MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Sunday, December 22nd, 05:26 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

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 possibly 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", along with other similar words, is used from an observational 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.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
3. Hewer (talk) I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.

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.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per Glowsquid. It is not "encyclopedic" to uncritically amass assets. I feel like it even degrades the quality of one's reference material.
5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Glowsquid.
6. DrippingYellow (talk) Per all.
7. Mario (talk) Appears that proposal does try to accommodate for reservations we have so I think we're good to go. The example provided by Ahemtoday did push me to support this.
8. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Glowsquid in particular. I'm a preservationist at heart, and I do like the idea of having all of these assets somewhere, but Glowsquid has a point that a textual list doesn't lose relevant information here.
9. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
10. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
11. Ray Trace (talk) I'd argue that even with a beefy processor that will magically just load the entire gallery section without issues, having a seemingly endless amount of 256x256 images that are practically all the same except there is a different stock artwork of a character on the front is a ginormous chore to sift through and arguably not even important information that is worth it at all for the effort to scroll through, overall hindering wiki usability (this is not something we should gatekeep for lower-end users).. I understand "interesting" is a subjective term, but pray tell me, is it really worth it extending pages and causing performance issues on our browsers for our readers? Is this something our readers come to our wiki for? What illustrative purpose is it for Mario Circuit 1 to have an extensive gallery comprising of exact same pictures, except there is stock art of Peach here instead of Mario? In fact, I think in general, our galleries are a bit overextensive to begin with (I don't think we need to document literally everything but the kitchen sink in our game articles), superceding the entire purpose of our image categories. As for being "buried in the wiki" (which is a far stretch, none of those course icons are orphaned pages and have extensive coverage) I really fail to see how keeping, say this course icon for DK Pass R separate from being compiled into an all-in-one gallery and used where the context is actually appropriate (for example, it's used in the Baby Luigi Cup, Frost Tour, Holiday Tour (2019), and Snow Tour articles, a far cry from being "buried in the depths of the wiki) is an issue in the first place.
12. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
13. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
14. 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...? ADDITION FROM THE FUTURE: Per Glowsquid and especially Ray Trace; these images are already on other articles where they are far more relevant, and we shouldn't be prohibiting people stuck with 6GB of RAM or Chromebooks from accessing the wiki in favor of "the same image but instead of Captain Toad in the bottom right with a white outline, there's Yellow Yoshi (Kangaroo) in the bottom right with a white outline" repeated ad-infinitum. Just because you can load it just fine doesn't mean that it's fine for others, and a wiki shouldn't have a recommended system requirements that's larger than a web browser's.
15. MCD (talk) Per all.

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.
9. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, no. I would rather do a gallery split or keep, not a deletion.
10. Okapii (talk) Per Hewer.
11. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't particularly like them, but outright across-the-board deletion of actual sprite-based game assets is an absolute no-no.

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)

Looks heated a bit. Proceed with the discussion but let's keep cool and assume good faith, okey dokey? Not directed at either Shadow or Hewer, just making a general statement. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 23:20, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

What are you talking about? I ended my last comment by telling you the information there is here: 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. If your argument is that there is no information, then it's simply a wrong argument. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"This image has Mario", "This image has Luigi" is not information, those are descriptors. I have asked at least four or five times across this proposal for someone to explain to me what these images mean, and why they have different characters on them. Nobody has answered this question. Does nobody actually know? Or, even worse, is there no actual meaning behind the images at all? That is the "information" I am talking about. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Been wanting to let someone on the other side answer this, but if nobody's biting, I'm familiar enough with Mario Kart Tour's mechanics to do so. It is as you fear — the characters on the course icons have no direct relevance themselves. There are correlations to mechanically-relevant factors (each character on an icon for a course is one with it as a "favorite course", and one of the tracks in a character-themed cup will depict that character; with both favorite courses and character cups having gameplay effects), but the icons are never a determinant of anything — those mechanics apply regardless of the character depicted. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:15, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't remember anyone arguing anything about how the characters shown are determined, so that's quite the strawman. I don't see how it really changes anything either way in this debate. And @Shadow2, which characters are on the icons objectively is information, no idea why you're refusing to accept that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I didn't really mean to bring up how the characters are determined as any kind of rebuttal — I only really brought it up for the sake of completeness, since it is a little more gameplay-relevant than just being completely random. You're right that it doesn't really matter, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:28, May 14, 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. Mario^-HOHO! (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)

@Arend While my response is a bit of a digression from this proposal, I wanted to say that I am accepting the fact that the three proposals are failing (one of mine I even ended opposing, the Super Mario movie. I was suggested that if one doesn't think a strong enough case for a proposal, then talk page discussion, in the case of the films.) When you listed the Icicle article on the franchise proposal, I reinstated the organization by franchise on that article (for Yoshi, though I can do Donkey Kong too, just had reserves over Diddy Kong Racing being an actual Donkey Kong game, due to Diddy being used in it as a licensed character), and some other pages that I'm finding along the way. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:53, 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 feel as though people are considering this a video game history archive, which is not this site's purpose. If people are concerned about preserving these course icons now that the game is shut down, it doesn't need to be here on this site. (@Arend) Shadow2 (talk) 22:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

The wiki does, in fact, double as an archive and this proposal is contrary to that. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

This proposal is about either removing these from the galleries of the course articles or simply splitting the galleries off so they don't bloat the track articles--not deleting the images outright (since those will still be on the articles for the corresponding tours as-is). The only thing that'd be "deleted" (by some definition of the word) are the various gallery entries in the most extreme scenario. Call this "pedantic" if you so desire. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 02:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I have no reason to call you pedantic. Don't know why people got so offended by my use of that word. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 02:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Please inform me where my proposal says we will be deleting images off of the wiki entirely. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

It doesn't, but it does hinder the wiki's presentation of them (and also some supporters seem to want a total deletion to happen). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Glowsquid A pedantic response with a dishonest premise. If this was a real honest-to-god curated encyclopedia sold in stores, there wouldn't be a page on the history of Mario detailing every single one of his roles throughout his franchise; there wouldn't be entire gameplay sections on game articles detailing every single one of their mechanics and quirks; and there certainly wouldn't be entire repositories of images pertaining to only one character. Tell me how any of that looks curated to you or how keeping a bunch of similar course icons on an article is somehow contrary to the spirit I had just described. Until now I have barely, if ever, seen an instance where this site omitted valid information (or material), no matter how inessential, for the purposes of condensing itself. Relocating said info/material, yes; removing off-putting fancruft, that's reasonable; but never in my entire experience has someone gone "you know what, Mario has too many appearances in games, we should delete the Mario Tennis sections because encyclopedias are meant to be condensed or something"--although the way things are going I can see this happen at some point. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I am being "pedantic and dishonest" because that's the framing you choose to use. The wiki is not subject to the exact same limitation as print encyclopedia but it still curates and condenses for reasons of legally, because server space isn't cheap or unlimited, and because on some level, people do want curation on some level even if they disagree on the specifics. Otherwise nobody would be using the stuffy and highly curated Wikipedia in favour of Everything Wiki and its lack of notability requirement for page creation.

• When we have pages on Rhythm Heaven Megamix and Rhythm Heaven Fever but only really talk about those games in how they related to the WarioWare games, we are being selective. Someone could argue that the WarioWare and Rhythm Heaven fictional universes are joined at the hip and that we are failing in the wiki's mission to chronicle everything about the Mario (and related IPs) games by not giving Rhythm Heaven full coverage. Are we?
• When we decide to not talk about fan games, remixes, cosplay et cetera detail, one could argue this stuff is equally as vital to illustrating Mario's breadth and influence as a cultural property and that sticking to only the officially-endorsed stuff is regretable. Indeed, people have passionately argued that in and outside the site! We still ultimately decide to curate and set limits on what kind of Mario stuff the website talks about.
• When we deleted our individual, long-standing pages about Smash Bros characters, items, game mechanics etc and condensed them into list or removed those, we decided to exert curation. Some could argue having separate pages on all that stuff served an encyclopedic and archival purpose. Many people did.

Point is the wiki is plenty selective and "incomplete" in what it chooses to cover and how it present its information. That is not a new development on an overeach, Framing the opposing stance on this issue as a lamebrained "Well we shouldn't because uhhhhhhhhhhh encyclopedia are meant to be short" is making a strawman. There are legitimate arguments against hosting all those images as we are - that the content is objectively repetitive (the same PNG overlaid with different low-res PNGs that are already included in their complete form elsewhere on the wiki) and only one instance is needed to illustate the information, that it drops the signal-to-noise ratio of those page's galleries by clumping unique images that illustrate different aspects of its subject with what is effectively the same picture repeated 60+ times. That it legitimately impairs the browsing experience (load time and data caps). You may disagree those considerations are worth considering but I reject any attempt to liken that to "Well we shouldn't remove the section about Mario Party 7 because encyclopedias are short lul".

I also disagree with the idea the wiki is meant to be an archive instead of a ressource and that being selective in what we host is a overeach. Certainly we are very comprehensive in hosting models and artwork, but if someone were to upload every individual texture, sound effects and UV maps for Super Mario 64 (and Sunshine, and Odyssey), would deleting that stuff both because of the legality of it and because on some level, too much is to much, be failing that mission? --Glowsquid (talk) 08:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Don't really know where Rhythm Heaven, Smash Bros, and fan games (????) come into play, seems like you're building a strawman of your own. Those very clearly have less relevance to the wiki than an official Mario game and are being tackled appropriately at present. On the other hand, the Mario Kart Tour icons come from a(n official, not fan-made) Mario-branded game and they feature Mario characters and courses in them--and deserve to be documented on an individual basis because they're discrete assets in an official title, as opposed to frames in a sprite. The "server space" argument is also kinda blown out because each icon takes, on average, less than 100KB, and if each is rounded up to that size, they'd amount to 2350x100=235000KB=235MB. All of these icons occupy 5 times less than 1 GB! Yes, I'm gonna liken the opposition's arguments to "let's cut down on information because of some arbitrary reason" because that's exactly what it is. The sheer volume of uploads and information relevant to the Mario franchise are a result of the size of its success and size--take your woes to Nintendo, not the ones who document it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 09:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

What's your stance on the current state of Kanaami Road? Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 10:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I honestly think that the article is fine, it just needs its gallery split due to the amount of images. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:53, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think it's terribly useful to show the subject from so many different angles and in so many settings, so the Kanaami Road page could use some trimming. But my point in support of these icons' usefulness isn't that they're different enough from each other to show new information individually, it's that they deserve to be grouped somewhere specific rather than just scattered across tour pages, and since they're designated to specific courses (e.g. in-game, the Mario Circuit icon is coupled with the "Mario Circuit" label on the course selection), the most readily available place for that purpose are course pages. I just don't see the harm in doing so and I think the situation is way overblown especially seeing as these icons, even collectively, occupy an almost insignificant amount of space on the server. If loading times become an issue and one gets extremely impatient waiting 5 seconds for the New York Minute page to load, just split the whole gallery into its own page like it's been done with hundreds of articles. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:25, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Worth noting that Category:Mario Kart Tour track icons has all of these grouped and organized alphabetically by course, so it would still be somewhere on-site if someone really wants to see that, at least. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:49, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"they're different enough from each other to show new information individually". What information do they provide? As a casual reader, I look at these and do not understand what these images are, and why Mario is on one while Luigi is on another. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

You may want to read that whole sentence again. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 02:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne I say this respectfully and in good faith, and I am not signaling you out, as it seems that a few active users share the same sentiment. However, the "spirit" behind that comment bothers me. If readability does not matter, what is the point of having a wiki? What is our purpose? Who is this for?

I was a nerdy child. I grew up reading encyclopedias and there are quite a few behind me as I type this. All of these books were curated. They were made to be read. It is not inherently unencyclopedic to make curatorial choices on Super Mario Wiki, and if anything it is an inherent component of the craft.

It also feels disingenuous to how things actually function on Super Mario Wiki. If folks were not making curatorial decisions and just amassing assets for a depository, we would have no need for writing guidelines, policies, proposals, etc. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:35, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

See my response to Glowsquid. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 01:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I did. To be honest, I am a bit taken aback by how unkind it was, especially to another active user.

The only reason why Glowsquid, myself, or anyone else would touch upon encyclopedias is because that is the language you yourself have invoked here and in the past, so I am not sure how it is "dishonest". Proper reference material like encyclopedias are products of discrimination, curation, and interpretation, regardless of topic. To employ the same framework here on Super Mario Wiki is not inherently "unencyclopedic" or at the "expense of an encyclopedic mission".

I think well of your efforts on the wiki. I would appreciate it if you engaged with these comments with similar care. - Nintendo101 (talk) 02:18, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

There wasn't anything unkind in my message. I did not insult his person, I merely addressed his argument. It's pedantic because it tries to lecture a proper definition of encyclopedias whilst being dishonest for ignoring all the other inherent aspects of this wiki that do not fulfill that definition. Actual encyclopedias are expressly defined as summations of many kinds of information, sure, but Mario Wiki (being an online encyclopedia) hasn't got all the strictures and trappings of one, and has proven to afford going into much more detail and use that power to document and archive virtually all official aspects of the Mario franchise. To argue that it should be distorted to fit the mould of real encyclopedias is plainly arbitrary and I'm concerned it will be further used as an excuse to trim detailed information that is otherwise observant to the wiki's current guidelines. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 02:29, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

As a clarification, I don't support placing information or material anywhere with reckless abandon and having no concern as to where it's actually relevant. To me, that ought to be subject to curation--I'm a stickler for organization and endeavor to make content read and display well, so I understand where you're coming from. I'm just arguing that said material should still exist somewhere on the site rather than being outright removed. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 02:39, May 13, 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)

Yeah, regardless of my stance comcerning the course galleries, the chainlink road gallery's got enough images to get its own gallery page, whether it's nearly 250 icons or nearly 900. rend (talk) (edits) 21:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

The Mario gallery doesn't have every single screenshot on the wiki that happens to feature Mario in it, just enough to illustrate him in different media. By that standard, it seems reasonable to trim the Kanaami Road gallery down by a lot. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 22:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

I am baffled as to why the Kanaami Road article is suddenly being used as some kind of deciding factor in favour of this proposal when it's not even affected by it. This proposal is specifically about cutting down on these icons in course galleries, so not Kanaami Road. The images won't be deleted since they're still used on the wiki elsewhere to represent the courses, so the only thing that comes out of us doing this is that we lose the complete, organised galleries in favour of forcing readers to hunt down the images scattered throughout the wiki themselves. The loading times, which are the only shred of harm caused by these (and really aren't even that bad, at least not for me), aren't a good enough reason to completely axe content. At most they're a reason to split these into their own gallery pages per MarioWiki:Article size. Kanaami Road's article perhaps having an excessive gallery feels like a bit of a strawman argument since it has no real bearing on the galleries this proposal is about. We can trim that gallery if we want, like what was done with the Mario gallery as mentioned above, but in no way is that a justification to completely remove the galleries of these images on the course pages where they couldn't be more relevant. If we were allowed to just throw out perfectly fine content because we thought it was somehow "too much" information, the wiki would be in trouble. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Like Waluigi Time said, Category:Mario Kart Tour track icons has all of the icons sorted by course. They're not "scattered throughout the wiki". Ahemtoday (talk) 13:24, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Then why do we even have galleries at all, when categories can do the same job? Why don't we trash all our galleries and leave the readers to go looking for a category if they want to see the images? Answer: because galleries get to be more neatly organised and easier to navigate. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:36, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I love galleries, but the ones for some (definitely not all) of these Tour courses are so large and similar to one another that they do not even feel like galleries. They are just as hard to navigate as categories. It feels like I am looking at a wall of assets - not a thoughtfully curated gallery. Regardless of the outcome here, if the Tour images were to be retained on the main article pages for courses, it would at least be nice to have some sort of subsection-based reorganization for these galleries. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:29, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, good point of organization, but that can be easily fixed. Plus, if we delete tons of pictures from pages, then what happens to the files themselves? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:33, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

We already do subsection-based sorting, I don't see how or why that would be subsection'd further. If it still looks like a wall of assets to you, well, that's pretty much what a gallery is, so why shouldn't it? As has already been argued, it's not our fault that Nintendo decided to make so many similar course icons, we report on the information as it is and don't exclude things just because we don't like them. If people think (some of) the galleries need to be split into their own page(s), then fine I can settle for that, I just really think removing these entirely is a mistake. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Well, @Hewer, you are an odd fellow, but I must say, you make a great point. *insert Steamed Hams memes here* SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:01, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer I think we have different perspectives on what a gallery should be. To me, a "wall of assets" is what a category looks like. It is large, messy, disorganized, and not easy to navigate because it feels like an unsorted aggregation of files. My eyes actively have trouble keeping focused on certain subjects in a category. A gallery is a thoughtfully-organized display of visual pieces that are sorted with purpose, digestible, and passively informative. The sheer volume of these Mario Kart Tour icons, exasperated by the fact that they nearly look identical to each other and are the same proportions, evoke the same burdens that come from viewing a category page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 01:53, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

So the solution, of course, is to delete the galleries for these icons and have anyone interested use a category instead? I really don't understand how you're having such trouble looking at the pretty neatly organised galleries of these we currently have - if it's really just because you don't like seeing lots of similar images for some reason, that doesn't feel like the wiki's problem anymore. Again, we're presenting the information as it is in official material, you not liking official material is not the wiki's fault and not much of a reason for us to hinder our coverage of it (which happens to be the very same principle behind long-observed policies like MarioWiki:Canonicity). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:18, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Moreover, the claim that they’re disorganized is, if I may, kinda dishonest. They’re placed under a “Course icons” heading, separate from “Screenshots”. If they weren’t thoughtfully organized they’d all just share the same section, much like a category handles things. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 03:54, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer please do not put words in my mouth or project intent. I was highlighting that there seems to be competing editorial philosophies at play on galleries, and gently suggesting that if the icons were ultimately to stay where they are, it would be beneficial for them to be subdivided further into more digestible gallery headings. At present they are difficult to navigate. This is also what I was trying to get at, @Koopa con Carne. I know the icons were objectively organized in some manor because another human being put them there with intent. However, their near-identical appearances and volume make them "feel" disorganized, just like a category. I would be surprised if I was in the minority. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:14, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not sure what part of my comment you thought was putting words in your mouth, I certainly had no intention to do so. I've already addressed your arguments about them being "disorganized", but to do so again: they're not. Not just in a technical sense like you seem to be implying I mean - as KCC explained, and as I pointed out before that, we already do organise them neatly into subsections. If you think it still "feels" disorganized, then that's no longer the wiki's problem, as they're about as organised as they possibly can be. I have no idea what you actually would want done to improve the organisation further than at present - if anything, adding too many more superfluous subsections than we already have could harm the organisation. The similarity of the images is not our fault or our responsibility to "fix" on Nintendo's behalf, nor does it really make them "disorganized" in any way. If an organised gallery having many similar images makes it disorganized, I'm really not sure how you're defining the word "disorganized" here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:27, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Something like New York Minute looks organized well to me. I think the in-game icons section of the Mario Kart Tour course icon gallery is significantly more difficult to navigate, burdens my computer, and all without substantive cause. Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. We did that. We are the only reason this exists at all. We should not be using them as an excuse to not disseminate information in an intuitive and healthy manner. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I usually don't have problems with loading things on this site and yeah, even I struggled on that gallery, so I suppose you're right there. However, it's a moot point either way since that's not the gallery being affected by this proposal. The galleries on the course pages, such as that of New York Minute, are what this proposal is about, and are what I've been describing. And my point with the "Nintendo's fault" thing was more that we generally strive to include as much coverage on the franchise as we can, and icons are a very usual thing for us to include a complete set of in galleries (even just regarding sprites in Mario Kart, I'm pretty sure we have every single course icon from all the other Mario Kart games, not to mention emblems, sponsors, etc.). I don't think the repetitiveness of Mario Kart Tour's icons (which is Nintendo's fault) is a good reason for us to not do the same as we usually do with this game. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Had an idea. What are y'all — on both sides here — y'all's thoughts on making an article List of course icons in Mario Kart Tour, or maybe Gallery:Mario Kart Tour/Course icons or something, which could have subheaders for all the courses, maybe even the different variants of the courses. Then, we can easily stick a "see also" template into those gallery sections, linked to the section on that course in that article, and can trim down the images to put less of a strain on bandwidth. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:17, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

So just a split gallery for the Mario Kart Tour course icons? I'd settle for that as much better than removing them entirely, if people really can't bear the few extra seconds of loading time on some of the course articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:22, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I think it's not a bad idea in itself, so long as it has sections for each course. Although, if I were interested in seeing which course has which icons, I'd rather look up that course's page than go to a big repository. Additionally, if people are already having trouble loading the New York Minute page, which comprises only a fraction of MKT course icons, imagine having to load a page full of 2000+ of these things--though I've a hunch that the current attitude is that these icons are some kind of "tumor" that need containment anyway, as in, they need a place where they can just be dumped and forgotten about for the Greater Good of Our Editorship. To me, it seems much more beneficial than harmful to have them distributed among course articles in addition to being in a dedicated gallery, like virtually any piece of artwork or sprite is. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think these icons are salvageable. There is no way to include these without including either one representative sample or include the rest of it. There is little benefit for having a dedicated page to just these icons which will be insurmountably huge and consist of practically a NFT-style matrices of images. Keep a representative sample of one image per course/course variant, redesign the tables to not heavily rely on these images (they are seriously not needed for the tables to work) and bog down the pages so severely, throw out all the rest. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 21:10, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I'm using a powerful computer and I have zero issues loading these galleries, however that doesn't mean browsing the wiki smoothly *should* require an IntelCore i9 CPU or a nondata-capped, fiber optic internet. A "few seconds" in loading page time for wikis is actually very heavy and that is absolutely something we should take into consideration, it's the reason we tore apart Mario's article after all. I need to know if anyone else has issues loading these pages, I don't count because my PC is high end. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:16, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Again though, at absolute most that means we should split the galleries, per MarioWiki:Article size. We did tear apart Mario's article, but didn't completely throw out bits of it we thought were boring. There's a difference. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:22, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not actually for removal of the icons altogether. As I said in my support, they're fine in the articles they are used in, kept in tables where there is appropriate context to illustrate the cup's tracks. I just don't think they belong in an all-in-one gallery to illustrate a course. Ray Trace^(T|C) 09:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, same here. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Turns out Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons is already a thing. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Ok, Support, do you want the images themselves deleted, or not? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Nothing in the proposal said anything about deleting the images. In fact, if a delete tag is put anywhere if this proposal passes, it's a sign someone has implemented it wrong. These images are still going to exist on the tour articles and the cup articles. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 11:46, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: When a gallery is too large for a page to load quickly, the solution has always been to simply split it into its own page, per MarioWiki:Article size. So what exactly makes this case different to every other gallery split on the entire wiki, besides subjective arguments along the lines of "because no one cares about these images"? I'd argue that removing a ton of perfectly fine content (which afaik has never and certainly should never be the solution to long loading times) is more harmful for readers than some extra loading time that can easily be resolved anyway by just splitting the galleries is. There's been plenty of times in the past when we've had tons of repetitive, loading-time-worsening Mario Kart Tour content, and the solution has always been to split it so that whoever's interested can still see the information (how else would we have ended up with such pages as List of favored and favorite Piranha Plant Cove courses in Mario Kart Tour). So what makes this case different? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Even if we split the garlleries up, the majority of these would still just be identical images with only the character in the corner being different. Sure, you help the performance aspect a little, but these are still fundamentally just the same 3-to-4 images with way too many characters slapped into the bottom right with a white outline. Once you've seen each angle once, you've seen them all; there is no reason to keep going beyond that point, because it doesn't illustrate the point any more--it just kinda bludgeons you over the head with it. The bottom line is, it's excessive, and we shouldn't be treating our readers like utter fools who need to see 20 images of the same Mario Kart track icon with different characters over them, when they presumably only really "need" 4 of them at most. And if they really wanted to see the unique combinations, they could just head over to the corresponding cup/tour articles or the category we have for icons such as these. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Who are we to make judgement calls and decide that it's "too many" to be useful? And how is presenting the most complete repository of images possible "treating our readers like utter fools"? Who are we to decide what they "need to see"? I get why it could be seen as excessive, but I don't think it's so completely unreasonable that someone could want to see these, and I don't see how you (or even most people) not finding it interesting is reason to cut it altogether. And why should we force them to go hunting through articles or a category instead of galleries, the usual and best way to present a bunch of images? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

To group them together in a gallery in the first place is just as much of a judgement call as trimming them from one. Unless there is a policy I'm unfamiliar with, aggregation is not the default on Super Mario Wiki. It's a choice, and one that should not be imposed on other users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Who's making the judgement calls that it's "useful" to have the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with a Shy Guy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Metal Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Ice Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Lemmy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina in a Tanuki costume in front of it, only to repeat this cycle again for the R, T, and R/T variants of the track? Be honest with yourself--what information do you actually gain from this that a simpler version of this couldn't already tell you? That Rosalina, Shy Guy, Metal Mario, Ice Mario, Lemmy, and Tanuki Rosalina are all in Tour? On the article made for SNES Rainbow Road, where if you wanted to know the roster, you'd probably be searching for that instead? If we had a lower-end computer, we'd want to see images for SNES Rainbow Road first and foremost--not images of the cast of Mario Kart Tour that just kinda happen to feature the exact same images of SNES Rainbow Road as only half of the image. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 12:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

It's not about usefulness, it's about completeness. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101: By that logic, to include information in the wiki at all and present it in a logical form is a subjective judgement call. Including information is the default on Super Mario Wiki, as is presenting it well, and when it comes to images, galleries are a long-established way to do so.
@Camwoodstock: What the icons for a course look like (i.e. the very images used in the game to represent them) are absolutely relevant to that course. There's nothing they're more relevant to. The information it tells you is what characters they chose to use to represent the course. You finding that information boring doesn't reduce its validity as information. And I've already repeatedly argued the "lower-end computer" point, but ok I'll say it again: just split the gallery like we always do. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:50, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

We're not saying "remove the icons entirely", we're saying that we shouldn't be excessive about them. All your average reader is going to want or need is exactly one variant--one for the base version, one for the R version, one for the T version, and one for the R/T version. We don't need 6 icons of the base version, 6 icons of the R version, 4 icons of the T version, and then 7 icons of the R/T version, where the only thing different between those copies is how much King Boo (Gold) they happen to include along the way. You could trim down the SNES Rainbow Road gallery to just the 3 versions with base Rosalina and the 1 version with Baby Rosalina, and you would properly showcase all four icons just as well as you do by including all 23 of them. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 13:01, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

The proposal is ultimately too vague in what it intends to do to support it IMO. Especially after that Smash redirect thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:08, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

...I don't quite understand. What "Smash redirect thing"? Ahemtoday (talk) 13:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I think this? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:55, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, this. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:10, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

...We don't exactly appreciate the implication that it's on us that somebody else didn't ask us what the proposal was about before they started slapping delete templates everywhere. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think that's what me & @Hewer are meaning. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah that's not what I meant in the slightest. I was just trying to provide context for what the thing was that Doc was referring to. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Please stay on course, peeps. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

It's not OUR fault! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I know the proposal won't delete the icons (though some supporters clearly do want that, while others don't seem to), but what it will do is have the wiki go out of its way to hinder its presentation of these icons for no good reason. I see no reason to define "your average reader" and pander to this non-existent person's supposed needs - that just feels like a more complex way of saying what you personally want to happen. "Your average reader" probably isn't interested in many, many, many things on this wiki, but that doesn't make their inclusion invalid, because another reader might go seeking those things. If the reader doesn't find something interesting, they're free to ignore it, that's not our problem. Our goal as a wiki isn't to only include the stuff we subjectively deem interesting, but to provide complete coverage on the whole franchise so any reader can find the information they seek about the franchise, whatever it may be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I put together a proof of concept on one way to handle this proposal in my sandbox. It uses {{main-gallery}} to link to the appropriate section of Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons as smoothly as possible. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Seems like a good workaround if icons get trimmed down from course pages. I like that. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:16, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I like it. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:19, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Ok,this is getting to be very crazy! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

100kb JPEGs are no laughing matter! -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:31, May 14, 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
8. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) No, sorry. This would make things a little more complicated.

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. Mario^-HOHO! (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. Mario^-HOHO! (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.
11. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per Nintendo101.

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.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. better to have it now than to need it later down the line

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.
9. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
10. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
11. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Well, it's either this, merge the Paper Mario characters into their OG versions like the 1990's Live-Action Mario Movie counterparts, re-split said counterparts, or keep as-is, and that's not even factoring in ALL THE OTHER COUNTERPARTS!

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)

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)

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)

@LinkTheLefty, @Docvon Schmeltwick, @NightwickedBowser, @Hewer:

If you read this article from the official Nintendo website. It clearly states that there are two diffrent universes.

https://www.nintendo.com/en-za/Games/Nintendo-3DS-games/Mario-Luigi-Paper-Jam-Bros-1026143.html

~~ Big Super Mario Fan

While it does say "two universes collide", that still only matters for this one game and should not impact this wiki's organisation. I think that argument has been countered enough at this point. Nightwicked Bowser 21:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)

Again, MarioWiki:Canonicity. Even if Paper Jam did "confirm" that Paper Mario is in a separate universe, that doesn't retroactively override the portrayal in earlier (or later) games that are often made by completely different people. For a similar case, when games get remakes, we don't stop covering the original or treat the remake as the "true" version, we just cover both and note the differences. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:02, May 13, 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.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) That really doesn't belong there.
7. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, no. We might as well take the stance of Sega on Sonic's canon, "Everything is canon". Then again, in the words of @janMisali, "How do we know what's mainline?" That only talked about video games, but also could apply to non-games, but I think we need to play safe, so oppose.

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)

Merge Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. into Main series

I think the Main series Ganes and Remakes, Ports, Remasters, Collections etc. should be merged. For example in the Super Mario series. But also for every other Mario Spin off series. Especially when those are considered mainline by Nintendo, like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, etc. It would be way simpler to just make 2 categories. 1st Mainline (New Games and Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. inclided) 2nd Other Games or Spin offs. It wouldn't matter if they are old or new games. Of course in would still be written in the description if its a Remake or a Port, a Collection, Remaster etc. Thank you!

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk)
Deadline: May 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Putting remakes and ports in a seperate list from original games helps further distinguish them.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) I don't see how it's simpler at all to put effectively the same game on the same list twice.
3. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) We have the "Once and only once" policy for a reason.
5. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
6. Hewer (talk) This proposal is very poorly written and hard to understand, but I'm assuming it's about the way we list ports in series pages. I have actually been considering doing this with WarioWare, Inc. Mega Party Game$! specifically, partly because of the devs' continuous insistence over multiple sources that it's a distinct entry, and partly because I'm unsure if we should even be considering it a port so much as a sequel that heavily reuses from its predecessor (I haven't actually played it, so I could be wrong there, but the article certainly makes it sound like much more different than just a port - the only reason I see to consider it one is the reused microgames, but WarioWare Gold also reused its microgames from other games while being otherwise different). But besides that one specific tangent, no, per all.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Not a good idea.
8. Arend (talk) I assume the same thing as the rest here and believe this is only about how we list ports/remakes/other reissues on series pages, to which I have to agree with the rest of the opposition: it's best we do not treat these rereleases on the same level as a mainline franchise entry. Nintendo doesn't seem to do that either if the whole Mario Wonder being the first sidescroller entry in 11 years thing is anything to go by (New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe was released only 4 years prior). If we did, it would only look disorganized. (Also, I pray this proposal isn't talking about rerelease pages being merged to their original counterpart, which is even worse)
9. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Cough cough.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk).

Don't misrepresent me. I did that solely because the SMA series - according to the official word on the matter - led straight into the NSMB series. I certainly don't think that should be done for every series page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

(facepalm) I'm just doing it because the remakes are listed with the main games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

It should only do that if there's an organic buildup with it. For instance, how DK94 is listed on the Donkey Kong series page despite being ostensibly a remake. Otherwise, it gets bogged down. Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:33, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series." Not really a good argument, SMAS+SMW is a double remake (but SMAS 25th Anniversary Edition is a port of a remake), & the Classic NES series are just ports. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

It's not a "double remake", it's just a re-release of two games in a compilation together. That's like calling 3D All-Stars a "triple remake". And anyway, what does this matter? Doc's userspace isn't the mainspace, nor would it fly if it were just put on the mainspace as is (for instance, I don't think Doc intends for the "generation" headers to be put on mainspace, nor should they be). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Uhhh, no, I said SMAS+SMW is a double remake because SMAS+SMW is a remake of SMAS, which is a remake of SMB, TLL, 2, & 3. Plus, that was just an EXAMPLE! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

And I said that SMAS+SMW is not a double remake because it's not a remake of SMAS, just a re-release with another game added in as well (i.e. a compilation, like 3D All-Stars). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:49, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

But SMAS is also a compilation, which means it's not a remake under that logic. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

No? Whether it's a remake and whether it's a compilation are two separate things, they aren't mutually exclusive and they have no bearing on each other. Super Mario All-Stars completely recreates its four games, thus is a remake. Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World is a compilation that only features re-releases completely unaltered from the original release. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:00, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Yet some stuff in SMAS was changed in SMAS+SMW.SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

And some stuff in 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy was changed in 3D All-Stars, doesn't make it a remake so much as an edited port. Anyway, this is (even by my standards) a pretty pointless semantic argument not really relevant to this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Uh, no, the changes in SM3DAS are not equivalent to the changes in SMAS+SMW. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)

Fine, Nintendo Switch Online Mario Advance 4 then, that has the e-Reader levels available without using the e-Reader. My point is that the changes are far too small to constitute a remake. Again though, what difference does this even make? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:10, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer, @SONIC123CDMANIA:

I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon. That's why I said Mainline games should all be in a category. Ports, Remakes Remaster, Collections included. There's also a special example. What about Bowser's Fury. ? It's a new Adventure, but it is listed under Ports, Remakes, etc. Other games or Spin offs should be in a different category.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read MarioWiki:Canonicity. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Big Super Mario Fan: What has certain games not being canon have to do with ports and remakes of mainline titles? No one has said anything about which games are being canon or not in this discussion until you brought. Hell, no one in this discussion has even uttered the word "canon" before you did (and as you can see, you bringing up canon has brought on a whole different discussion that completely undermines the original topic of the proposal).
Truthfully, bringing up canonicity in this discussion about regarding rereleases as equal to the originals (i.e. putting them in the exact same lists and categories as if they're standalone games), would imply that you view all ports, remakes, remasters, etc. as canon... which muddies the water even more on what could be regarded as canon or not, since certain remakes and rereleases actually provide different or additional content that isn't found in the original version, bringing into the discussion which version is canon and which version is not. See Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, for instance: the original Wii U version clearly precedes Super Mario 3D World, but the Switch/3DS rerelease precedes Super Mario Odyssey instead. Which version of Treasure Tracker is canon, then? That's not even saying about the DLC for the Switch version, which precedes New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, a rerelease of New Super Mario Bros. U that should be even older than 3D World and Odyssey. What is the timeline here?
This is why MarioWiki:Canonicity states that there's no officially recognized canon. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is canon and what is not canon, and changes into rereleases of mainline titles make that matter even more complicated. rend (talk) (edits) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer:

I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it. 1. Mario (Super Mario Mainline games + Spin offs) 2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario series) 3. Mario (Mario + Rabbids series) 4. Mario (Super Smash Bros. series) 5. Mario (Animated Movies) 6. Mario (Live-Action movie) 7. Mario (Cartoons) 8. Mario (Comics). There could be even more.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 19:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan

The fact is, the canonicity article is how this wiki operates, period. There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe. Nightwicked Bowser 19:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

You know, the sentence right after the boldened one stating that there's no officially recognized canon (the sencence you're arguing against) states "Therefore, arguments over canonicity (canon vs. non-canon) are purely speculative, and are of no importance to wiki articles." Your argument about there not only being a definitive canon (which you haven't elaborated on yet), but there being at least eight different Mario universes in a Mario multiverse, is exactly that kind of purely speculative that the Canonicity page was talking about. I'm not even sure if Nintendo would currently recognize several of these as part of their franchise (throwing muck in that whole multiverse idea of yours), such as "live-action movies" (there's only one of those btw) or "comics" (there's the German Club Nintendo comics and the Nintendo Comics System of Valiant btw, I doubt these share a universe). They sure don't recognize Hotel Mario as part of it.
Moreover, I'm not interested to, for instance, split the Mario page into several different articles that each describe a different incarnation of the character, if your Paper Mario proposal indicates anything. It'd be simpler and more organized to keep it all in one article. rend (talk) (edits) 20:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend:

I eleberate on the definitive Mario canon (the 1st, main Mario universe).

It consists of:

▪︎ Super Mario Mainline games (2D & 3D)

▪︎ Mario & Luigi series

▪︎ Mario Kart series

▪︎ Mario Party series

▪︎ Mario Tennis series

▪︎ Mario Golf series

▪︎ Mario vs. Donkey Kong series

▪︎ Luigi's Mansion series

▪︎ Yoshi's Island series

▪︎ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

▪︎ Super Princess Peach

It's not speculative at all. Those are all heavyly implied things. Some are even semi-confirmed.

Comics and Movies are different universes than the Game universes.

It wouldn't be good if it's all one one page. Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all.

Also there is already a Paper Mario page. But just for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. This page could be used for the Paper Mario series.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all." ...there. Is. Though. This is quite literally what the Canonicity guidelines mean when they say "baseless speculation"--Mario in Mario Golf isn't a different character from Mario in Mario Tennis. Even if we wanted to go along with this when we already moved away from the "Marioverse" term as far back as 2007, this doesn't factor in the dozens of lesser spinoffs and side-games--though to be blunt, trying to argue between the how Mario is in some way "different" between Mario's Egg Catch and Mario Super Sluggers is beyond an exercise in futility, and would be less than useless. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock:

▪︎ That's not what I meant. The Mario in Mario Golf and in Mario Tennis is the same. When we talk about games specifically there are 4 different Marios. 1st the Mario who appears in most Mario Games. 2nd Paper Mario who appears in the Paper Mario series. 3rd Mario who appears in the Mario + Rabbids series. 4th Mario who appears in the Super Smash Bros series.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:50, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan

I'd ask why you insist the + Rabbids one is different of all possible options, but the fact is neither I nor anyone else here cares. You're basing this off nothing at all other than your own preconceived notions, which is the very definition of speculation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick:

- To Answer your question. It's not speculation. Obviously there's the Main Mario, where most of his games take place. Than there's Paper Mario, who's confirmed to be a seperate character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Than there is Smash Bros. Mario who is a toy/trophy brought to live by imagination. Than there's Rabbid Mario, who was created in the Mario + Rabbids series, as seen in the cutscenes of that game.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 21:08, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

You didn't say "Rabbid Mario." You said "Mario from Mario + Rabbids." That's not the same thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

"Heavily implied", "semi-confirmed" — these read to me as admissions there isn't proof. We're a wiki. We work with facts, not guesses. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:40, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

Exactly this. There is a time and a place for headcanons and inferences; a matter-of-fact wiki is perhaps the last place you should be putting them. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:41, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick:

▪︎ I meant Mario from theMario + Rabbids series.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday:

▪︎ It has something to do with logic. You know milk comes from the cow, when you buy it in the supermarket. Than you wouldn't write it comes from the supermarket. Also there is evidence. Just watch the cutscenes of Super Smash Bros. or Mario + Rabbids and play Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

It is very easy to take a single thing, not interrogate it at all, and use "logic" to extrapolate it to everything with no regard for its actual bearing on reality. If I am to be convinced that Mario in a specific set of games is a different character from Mario in some other set, I require nothing less than an official source explicitly stating as such. To my knowledge, nothing like that exists for any of these cases. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:15, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday:

Well at least for Super Smash Bros., there is an official Interview with Satoru Iwata.

http://time.com/3747342/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata/

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I would like to point out that fellow NIWA wiki, the Zelda Wiki, the wiki for The Legend of Zelda series, which definitely features different incarnations of Link, Zelda, and various enemies and NPCs, do not split these incarnations in separate articles and keep them all under the same subjects (e.g. there aren't multiple articles on Link or Octorok, despite there being multiple versions of those). I know that our wiki is not the same thing, but if a wiki based on a series with 100% confirmed different incarnations of the main cast doesn't split their articles, then why should our wiki do this when the series we do cover don't have multiple incarnations of their characters at all (or it's being "implied" or "semi-confirmed" at best)? rend (talk) (edits) 01:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend:

I give you an example. Following your logic. If a man jumps out of a window the man next to him should jump out too. Just because the Zelda Wiki doesn't split their articles, doesn not mean that we should not do this eather. Also in that Interview it's confirmed that the Super Smash Bros. characters are toys.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the opposite of what other wikis are doing, either.
I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because The Legend of Zelda series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look way different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all.
Super Mario isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, Mario + Rabbids!Mario is identical in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in Mario + Rabbids. Same goes for Mario & Luigi!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's actually different incarnations into separate articles, then why should we be splitting hairs here?
Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reason rend (talk) (edits) 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Y'all, we've gotten way off track. This proposal isn't even about universes. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Ok, @Hewer On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. @Big Super Mario Fan First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Ok, good point at that, but it did say "ports, remakes, remasters, & collections". @Big Super Mario Fan I'm still waiting for a reply here. Unless you've stopped because you've seen the wrongness of your arguments. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@Arend: Easy. The games that are not canon should be listed in a different category than the ones that are canon. Regarding Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. I can answer this as well. Both versions are canon. Here's the timeline. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World (Wii U/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo Switch). The 2. Captain Toad adventure (episode) happens in between. New Super Mario Bros. U / New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe happen at the same time. Before Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Odyssey. Because Ports or Remakes add content that wasn't in the original release. But it still happened at the same time. For example Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions happens at the same time. The same applies to Mario + Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey. The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Special Episode happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, as they find the Super Crown here.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

You've kinda just reiterated what Arend was saying with more words, minus the actually important part: that this is pointless speculation that will definitely not be used as a basis for the wiki's organisation. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

@SONIC123CDMANIA:

It is strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes. Second, of course there would be more universes than what I specified. It does have to do with universes, because only the canon ones should be in a category. The others should be in another category. But it shouldn't matter if its a new game, a remake, or a port, etc. It's shouldn't stop.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Create seperate pages for Level themes

I think there should be seperate pages for level themes for example: Grass lands. Not just as categories. And it should not be listed alphabetical, but rather after a game for extram all Grass land levels in Super Mario World. Than another page for different Desert levels, sorted by games.

Proposer: Big Super Mario Fan (talk)
Deadline: May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

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

Oppose

1. Sparks (talk) Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all Mario games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly.

BMfan08 (talk) We already have a Level page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.

Comments

To be fair, we do have pages for Airship, Ghost House, Fortress, Tower, and Castle. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@ Doc von Schmeltwick:

Yes, why can't we make pages for the other level themes too. This would also be helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick: That is a valid point, though I'd like to point out that only one of those pages actually lists all the levels of that type (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what the proposer wants to do with these articles).
@Big Super Mario Fan: What do you mean by helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles? BMfan08 (talk) 22:55, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

@BMfan08:

For example in the Super Mario Maker 2 article you can click on the levels themes Ghosthouse , Airships, Castles. To than see the history of those on their own articles. I think this should also be done for orher level themes. Because that's really interesting to know. For example on YouTube there are also videos about the evolution of Grass land levels or Dessert levels, etc.

Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:05, May 13, 2024 (EDT)

I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like Level already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such asWorld 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.) should be counted as ground levels or sky levels. rend (talk) (edits) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. BMfan08 (talk) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form

bit of a wordy title, so let me explain.

as they stand, enemy lists are sorted purely alphabetically. this causes some minor organization issues, for example: the "B" section of every enemy list being crowded with just about every Big variant in the game. i think that's not a useful communication of information. what i propose is that instead, variations such as Big Goombas, Horned Ant Troopers, that usually don't appear on their own, would be listed right after the base form even if it breaks alphabetical order. of course, since there can be more than one variation of an enemy, those would then be listed alphabetically, placing Big Goomba before Mini Goomba.

some games split new enemies into their own table, so if a game introduces a new variation (such as something like a Big Gamboo) they would just be on the new enemy table.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: May 28th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. EvieMaybe (talk) as proposer.
2. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, sure.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.