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

Let me tell you what: the {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} templates read too similar to the {{citation needed}} and {{unreferenced}}/{{more citations needed}}/{{unreferenced section}}/{{more citations needed section}} templates from Wikipedia, respectively. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to decide what to do with the templates using three options:

Option 1

Move {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}} and ONLY make {{unreferenced}} more specific.

Option 2

ONLY move {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}} respectively.

Option 3

ONLY make {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} more specific.

Option 4

ONLY make {{ref needed}} more specific.

Option 5

ONLY make {{unreferenced}} more specific.

Option 6

Do NOTHING.

The {{unreferenced}} template currently reads as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div>

This article does not cite any sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Please help improve this article by adding citations from reliable sources.

---

However, if this proposal passes with option 1 being the most voted, guess what? in addition to the {{ref needed}} template being moved to {{citation needed}}, the {{unreferenced}} template will be moved to {{ref needed}} and will read more specifically as follows:

---

<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs at least one more citation for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>If you would like to help {{plain link|{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}}|improve the {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}}}, please [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|add citations from reliable sources]] to it.</small>
</div>

This article does not cite any sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
If you would like to help improve this article, please add citations from reliable sources to it.

---

Also, if the proposal passes with either option 3 or option 5 being the most voted, we'll use this from above.

For example, placing the more=yes, section=yes, and reason=Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources. will have the {{unreferenced}} more specifically read as follows:

---

This section needs at least one more citation for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Specific(s): Information on its release needs to be corroborated with external sources.
If you would like to help improve this section, please add citations from reliable sources to it.

---

Likewise, the {{ref needed}} template reads as follows:

---

<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[[[MarioWiki:Citations|''citation needed'']]]</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>

---

However, if this proposal passes with either option 3 or option 4 being the most voted, the {{ref needed}} template will read as follows:

---

<sup class="noprint" style="font-weight:normal;font-style:normal">[[[MarioWiki:Citations|''reference needed'']]]</sup><includeonly>{{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||[[Category:Articles with unsourced statements]]}}</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Superscript templates]]</noinclude>

---

Likewise, if this proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, we'll only move the {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} templates to {{citation needed}} and {{ref needed}}, respectively.

Which option do you wish to choose?

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) First choice

Option 3

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Second choice

Option 4

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Third choice

Option 5

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Fourth choice

Option 6

1. Hewer (talk) What is the point of this? Switching around the names of those templates is unnecessary at best and confusing at worst, and I don't see how the slightly changed wording of the unreferenced template makes it in any way "more specific". This just feels like changing things for the sake of changing things.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Seems like an unnecessary change, and moving one template to the old name of an unrelated template is just asking to make an even bigger mess of old revisions. When you make proposals, you really should explain why the status quo is a problem and how your proposed solution will fix it.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
4. Technetium (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
5. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Moved templates always give me headaches trying to figure out where the heck they went when I'm previewing edits.
6. OmegaRuby (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
7. Axii (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; this feels like it'd be even more confusing than what we're already doing for next to no benefit.
9. Jdtendo (talk) I know that "We should do this because Wikipedia does it" is not a compelling argument, but "We should not do this because Wikipedia does it" is not compelling either!
10. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Hewer @Waluigi Time @Nintendo101 @Technetium @Doc von Schmeltwick @OmegaRuby @Axii What's a better way to do than options 1 or 2? GuntherBayBeee 13:37, December 3, 2024 (EST)

I guess I do not understand why anything needs to change at all, and I am reluctant to change templates that see widespread use across our userbase and articles without good reason. What is wrong with the way they are currently set up? - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:43, December 3, 2024 (EST)

The {{unreferenced}} template from the Super Mario Wiki reads too similar to the {{unreferenced}}/{{more citations needed}}/{{unreferenced section}}/{{more citations needed section}} templates from Wikipedia. The last time I improved this proposal, I think a better way that I would choose option 4, one of my four options.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBayBeee (talk).

I hear you. They are "too similar" to the templates from Wikipedia. But is that a materially bad thing? What are the consequences to having these templates be similar to the ones from Wikipedia? - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:32, December 3, 2024 (EST)

Backing this up--just because the internal names for templates are similar to Wikipedia's doesn't mean we should change them. Changing them would sweep a lot of change across wiki editing and be a hassle for longtime editors to adapt to. -- OmegaRuby [ Talk / Contribs ] 08:07, December 4, 2024 (EST)

How about "Please help the Super Mario Wiki" instead of "Please help"? Would that look like a better idea? GuntherBayBeee 13:36, December 4, 2024 (EST)

A reconsidering of "derived names"

This proposal acts as a counter to the proposal Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages. In short, to a casual reader like myself, subjects being named Disaster Neko, Comet Tico, Wonder Haiden, and Kodeka Kakibō are extremely unhelpful when English names for them seem trivial. Many subjects in the Mario franchise use a very consistent naming scheme: [A descriptor for this specific subject, usually an adjective] [very standardized name]. If something is officially called Wonder Packun, and is a Packun(or Piranha Plant) which have variants consistently named "X Packun" in Japanese and "X Piranha Plant" in English, then it feels pedantic to not call it a Wonder Piranha Plant.

The proposed change here would be to allow derived names to take precedent over internal and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation, on a case-by-case basis. Derivations should be based on actual official English localizations or already use English words to begin with. If there isn't precedent for each aspect of the name, then it should remain in its source language. Examples:

• Fire Gabon: "Fire X" is a well established format, see Fire Bro (Faia Burosu) and Fire Piranha Plant (Faia Pakkun). "X Spike" is also well established, see Paper Spike (Pēpā Gabon) and Stone Spike (Rokku Gabon). Therefore, Faia Gabon would be interpreted as Fire Spike.
• Comet Tico: "Comet" is already an English term used frequently in Super Mario Galaxy, and Prankster Comets are directly connected to the Comet Tico. "X Luma" is a very consistent formatting of names in SMG, see Hungry Luma (TicoFat internally) and Co-Star Luma (SupportTico intermally). TicoComet can therefore be interpreted as Comet Luma.
• Yarikuri Obake: "Yarikuri" is officially localized as Pirate Goom, however it is never given any descriptors in English and "Obake" does not have a standardized localization, especially not one for Wario Land 3. This name would remain in Japanese.
• Hanabihei (assuming its official English name was never revealed): "Hanabihei" is derived from "Bombhei", but is a portmanteau and not a trivial descriptive name. It would remain as-is.

The positives of this proposal if it were to pass would be that related subjects would be intuitive as to how they relate. Just by reading the names, you would be able to tell that Hoppycat, Wonder Hoppycat, and Big Hoppycat are related, and what that relationship is.

Proposer: PopitTart (talk)
Deadline: December 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal.
2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
3. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal.
4. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. Since I started browsing this wiki as a kid, I had always thought the use of foreign language names were nonsensical when it was obvious what they should be - especially in cases like those cited in the proposal. "Neko" just means literally "Cat" in Japanese. It is likewise reasonable, as stated, to amend enemy names to their English counterpart in cases like "Fire Gabon", etc. In the previous vote to repeal this, Koopa con Carne (talk) stated that you shouldn't ignore an official name to make up a "wacky" name instead. I don't believe this to be a good faith argument in this case. Nobody is making anything up. If Gabon in English is Spike, then there is absolutely no conjecture with regards to applying that moniker to Fire Gabon - nor is there conjecture with regards to what replacing Disaster Neko with Disaster Cat in an instance where the normal version of these entities is just called "Kitten" in English, a direct translation from the respective Japanese name.
6. Ninelevendo (talk) Per proposal.
7. Shoey (talk) Per proposal.
8. Turboo (talk) Per proposal.
9. Meta Knight (talk) It just makes more sense.
10. Lakituthequick (talk) Per all.
11. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per proposal.
12. Cheat-master30 (talk) Per all.
13. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
14. winstein (talk) I think this is a good idea, so I agree with it.

Oppose

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This remains speculative. They could just as easily call it Flame Spike (Flame Chomp exists, after all, having been renamed from Fire Chomp) or Fireball Spike.
2. Hewer (talk) Per the previous proposal that got rid of these names. It's still conjecture no matter how much we pretend it's not, and I'd rather stick to what's official. In response to the argument that Japanese names confuse or are unhelpful to readers, I'd argue that using fan names over official ones is misleading readers, which is much worse. We're here to report what the facts are, not what we want them to be. Also, variant relationships don't always have to be obvious from the name (you'd never guess from the name alone that Bandit is a Shy Guy variant, for example).
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) No. Making up a name for a thing that has an official name is not what the wiki is about, and if you think the official name is less intuitive than the alternative, there's this nifty feature called "redirects" that doesn't tamper with official concepts. If you think that argument is in bad faith, then you misunderstood the mission of this site.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) I think Popitart created a solid proposal, and I understand why it has garnered support. However, I believe the burden on having these names revised to something more suitable and consistent with the English localization is on the publisher. Not us. One of the things that has made Super Mario Wiki stronger reference material than many other wikis is our naming policy. I view it as a concentrated effort to avoid citogenesis, descriptivism, and manufactured consensus, which is especially important considering Nintendo themselves clearly consult this site on occasion and sometimes incorporate our interpretations of the text, including incorrect interpretations. It is clear we are the primary reference for in-depth Super Mario information on the internet and for the general public, and likely will remain so for years to come. I would like us to remain reliable and neutral for them. Does "Comet Tico" look silly next to "Hungry Luma?" Yes, it does. Does it not mean "Comet Luma?" Yes. But I do not think that is something for us to solve, and I suspect most readers will intuitively understand this means the subject has not been given an English name yet. I don't think that is a big deal. I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the Super Mario Galaxy article and assume that is its name. In my view, that is not really true, but presenting it as such can lead to misinformation being spread. I understand and respect those who feel differently, but that is generally how I feel at this time.
5. LinkTheLefty (talk) How about we not do this again and regret it when the next encyclopedia event happens? We've never been one of those sites that gets a dopamine rush over "canonizing" stuff. On the contrary, we have a responsibility to step back and give the translators breathing room to do their thing when they get their chance without fears of stifling their freedom and being compared to the fans all the time. Per all the opposition, past and current.
6. Axii (talk) ^
7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Doc and Nintendo101.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick: the decision to go with Fire Spike over Flame Spike or others is based on both its behavior as well as how the "fire" prefix is translated from Japanese; Faia Gabon is a Spike that attacks with fireballs, as opposed to being made of fire or such. This is in-line with the given examples, as well as Fire Nipper Plant and Fire Mario, which all have the same "faia X" naming in Japanese. Flame Chomp however is named "Keronpa" in Japanese, and thus isn't suitable as a point of comparison. --PopitTart (talk) 02:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I have found better examples: Fire Heihō is known as Pyro Guy in English (not as "Fire Shy Guy") and Fire Mūcho is known as Scorchit (not as "Fire Snifit"). Jdtendo^(T|C) 07:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I don't see the point debating Fire Spike anyway when the internal name specifically uses the word "Fire". -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:02, December 5, 2024 (EST)

But it does not specifically use the word "Spike". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:06, December 5, 2024 (EST)

The specific point being addressed here is Doc's vote, which was questioning using "Fire". -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:12, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I have not decided if I'd like to support this proposal yet but I feel like, as it is an English website, if the Mario Wiki shouldn't effectively create nicknames for subjects without official English names, it should not be arbitrarily applying names in other languages to those same subjects. The English name for the Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon and I think it is erroneous to refer to it as such in English text. if citogenesis is an issue, then using foreign and internal names runs the exact same risk as using a conjectural name. Just look at Lumacomète in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 08:18, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Additionally, according to the Wiki's rules on Japanese, "words that originated in English should be written as the original English word for simplicity", which means technically we're already not accurately representing the subject's Japanese name. The Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon in English, and it's not called Fire Gabon in Japanese. if the jump from Faia to Fire is allowed, then why not from Gabon to Spike? We're already isolating and translating Japanese words in a vaccuum.— Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 08:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I concur with this standpoint. I will keep supporting this proposal in its current state, but I would support changing all adjectives back to Japanese if it fails. It's really a case of all-or-nothing to me, currently it is quite half-baked. (It could be considered to add that as a separate option if more people feel this way.) Lakituthequick 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the difference is that the word "fire" is a loanword or gairaigo, so it is not really being translated. "Gabon" is not. — Nintendo101 (talk) 09:58, December 5, 2024 (EST)

How is the wiki's usage of foreign names "arbitrary"? They are used when no official English name is known to exist. This wiki may be written in English, but it's about a primarily Japanese franchise and covers subjects that never officially existed in English at all, so it's no surprise that not everything has an English name to use. What would be arbitrary is deciding not to use the subject's only official name because we think we can make up a better one. Also, this proposal isn't suggesting to stop using foreign names entirely, so we would still be using non-English names in our English text regardless. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:48, December 5, 2024 (EST)

@Nintendo101 First, I want to acknowledge that you've put together a very articulate, well-considered case for your opposition. Though we disagree, I understand well your point of view, and I find your concerns over citogenesis in particular to be a very worthwhile consideration. There is one point in your position on which I would like to seek clarification, though. You say, "I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the Super Mario Galaxy article and assume that is its name." Would that not be adequately addressed by use of the conjectural name template, which includes an argument specifically for derived names? I am earnestly curious as to why the template, as a clear and difficult-to-miss disclaimer that the name is derived and not an official localization, does not adequately address this point in your view. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 08:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Howdy! For starters, I do think a template header would be mitigating and I am glad it is incorporated into this proposal. That was good foresight. However, the systemic effectiveness of these templates is dependent on readers going to the articles for Fire Gabon or Comet Tico specifically, and I am not sure how often they would feel compelled to do that if these names "look" like official localizations. Someone visiting the site to read articles on the games themselves or levels may not feel compelled to check, and precisely because of their similarly to proper localizations, may just assume "Comet Luma" is its true localized name. Anecdotally, I feel like I have heard conjectural names justifiably adopted by our wiki for lack of better alternatives uncritically presented as the names off of the site and I think that is partially why. They look like properly localized English names, so why would one assume they are not? I have not seen that as often for subjects with Romanized Japanese titles, and I suspect that is because they also look the part. Maybe if there was some sort of in-text template similar to "conjectural" to embed directly into game or level articles that would help, but that also sounds a bit cumbersome. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Thank you so much for your response! Knowing this is coming from a position of concerns that readers will pass over the disclaimer by not actually visiting the page in question and will instead assume these names are official at a glance certainly does clarify that point. I do think you have the right of it that it would be cumbersome to mitigate this concern with the tools available to us. My first thought is perhaps we could use the tooltip text to address this by putting "derived name" in the tooltip text for these names on game pages and such, and if the proposal does pass, I think it would be worthwhile to consider using it. That said, as far as I know, you can't see that text on mobile, so I recognize this wouldn't be a perfect solution. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 08:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Honestly, I'd rather not make a distinction between "conjectural" names and "derived" names at all. They're both names made up by the wiki in an attempt to be as straightforward as possible, the only difference being that "derived" names could be taking priority over official names, yet templates for "derived" names give the misleading impression that they are more official than "conjectural" names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Or we can cut out the ten middlemen altogether and use much more efficient redirect system. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:11, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I feel like at a certain point, we can only do so much. We put templates on all the pages that are plain to see. If an Encyclopedia writer ignores it, how is that our fault? And like LadySophie17 said above, they used a French name for an English book - I don't see why using a name from another language, albeit official, eliminates the issue. It's their responsibility to appropriately localize names, not ours. And in this case, I think reader understandability comes first - after all, we are a site for the fans. Those writers shouldn't be looking at a wiki for research to begin with. If another Encyclopedia is written, I can only hope they learned from their mistakes with the original, and not use the wiki as a source. Technetium (talk) 09:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I am also aware I did that proposal to rename X-Ship to X-Naut ship, as the former felt too official of a name despite being marked as conjectural. This just feels like a different situation altogether for me, given that these conjectural English names for enemies aren't all fancy or anything, but very straight to the point. I agree with Hooded Pitohui's comment above that we could also mark these as being derived names on other pages they appear, not just the main articles on them. Technetium (talk) 09:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I understand your perspective, but part of the reason why we have maintained so many name-specific article templates in the first place was as a response to that encyclopedia and there has been a general reduction in conjectural names that was also in response to it. Besides, it is not just third-party editors I am thinking of — I am thinking of fans. Our general userbase. I do not want us to passively misinform them or imply names have some sort of community consensus when they do not. I know that is something I would have appreciated before I became more involved with editing the site, because I want to be informed and learn before anything else. - Nintendo101 (talk) 10:13, December 5, 2024 (EST)

You make good points. I'm not fully sure what to think myself honestly - as I said in my first edit summary for this today, those were simply my thoughts at the moment. I'll continue thinking about this as more comments are made and change my vote if my mind changes. Technetium (talk) 10:17, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Oh, and also - what about dev data names like Informant Mūcho? Would those be affected by this proposal? I remember a discussion on this informant guy specifically on Discord leading into the discussion that lead to this proposal. Technetium (talk) 10:03, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Yes, the proposal states that it would "allow derived names to take precedent over internal and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:25, December 5, 2024 (EST)

This should also affect Fire Robota and Beam Robota, right? Their counterpart Yari Robota is the only one with a confirmed English name (Spear-bot) thanks to the Wario Land 3 manual. So in this case they would've been "Fire-bot" and "Beam-bot" respectively. Winstein (talk) 12:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.