MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, November 6th, 16:57 GMT

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. Voting periods last for two weeks. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
4. 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 administrators.
   • 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 "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
11. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
12. 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.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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

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

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Split sections between Tanooki Mario and Kitsune Luigi (discuss) Deadline: November 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine what to do with Jamboree Buddy (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Cursed Mushroom from Poison Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Orbs that share names with pre-existing Mario Party series items with those items (discuss) Deadline: November 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Create a number of articles for special buildings in Super Mario Run (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Deep Cheeps' appearance in the Super Mario Maker series a design cameo rather than a full appearance (without Blurps being affected) (discuss) Deadline: November 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge Mushroom, Dash Mushroom, and most of Super Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Expand and rename List of characters by game (discuss) Deadline: November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

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

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

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

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

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

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

Determine a minimum number of glitches in a game to warrant a separate list article

I've noticed some strange discrepancies regarding how glitches are handled when a game has only 3 or 4 of them documented here. Wario Land 4 has a separate article for its 3 glitches (List of Wario Land 4 glitches), but every other game with 3 glitches simply has those glitches merged with the game's page. Specifically, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Super Mario Strikers, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and, most glaringly, Wario Land 3 have sections for glitches rather than separate lists.

More complicated is figuring out how to deal with games with 4 glitches. Of the 6 games with 4 documented glitches:

• 4 of them have glitches merged into the main article: Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
• 2 of them have separate "List of glitches" articles: Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem!, Super Mario Advance

I put forward this proposal to determine a minimum number of glitches for the creation of "List of glitches" articles. That way, there is consistency between games with the same number of documented glitches. Additionally, if new glitches are documented later that brings the total number over this minimum, a new page can easily be created without the need for a proposal, as the editor can cite this proposal.

Option 1

The minimum number of glitches should be 3. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), and Wario Land 3 to match that of Wario Land 4.

Option 2

The minimum number of glitches should be 4. List of Wario Land 4 glitches would be deleted and its glitches merged into the main game's article. "List of glitches" pages would be created for Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, Donkey Kong Land, and Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle.

Option 3

The minimum number of glitches should be 5. List of Wario Land 4 glitches, List of Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Mini-Land Mayhem! glitches, and List of Super Mario Advance glitches would be deleted, with the glitches merged into each game's main article.

Do nothing

There should be no concrete minimum, and whether glitches should be split or not should be discussed on a game-by-game basis.

I could continue with 6, 7, etc., but I feel once this point is reached there is enough to warrant separate "List of glitches" articles, especially since game articles are typically long and images are usually needed to showcase glitches, taking up more space.

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: August 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 3

1. Technetium (talk) I am a bit torn between Options 2 and 3, but I prefer this one as I feel 4 glitches can easily fit on a game's page, as seen with the examples above.
2. Hewer (talk) I don't particularly mind what the minimum number of glitches is, but I agree that there should be a minimum in order to have some more consistency, and a smaller minimum may cause unnecessary splits of small glitch lists, so I'll go for this option.
3. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
5. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. (I really love glitches, so I'm glad this is being settled.)
6. Jazama (talk) Per all
7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all; it's good for consistency to have a standard for this.
8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

From what I can tell, articles on this wiki are usually split based on size, not the number of headings. It's why List of Fortune Street quotes is split into Dragon Quest characters (A-J / K-Z) and Super Mario characters (A-M / N-Z) and why the number of headings in these articles is inconsistent. I think it'd be weird to split lists of glitches based strictly on the number of sections rather than the amount of text since that could lead to very short articles that only list a few very minor glitches that can be described in just a few sentences. Dive Rocket Launcher 22:50, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. It just feels different here because glitch descriptions tend to be around the same length. If you look at the examples I discussed in the proposal, you'll find there really isn't a noticeable size difference between the pages that have their glitches merged vs separate. Truth be told, I was originally going to just make a talk page proposal to merge List of Wario Land 4 glitches, but the discrepancies with the pages with 4 glitches led to me coming up with this. I'd be happy to hear anyone else's ideas on how to make things more consistent, because the way things are currently is frankly bugging me. --Technetium (talk) 23:02, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

Remove lists of Poké Ball and stage-exclusive Pokémon on Smash Bros. game pages and allow each Poké Ball Pokémon only one representative artwork/screenshot

This proposal's a short one because there's not much to say about it. The Poké Ball Pokémon section of the List of SSB series items page is cluttered enough. They have little to no relation to Super Mario other than their interactivity with Super Mario fighters, but that goes for all fighters in general (that's my understanding as to why the list pages exist). A while ago, there was a majority consensus of over 20 users who agreed to delete the Pokémon page, giving images of Poké Ball Pokémon even less of a purpose to be on the wiki. Poké Ball Pokémon are not nearly as intrinsic to the Smash Bros. games as moves, stages, items, and, of course, fighters; they are a mechanic part of the Poké Ball item.

Now I already think that for a wiki on Super Mario, a table listing Poké Ball Pokémon and giving an image of each one is enough of a stretch as is, but further discussion on that is for a possible future proposal. For this proposal, if it passes, only one artwork (or screenshot, if there is no artwork) per each Poké Ball Pokémon will be used, of their latest or only appearance in Smash Bros. only, and all other screenshots and artwork of Poké Ball Pokémon will be deleted. Several of them have been in Special:UnusedFiles for months. In the case that a Pokémon has both a screenshot and artwork, prioritize the artwork but delete the screenshot, consistent with how infoboxes are used. The playable fighters representing Pokémon and Rayquaza (a boss in Brawl) will not be affected by this proposal, nor will any of the trophy images of Poké Ball Pokémon, which would be better subject to a different proposal.

Edit: Passing this proposal will also remove any standalone Poké Ball Pokémon lists on the Smash Bros. game pages and list the Pokémon (though not their functions) within the Poké Ball description under the Items heading. To be consistent, this will also remove the Saffron City cameos on the Super Smash Bros. article, since they're more or less the same by virtue of Poke Ball Pokemon, except they spawn from the stage environment.

Second edit: A separate option ("Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists") has been added for those who want only the Poké Ball Pokémon list removed (at least from this proposal). This is for others who think that stage hazards should stay put on the game pages but not Poke Ball Pokemon, or for those who want the status of Pokémon and other non-Super Mario stage hazards to be for consideration in a future proposal altogether. Even in this case, an individual image for stage hazard Pokémon would be kept, even if they later became Poké Ball Pokémon, but on the game pages only, NOT on the List of Super Smash Bros. series items page for the reason that they are/were not Poké Ball Pokémon under this context.

Third edit: Adding a separate voting option for keeping any Poké Ball Pokémon artworks existing on gallery pages but not screenshots. Modified the first two headings to reiterate from the proposal title that these options are for keeping only one image per Poké Ball Pokémon (precisely those in List of Super Smash Bros. series items#Poké Ball Pokémon) and deleting any others.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: August 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Remove both Poké Ball and stage Pokémon lists as well as any additional images

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
2. Mushzoom (talk) Per proposal.
3. Koopa con Carne (talk) A little Pokemon coverage could still be contained in the Smash Bros item list because you can interact with them while playing as a Mario character, but all the tiny Saffron City cameos and specific mechanics of these assist Pokemon on the parent Super Smash Bros. game pages are excessive, and so are the dozens of images related to these things. Nuke 'em. Last I checked, this site is called "mariowiki.com".
4. SeanWheeler (talk) We've got Smash Wiki and Bulbapedia to cover the Pokémon in Super Smash Bros. Also, RPG has made better points than Doc in the comments.
5. Yook Bab-imba (talk) Per proposal.
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) The simple fact is that this coverage violates the policy of once and only once when considering the broader scope of the Nintendo Independent Wiki Alliance (NIWA). This information is already covered on two other wikis: On Bulbapedia, the Super Smash Bros. game article focuses exclusively on the game's Pokémon content, including a detailed table of Poké Ball Pokémon and a list of Pokémon franchise stages, providing easy access to Pokémon that act as stage hazards; this is also the case for future games in the series. Meanwhile, the Poké Ball article on SmashWiki lists every single Poké Ball Pokémon in one article and provides quick links to specific Pokémon articles, where details of the Pokémon in the Super Smash Bros. games and in-game screenshots can be seen. Since all three wikis exist under the NIWA umbrella, the Mario Wiki needs nothing more than to briefly summarize the Poké Ball item and the list of Pokémon, use the {{main-wiki}} template for the two articles mentioned above, and link to Bulbapedia articles when appropriate. These tables will remain preserved for public access by the "History" tab on each article, since this constitutes an edit to an article rather than the entire page being deleted, and even if that was the case, the Wayback Machine and other web archive resources exist for a reason. This is the Super Mario Wiki, and this content has nothing to do with the Super Mario franchise.
7. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
8. PaperSplash (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. While I partially sympathize with Doc's counterpoint regarding how the non-Mario Assist Trophies and non-Mario-or-Pokémon stage hazards will end up with more coverage if this passes, I do indeed believe that can be taken care of in a later proposal.
9. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Remove only Poké Ball Pokémon lists and additional images

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary.

Remove both lists and screenshots but not additional Poké Ball Pokémon artworks from gallery pages

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Third.

Remove nothing

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - No reason for this. Note how I made the Pokemon table for the Super Smash Bros. (N64) page; there should be representation of each aspect for each "game" page, even aspects that link to another site - and the only way to so that in the way you're wanting would be to have images from other games in the series, which is an absolute no.
   EDIT: With the addition to the proposal's goals, this is now aiming to prioritize Gray Fox and Whispy Woods over Pokemon that have the same role (assist summon and stage hazard, respectively, such as Chansey and Venusaur on both counts) just because the latter are from Pokemon. This is completely counterintuitive and seems to have no basis other than a personal disdain for Pokemon images. Why do the former two (especially the foremost, who's not even a Nintendo character and has not appeared in any media with Mario other than Smash) get prioritized? Even if you "plan to take care of that in a later proposal," that still leaves things inconsistent until the hypothetical scenario of that happening and passing.
   SECOND EDIT: As Nintendo101 points out, Smashwiki doesn't do game galleries, nor do they want to. As such, ours is the only one that exists, and there's no reason to get rid of its contents because "Smashwiki should" when they don't want to. Meanwhile, from what I recall, Bulbapedia doesn't do gallery pages at all, they just have image categories. Plus, this proposal ignores the presence of all the Trophy, Sticker, and Spirit images, the latter two of which get full textual/numerical coverage as well - as such, a to-the-letter enactment of this proposal could snowball badly.
2. Hewer (talk) Per Doc, this doesn't feel like a logical limitation of scope to stay Mario-focused so much as a random and arbitrary restriction that hinders completeness. It also seems strange to me to single out Pokémon out of everything in Smash as the one thing not Mario-relevant enough to warrant this treatment - it doesn't make sense to do this for the Poké Ball summons but not the non-Mario Assist Trophies, or for the Pokémon stage hazards but not the other non-Mario stage hazards.
3. Metalex123 (talk) Per Doc
4. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
5. OmegaRuby (talk) Went through a good chunk of the comments to get good information and perspectives on each argument--per all.
6. Tails777 (talk) Per Doc
7. Ahemtoday (talk) Making this vote motivated by Doc's proposed proposal in the comments.
8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick The Pokemon on the SSB64 page can just be mentioned under the Poké Ball description of the Items section. The description already says "a random Pokémon." That's vague. Which ones? But if mentioning the Pokémon in that description, then it will show which of them there are without making a separate subsection of something that doesn't directly invoke Super Mario, unlike items, moves, fighters, and stages, which all have at least one thing related to Super Mario in them. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:58, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

...in saying that, you openly admit you want it to be more vague. The non-Pokeball Pokemon are instead listed in the stage element sections, anyway. When it comes to this sort of section, we should not pick-and-choose what is and is not "relevant" to the Mario games, as there are too many edge cases; like the Bumpers, for instance, which despite being Smash-based appear as a permanent obstacle in the primary Mario stage. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

It's not vague. It would be summarizing Pokemon under the "Poke Ball" heading if saying "these are the Pokemon, all of them behave differently" and then either link to the list page on this wiki for more info (MarioWiki:Once and only once) or to SmashWiki. As for the Pokemon that are stage features, they could be mentioned under the respective stage descriptions. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:03, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

How would bloating a single item's section in the items table be preferable to just having a separate table? This covers everything equally without requiring extra pages or understating the importance of the individual subjects - having them as that page is is a great compromise. Attempting to remove it is suddenly just deciding some random aspect shouldn't even be alluded to properly, which is not how coverage works. The "once and only once" argument is irrelevant because that's like saying that the Fire Flower item section on that table shouldn't have a description because there's already a Fire Flower page, and the article you refer to mixes them with no regard for specific game - honestly, those list pages should be phased out in favor of having the information on the individual game pages with interwiki links, like the SSB page currently is. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:06, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

As for Bumpers, those are items, which I said is more integral to the Smash Bros. series than Poke Ball Pokemon. It's not bloating if it's listing the names of the Pokemon in the Poke Ball section only and giving a one sentence or mention that each of them function differently. Why was the Pokemon page deleted through unanimous consent? Because it lacked enough relevance to Super Mario. These are components of an item that appear in a non-Super Mario crossover page. This is limiting Poke Ball Pokemon info to just the list page which, as stated in the proposal, could be considered a stretch itself (but subject to different proposal or community discussion). What's an "edge case" that involves Poke Ball Pokemon and the Super Mario franchise? The argument doesn't apply to Fire Flower for the obvious reason that those are in the Super Mario franchise itself. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

As I said, limiting to the list page is the opposite of what should be done, they should be limited to the game articles as SSB's currently is. That is a much better idea, and that is my final word on that discussion. And the Fire Flower thing does matter in regards to you bringing up "once and only once." The "edge case" thing more has to do with arbitrarily deciding something doesn't need image coverage on a game article, obviously. And yes, putting a 13-item list within a single cell of a table when no other cell of its column has one is absolutely bloating it - to say nothing of the later games that have even more. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:15, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

To me, the definition of "arbitrary" is someone deciding something based on feeling rather than elaborate consideration. Some of the guest coverage games like Nintendo Land don't list everything and just give an overview of the other minigames because those are prominent features of the game. If Super Smash Bros. were not named as such to anglophones (secondary, whilst the Japanese name is primary, being a game developed by HAL and Nintendo), the treatment of Smash Bros. coverage would almost certainly be on similar level to Nintendo Land or the recently released Nintendo World Championships game for Switch. One could make the argument that adding Pokemon descriptions within the Poke Ball is bloat, then that's something to consider, but there's no harm in listing the different Pokemon in it so then it's there in one place. It's not that hard to go to SmashWiki to read more about the Pokemon functions, just like for general Smash Bros. concepts and mechanics like special moves. Many things in Smash Bros. don't have pages here for the reason that Smash Bros. is not officially considered a component of the Super Mario franchise, and my proposal on deleting Trophy Tussle passed some months ago because it's not relevant enough, just like the Pokemon page isn't, and similar could be said for Poke Ball Pokemon. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:36, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

The main difference here is Nintendo Land is a collection of disconnected minigames, while Smash mixes everything together cohesively; it's much harder to pick it apart for only certain aspects, especially when we already cover four of the franchises included (Super Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario) plus some of what they list as "miscellaneous" games (Famicom Grand Prix, Wrecking Crew). Either way, the point I am making is the game page should have full coverage as to its contents regardless of what we have on-wiki pages for, because that's leaving holes - which as I already stated, are far more egregious than what Nintendo Land has due to the differences in cohesion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Why does WiKirby focus on only the Kirby aspects? Why does Zelda Wiki focus on only the Zelda aspects? Why does Bulbapedia focus only on the Pokemon aspects? One could ask the same about this wiki and aspects of Super Mario, for which there's already added lenience from the list pages and additional sections. Smash could not be a pun on Super Mario Bros. and still mix everything together, and the argument would still hold up that it's just as relevant to Super Mario as it is to the other franchises represented, but may incline further consideration of what stays and what goes. Picking apart the Poke Ball Pokemon section will not do a disservice to the wiki's already comprehensive and extended lenience towards coverage on these games at all. Limiting the items and stages would arguably provide less context, but this is an entire grouping of something that does not invoke Super Mario in any form. That's why I made a proposal about this. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:51, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

What other wikis do does not affect us. Either way, the current SSB page is easily something they could also do if they so felt to. But no other wiki has to juggle four franchises included in this crossover - at that point, just having it all is more efficient. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:57, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Four franchises? They're representations of games that other Super Mario characters are protagonists of. They're Super Mario characters. A definition of four franchises would be Super Mario, Kirby, Star Fox, and The Legend of Zelda, to give an example. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:59, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

We treat them as separate franchises, and so does Smash; they have different icons in each game, with the Mushroom, the DK, the Egg, and the W, and different sections for trophies/stickers/music tracks/etc. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:02, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

If they truly were separate franchises, why does it all need to be covered in one place, on this wiki? Shouldn't they have their own wikis then, like other Nintendo franchises? See, it doesn't work. They are part of the Super Mario branding. In any case, this is distracting from the fact that the proposal is about the relevance of Pokemon and the Poke Ball items. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:07, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

It's demonstrating that you're rather out-of-touch with how this works both on an official and wiki basis, and I mean that as gently as possible. We actually used to have a DKwiki as an affiliate, they ended up merging here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:13, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

The first sentence is an ad hominem and not about differing opinions on coverage on Poke Ball Pokemon. To reiterate my point, it probably merged because it didn't work separately when the wiki here covers the games in full, but that's besides the point. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:18, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

The point is Smash is very cohesive with how it mixes elements, so including full coverage on the game page when Mario and related already have a disproportionately large influence on it compared to most (not all, mind you) other things included in it in a wide variety of roles makes more sense than picking-and-choosing. The prior sentence was more a warning that your arguments aren't quite as infallible as you think they are. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:27, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, but I've yet to see one reason how keeping the information benefits the Super Mario franchise directly over covering an entire page about an existing crossover game. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:32, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

Efficiency. This is a multi-layered bit of coverage here, and starting to remove stuff from that page is a slippery slope that could lead to outright crippling the page (and become inconsistent with characters and items that have crossed over otherwise, if and when it gets to that point). I'd rather avoid that issue entirely - and image galleries should have full coverage anyway just on principle of their existence. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:38, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

It won't necessarily get to that point if the community does not want it to. The definition of "efficiency" here is referring to the wiki page rather than connections to Super Mario. The image galleries already have excessive amounts of non-Super Mario images, something that could become a focus of a different proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:42, August 21, 2024 (EDT)

To illustrate what I mean by "bloat," here's the SSB item table with the proposed changes enacted (keeping the surrounding items for comparison):

Image	Name	Series	Description
	Bumper	Super Smash Bros. series	When thrown, this item remains in the same spot. If any character, including the user, touches it, they take damage, and are pushed in a single direction.
	Fan	Super Smash Bros. series	Because it is light, this item is good for quick attacks. But it doesn't do much damage and can't be thrown very far.
	Poké Ball	Pokémon series	When thrown, the Poké Ball opens up, and a Pokémon pops out. The Pokémon that appears is random; it performs its special skill and leaves. The Pokémon that can appear are: Beedrill Blastoise Chansey Charizard Clefairy Goldeen Hitmonlee Koffing Meowth Mew Onix Snorlax Starmie
	Star Rod	Kirby series	When the Star Rod is used, stars come flying out of it, hitting other characters. If used with smash, a large star flies out. The Star Rod has only a limited amount of large stars it can shoot.

See how the vertical space for that one specific row is severely extended compared to the ones around it by making that a list within the table? Later games would have even more, and THEN starting with Brawl, there's the Assist Trophies as well, and the only way to be consistent with those identically-acting items would be to have ones for that too. And then there's the Master Balls, which would need to have a redundant list for the subset that they're able to spawn. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I never said I wanted it as a bullet list (perhaps unless {{columns}} is used). Separating by comma would be more efficient. Assist Trophies are items with franchise variety (also subject to separate discussion), unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, only concerning one franchise, are COMPONENTS of an item. It's not redundant if a Master Ball can list that it functions like a Poke Ball but gives priority to legendary Pokemon.

@Koopa con Carne Thank you for input. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:24, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Then it's not a well-formatted (or general wiki-formatted) list because it's harder to tell where the separation between items is; that is the precise reason we have bulleted lists rather than comma'd lists in the first place. Also, only keeping the Assist Trophy tables just because some of them are Mario-based isn't the solution either, because that's saying that Gray Fox or Jeff Andonuts in Brawl deserve more coverage than Charizard in Melee. And that seems rather arbitrary to me - again to say nothing of non-Mario Assist Trophies that have otherwise crossed over with Mario, like Shadow or Mr. Resetti or Dr. Wily. Also on the subject of Master Ball, we would still need to make clear which counted as "legendary" or otherwise we're leaving people to look through each Bulbapedia link themselves one-at-a-time. Which shouldn't be needed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:28, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

First, I meant like this (or comma-separated):

• Beedrill
• Blastoise
• Chansey
• Charizard
• Clefairy
• Goldeen
• Hitmonlee
• Koffing
• Meowth
• Mew
• Onix
• Snorlax
• Starmie

Except that's not as arbitrary based on the fact that Assist Trophies have Super Mario representation mixed in, unlike Poke Ball Pokemon, which have none at all. All relevance to Super Mario (even if considering it's a stretch) is saying "A Super Mario fighter can use this item and cause one of these Pokemon to appear from it." That's sufficient enough; anything else is bloat that can be found elsewhere in more detail in any case. The Charizard argument not hold up because he's a playable fighter in later Super Smash Bros. games, overshadowing his status as just a Poke Ball Pokemon, while Assist Trophies (again, subject to separate discussion) are part of a set that happens to have a few Super Mario characters within. Should the lists be simplified, his fighter profile can be linked to on the Super Smash Bros. Melee. And if the List of SSB items page is linked to, that may not necessarily be the case. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

You're missing the point. Assist Trophies that have no other relevance to Mario should not have any more priority than any of the Pokémon just because some of the other Assist Trophies are Mario-based, because functionally, they're the same item-by-function, just with a different pool of summons. Doing so is, indeed, quite arbitrary. (Also, on my screen at least, that columns thing manages to be even more bloated by bloating in two dimensions rather than just one.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:41, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Basically, the game pages should not be Mario-focused, they should be game-focused. For example, Jigglypuff does not need a page on the Super Mario Wiki, but the Super Smash Bros. page does need a section for Jigglypuff in the character list. This goes for every other element of the game too (including the Ball'mons and Assist Trophies in later ones), regardless of where they link, whether on-site or off-site. Outright not listing them isn't "only covering relevant things," it's hiding the fact they are there in the first place, which is a disservice in every respect. We should say what the game has, not limit it to what originated in a Mario-allied game, because that's not the extent of what the game contains. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

It's a wiki on Super Mario. It can balance both game-focused and Super Mario focused, which is a lot more thoughtful consideration than just "I don't know what stays what goes, let's cover it all." In that case we may as well merge SmashWiki into this wiki, something that I'm sure nobody wants. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Except that's not even remotely what I'm saying to do. I'm saying to include links off-site and just have listings, images, and descriptions for everything, not have pages for everything (and definitely not Smashwiki's overly-technical "this character's standard punch got buffed 3 points of damage since the last game, but their walking speed was nerfed by 2 points" thing that overruns that site). Just because an "affiliated" wiki covers something does not mean we are not allowed to cover it as well, that would be silly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Your second point basically shows that you take issue with SmashWiki, being why you want a lot of Smash Bros. content to stay here. Didn't you vote to want Smash Bros. content to have their own pages in earlier Smash Bros. proposals? So if I had to guess, this is trying to haphazardly justify the inclusion of something that is not Super Mario while at the same defend the content not having individual pages based on outcomes of earlier proposals that you presumably opposed? It's inconsistent, so the entire argument is built on "keep everything because it's arbitrary to decide what isn't Super Mario" when it's clear as day that Poke Ball Pokemon are not Super Mario. And of course that's silly, since both us and them both cover the Super Mario aspects of Smash Bros. because of the overlap. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:13, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I see now you are doing the ad hominem now, but either way I am allowed to think Smashwiki does things poorly, but that is not the main reason I want the game pages to cover what they do - I have already explained why I want them to. And yes, 7 years ago I did vote to keep full coverage, but I'm past that now. You have no reason to bring that up now; I might as well bring up how you, less than a year ago, attempted to forcibly remove content from console pages because it didn't directly relate to Mario, despite no one else agreeing with you to do that. I have already stated that currently, I don't think everything should have a page, but its existence should be acknowledged - and yes, with a visual representation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:20, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

And I have explained why I think it's redundant to have the Poke Ball Pokemon lists, countless times. I thought I responded directly to the points you were making? I assumed you took issue with SmashWiki being the reason for your defense, to which you responded that it isn't. The Virtual Boy example probably shows why proposals exist, so that such things are discussed before the big changes are enacted. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

In general, I am very anti-deletion because I want to keep history intact (and if possible, curated). That's why I prefer pages being turned into redirects rather than deleted outright. Turning images into redlinks on page history is directly counter to that, particularly when they aren't replaced with new ones. I find such practices destructive. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:33, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Well, removals have happened before. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

They have. And from my perspective, if it even had a reason to be somewhere, it should be curated in some manner - this obviously doesn't count things like what's listed on the "non-Mario content" section of BJaoDN, because most of that is nonsense that doesn't even have a tenuous connection, but there is a connection here. That's hardly a novel perspective either, given that "Flashpoint" thing that was made for curating Adobe Flash-based games. While I try to keep good faith, my gut feeling on that sort of permanent, unviewable removal equates it to wanton destruction. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:00, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

If the info is unique and can't be found elsewhere, that's one thing, but no real loss is done if it's a duplication of something that can be read elsewhere. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:03, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

That's just it; it's not a "duplicate" because our coverage styles are just totally different because we are a very different community, and it's wrong to put upon another wiki like that. I guess the main reason Mario covering Smash is more valid than the other series included is that Mario is already very much multi-genre. Pokemon, Kirby, Zelda, et al. usually keep to their core genre with very rare outliers (like an occasional pinball game or something), so their wikis tend to not have systems in place to cover that sort of thing. Of the franchises that have been represented in every Smash game since the first one, Mario has always had the most representation due to also covering those other franchises as mentioned before; in the first game, there are four Mario-based fighters (Mario, Yoshi, DK, Luigi), five stages (Peach's Castle, Yoshi's Island, Congo Jungle, Mushroom Kingdom, and Meta Crystal), numerous stage gimmicks and cameos for each of those (Lakitu, Fly Guy, Goonie, Super Happy Tree, Necky, Barrel Cannon, Piranha Plant, Buzzy Beetle, Koopa Troopa, POW Block, Brick Block, and more), six usable items (Fire Flower, Star, both Shells, Hammer, Bob-omb), and one of Master Hand's attacks (Bullet Bill). Zelda gets one fighter, one stage, and one item, Kirby gets one fighter, one stage, three stage elements, and two items, Pokemon gets two fighters, one stage, several stage elements, and one item with all the appearances it spawns, Metroid gets one fighter, one stage, and one stage cameo, Star Fox gets one fighter, one stage, and a few stage elements, Earthbound gets one character and ambiguously one item depending on how you treat the Home Run Bat, and F-Zero gets a single fighter. Of these, the only one that approaches the Mario representation in amount is Pokemon, and it's mostly focused on the very subject of this proposal. That is why Mario will inherently get more coverage on this, and why by that point it makes the most sense to include the rest on the game page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:21, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

If we're going by the fact that it's not a duplication from what can be found elsewhere, it should probably present itself differently, especially by virtue of Super Mario. Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong are not real franchises, and even if they are called franchises, they're more of collective terms referring to their starring roles in Super Mario games, regardless of distinct symbols or not (after all, Wrecking Crew, starring Mario, has distinct symbol in later Smash Bros. games). And by the terms of majority representation, again, I'd expect it to apply to groupings that have at least something to do with Super Mario. "Might as well cover it all" has no bearing on the fact that one grouping in the Super Smash Bros. games does not have any Super Mario elements. Even groupings with Super Mario elements have been trimmed off of game pages, like how Trophy Tussle was deleted, the non-Super Mario Challenges, and the trophy lists, the latter not being listed on the game pages at all. On a separate, unrelated argument, I could deem trophies, something original to Smash, as being more intrinsic than the Poke Ball Pokemon. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:31, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

In each of those cases the images were still kept, though, as they should be. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:38, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Game & Watch images were deleted before for lack of relevance to Super Mario, I think, in response to the outcome of a proposal restricting coverage to only Game & Watch Gallery games (with Modern remakes) and Super Mario-themed variations (such as Ball in SMB Game & Watch). Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:42, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Those aren't Smash Trophies or Trophy Tussle, which is what was being referred to. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Also, yes, those are franchises, Nintendo markets them as such - the very definition of a franchise. May I remind you the original game wasn't Mario, it was Donkey Kong. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:32, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Then from that perspective, should we start a proposal to rename this wiki to "Donkey Kong Wiki", then? I thought you told me they merged into this wiki. Something isn't adding up if we're calling them separate franchises but not covering them on separate wikis. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Why in the world would being a separately marketed franchise automatically require a different wiki, and vice-versa? That logic doesn't add up. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

For the reason why different Nintendo franchises have their own wikis. For the reason why we have Bulbapedia for Pokemon information and not the Super Mario Wiki for Pokemon information. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

That is a very one-way approach to how this works. Nintendo doesn't have so many franchises that constantly intermingle like these ones do, but if you look at other ones, you see more of that. For instance, the Street Fighter wiki covers Final Fight just fine, because there's such significant overlap. It's not about matching the divisions, it's about doing what is the most efficient for that specific case, which is the entire thing I have been arguing in favor of this entire discussion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

The "intermingling" in this case refers to the fact that these are all Super Mario characters, unlike Link and Isabelle, even though they appear in Mario Kart 8. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:27, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I'd say it's moreso the frequency of said intermingling and that in most cases they seem to inhabit the same world; Zelda and Animal Crossing only get occasional appearances. Anyway, fun fact: the wiki in the ancient days used to have a page listing everything from the Banjo-Kazooie games and Conker games because said characters made their first by-release-date appearance in Diddy Kong Racing. That deletion was justified (though I'll admit its presence was the only reason I found Banjo-Kazooie again when I did after I briefly played it at a cousin's house when I was a toddler). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

That's pretty embarrassing that they covered that at one point, especially when considering Microsoft owns the Banjo and Conker IPs. This wiki has improved a lot since then, for sure. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:59, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG Can I just say, the proposal as it's being presented right now seems a bit misleading. The title makes it sound like you're just removing images, when your edit suggests that you're also removing the Pokemon tables in all of the Smash Bros. game articles. You should probably change the title to match that. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:48, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Sure. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:01, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG I am not personally very invested in Pokémon material on the wiki, so I am abstaining for now, but if people want to represent these games on Super Mario Wiki, is there much intrinsic harm in that? I can see the benefit in having access to different sources that cover material in different ways. Otherwise we would probably need to discard all of our Super Mario 64 material because that is the sole focus of our NIWA-affiliate Ukikipedia. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:05, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I've had lots of discussion above that's probably given most points behind my argument. In one of the later messages I noted how Super Mario material in Smash Bros. is covered both here and on SmashWiki for obvious reasons, but that's because it falls under a key part of both wiki's scope. And I don't even need to say why we have a Super Mario 64 on this wiki. This proposal isn't looking to completely axe any and all forms of mentioning Pokemon, but do consider how the Pokemon article was removed from unanimous consent and my point behind the grouping of Poke Ball Pokemon being 100% Pokemon and not a variety of franchise representations, like more key components of the Smash series like stages, items, and fighters. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:52, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer There's probably a lot of Smash coverage discrepancies due to several proposals in the past, some succeeding and some not. If there's other Smash Bros. groupings without any Super Mario involvement, like non-Super Mario stage hazards, which are a component of a stage, those should absolutely become the focus of a separate proposal. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

OK, but why should Venusaur be removed from the Stage Hazard list but Whispy Woods is perfectly fine (to say nothing about all the ones in later games)? It doesn't make sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:26, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

This proposal is about limiting excessive Pokemon information relating to Smash Bros. Since this proposal already covers a lot, it may make sense to run a separate concurrent proposal to remove all non-Super Mario stage hazard components. The deletion of the Pokemon article in particular has set a precedent to removing excessive Pokemon coverage, and should this pass, the precedent (in a separate proposal) would be to discuss the removal of other non-Super Mario stage hazards. This proposal was originally just about the Poke Ball Pokemon, but Koopa con Carne's support vote made me realize it could apply to the Saffron City hazards too. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:49, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I'm going to be blunt - the current state of the Smash 64 page is how all our Smash pages should be. No more, no less. Linking to other wikis as necessary, but acknowledging the existence of what else is there in a consistent manner. That is what should be proposed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

So in other words, deleting the non-Super Mario stage hazards doesn't have a precedent yet. One could make a proposal about taking out all of the stage hazard lists, and someone could point out the inconsistency of keeping that out while keeping Poke Ball Pokemon lists. One thing at a time. It's not easy to cover all of the loose ends under a single proposal. If this passes and another proposal for deleting non-Super Mario stage hazards is made, perhaps unique input would be given. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:57, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I just cannot understand why you think removing good information makes things "better." Its origin is irrelevant when it's on the page for a crossover title, not a page for those individual subjects. It's better the way it is now, the only thing that needs changed is those ridiculous series-wide "list" pages (and enemy list pages) need to be merged into the game pages. That is where the focus should be. Not on trying to "fix" what isn't broken. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:04, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

For the reason that me and the others supporting the proposal see it as lacking relation to Super Mario. Anyways, I've added another voting option to remove Poke Ball Pokemon in consideration (but not exclusively to) those who want a single future proposal that concerns non-Super Mario stage hazards outright. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:07, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

I know folks here care a lot about how we cover content pertaining to the Super Mario franchise. That is appreciated passion, but a lot of the discussion here has devolved into uncharitable accusations at one another, which both weakens one's points and, more importantly, is just unkind. I encourage folks to maintain good faith. Even if one has trepidations about the long-term consequences of this specific proposal if it passes, there was absolutely no harm in raising it. What we have here are dueling perspectives on what type of coverage is extraneous and what is within our scope, and that is not as huge a deal as it is being made out to be. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:09, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

If you noticed I actually mentioned that very thing (ctrl+f "good faith" lol) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:35, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Coincidentally, earlier, I wanted to say how the discussion felt as if they reached a point of spiraling in circles, or even derailed to off-topic, but was worried that statement would be deemed discourteous. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:37, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Yeah no worries, we definitely have irreconcilable differences in how we view this. If you want to stop debating this directly, then I do too. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:47, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

That's how I feel. It seems to have taken its course. With every response, we each felt compelled to respond. I think every position on each side has been exhausted, or stated on the comments above. There's people who took my side on this and others who took yours. Someone apparently read everything below in the comments as well before casting a vote. Super Mario RPG (talk) 22:50, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

Doc von Schmeltwick: well. okey dokey, then. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:45, August 22, 2024 (EDT)

@Super Mario RPG I understand the desire to remove content one thinks is extraneous, but something I do like that is offered on Super Mario Wiki that has no presence on Smash Wiki are nicely curated gallery pages for each of the Super Smash Bros. games, especially for legitimate pieces of artwork. For reasons that were not apparent in my years over at Smash Wiki, that is just not something they feel inclined to integrate. While I would not personally lose sleep over the removal of screenshots, I want not like to, say, see artwork of a Pokémon in Brawl deleted from the gallery page because we are only keeping the one from Ultimate. Is that a misread of the proposal's scope, or would those kinds of removals happen? - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:07, August 23, 2024 (EDT)

Going from your example, no, artwork of Pokemon from earlier Smash games won't be removed under the scope of this proposal UNLESS they are Poke Ball summons without a newer artwork replacement by the time of Smash Ultimate. I'm unsure if I can change at this point, since the proposal's been ongoing for a few days. Super Mario RPG (talk) 23:21, August 23, 2024 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 I added a separate voting option. Does it fall under the scope of your concern over the status of the artworks? Super Mario RPG (talk) 23:44, August 23, 2024 (EDT)

@ThePowerPlayer "Once and only once" does not cover what other wikis do. As previously mentioned, NIWA has a wiki completely dedicated to Super Mario 64, yet that does not affect our coverage on it in the slightest. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:20, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Agreed with Doc here in that this rule specifically only applies (and should apply) within this site. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:28, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick The very first sentence on the main page of Ukikipedia states that the goal of that wiki is to document "expert level knowledge of Super Mario 64", and one look at any article on the wiki reflects its purpose: to cover extreme technical details about the game that are only of interest to a highly technically minded audience, rather than a general audience. For example, Ukikipedia's Mario article contains precisely nothing about Mario's character or his involvement in the game's story, and his infobox neglects common features such as his full name in favor of the exact size of his hitbox and his tangibility radius. The Super Mario Wiki and Ukikipedia are separate wikis because they exist to fulfill entirely separate niches. Ukikipedia knows this, which is why its main page directly suggests users to visit the Super Mario Wiki for more general information about Super Mario 64.
I know that the "once and only once" page was written to apply only to this wiki, and that this wiki can't control what another wiki does, but that doesn't eliminate the redundancy caused by featuring a table which has no relation to the subject matter of this wiki. The Poké Ball Pokémon belong on Bulbapedia because they are Pokémon (the central subject of Bulbapedia), and they belong on SmashWiki because they are from the Super Smash Bros. games (the central subject of SmashWiki). Neither of those relationships apply to the Super Mario franchise because Super Smash Bros. is not inherently based on Super Mario; even given all of the series that fall under the Super Mario franchise, the majority of content in the Super Smash Bros. games simply has nothing to do with Super Mario, because Super Smash Bros. acts as a melting pot for many different franchises, only one of which is Super Mario.
I was planning to write about this in my vote, but it was already becoming too large and I felt that my central arguments were communicated clearly. I did want to elaborate upon this specific point anyway, though. ThePowerPlayer 16:13, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

"extreme technical details about the game that are only of interest to a highly technically minded audience" You've just described all my experiences attempting to read Smashwiki... anyways, it also has DK, Yoshi, and Wario in said melting pot, so it's not like Mario's a minority there. But getting off-track again. The fact of the matter is Smashwiki and Bulbapedia don't want to cover these in the manner we do, particularly with their complete lack of game-based image galleries. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:16, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I still fail to see what makes it Mario Wiki's business to do something a different site doesn't do for one reason or another. Other than the oft-repeated "we've always done it this way". -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:22, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Which means there's nothing that prohibits us from doing so, so we are under no obligation to stop doing so. If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. As I explained above with the "amount of stuff from each franchise included in Smash 64" list, Mario has a disproportionately large amount of influence. Hiding what isn't "directly related" therefore does more harm than good by leaving notable gaps, unlike, say, Zelda, where all they need to cover is "gaps" (though there's nothing stopping them from adding more if they want to). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:26, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

My point was that even when considering all of the franchises that encompass the greater Super Mario franchise (Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, and Wario), they only constitute a fraction of the game as a whole. By far the main draw of the Super Smash Bros. games are its playable fighters, and quite literally two-thirds of the fighters in Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64 have nothing to do with any of the four franchises listed above. To give equal coverage to every part of a game that, by majority, is not a Super Mario game on the Super Mario Wiki is misleading to the purpose of this wiki. ThePowerPlayer 16:37, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I'm not saying to give "equal" coverage, though; I'm not asking they all be re-split into individual articles. I just think it's in our best interest to include all the games' elements on the games' respective pages, by way of tables and galleries - the same as we would for any other game, but with the links going off-site for things we don't have articles on - which this proposal is trying to remove pieces of. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:44, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Hi, again. The other day, Super Mario RPG reached out to me concerning this proposal. I am abstaining for now, but I wanted to share my thoughts here because I thought they could be helpful.

While I do generally prefer main game articles are more holistically complete (regardless of whether they are crossovers) and I do agree with Doc von Schmeltwick's point that what crossover material warrants coverage on Super Mario Wiki is inherently unclear for any visitor, Smash Wiki truly has an excellent Poké Ball article and full coverage for the hazards as well. Perhaps our articles could better be understood as harbors that can direct readers to those Smash Wiki pages and simply touch upon them briefly in our main game articles. (I do wish Smash Wiki included little visual previews for what the Pokémon look like on their article, but that is someone those users can integrate if they would like.) I agree we do not need full lists on Poké Ball Pokémon, non-Mario Assist Trophies, stages, etc. However, I do appreciate that the the crossover material of Smash Bros. is a bit more mechanically intimate than something like NES Remix or Nintendo Land: the Pokémon released from Poké Balls can physically attack Mario, Luigi, and the other Mario characters in the games, and that detail is not diluted simply because they can also do this to Marth or Sephiroth as well.

(So I do not agree with comments from ThePowerPlayer (talk) on this material having "nothing to do" with Super Mario, and I understand why other users would want to hang onto this material.)

I disagree with Doc on principal that we should "never delete anything ever." There are no sacred assets uploaded to the wiki, and it is a shared space. It should be okay and uncontroversial to delete unused files. But I am also a bit wary of supporting proposals that hamstring what other users can or cannot write about. I do not personally know to what degree Smash Bros. is within our scope of coverage. But if large swaths of the userbase want to cover that stuff, I do not think that is such a bad thing. To be clear, the inverse is true as well. If most folks wanted all of this stuff removed, I would think that is fine. Smash Wiki exists, and it is an active community. I'm just not sure it's my place to put my thumb on the scale.

I think there are dueling philosophies on what is within the scope of Super Mario Wiki, and it seems like there are about the same number of users for and against coverage of non-Mario Smash Bros. material. I think doing these piecemeal proposals to establish precedent for future actions is unwise and little dishonest. I recommend someone make one big proposal addressing all of this: Poké Balls, non-Mario Assist Trophies, Stages, Trophies, Stickers, Spirits, Fighters, the main Super Smash Bros. articles. Everything. Because this current approach gradually fractures coverage, which is not enjoyable to engage with as a reader. The way things are is already confusing.

What constitutes a franchise, what our NIWA affiliates do, what the precedents are for keeping/removing content, are not of substantive importance. We should not be making curatorial decisions based on what other websites do, or whether an idea decided upon by proposal in the past is still followed today. The only question worth asking is do we want non-Mario Smash Bros. content to be within our scope of coverage, or not? - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:42, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I understand the points provided, but it's too late to cancel the proposal, and it's looking to pass in the next 50 hours or so (based on how things are going). If this proposal were about items but not stages, that's one thing, since those are major, but Poke Balls, as reiterated many times, serve merely as components of an item. The functions of each Pokemon has no relevance to Super Mario. I'd wait for this proposal to pass before someone else decides to make a giant proposal covering it all. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:50, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Will it? There's rules about margins for proposals with multiple options, after all.

Anywho, how I would do it would be as N101 said: I would:

• Merge the "List of items in Smash" page to the games entirely, turning that into a redirect to a section on the series page
• Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game
• Merge the "Subspace Army" and "Subspace Stages" lists to each other to recreate a watered-down version of the Subspace Emissary page (to split from the Brawl page due to length and being exclusive to that campaign); it would also include a table for characters describing their role in said campaign, as well as objects/items found exclusively in it (Trophy Stands, the funny boxes, the metallic barrel cannons, etc).
• Section each game akin to how I have the SSB64 page currently, including sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on.
• Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least).
• Have image galleries cover everything that can reasonably be included in an image gallery for the game, regardless of origin. This includes artwork, sprites, models, screenshots, etc, for any subject - yes, including Pokemon.
• Leave Stickers and Spirits alone, their pages are too large to merge and are fine as they are for the reasons that opposition to deleting them historically has brought up.
• Keep trophy pages covering only Mario things, leave the remainder in the game gallery.

That is probably the most ideal way of doing it. Anyone who prefers this method should go ahead and oppose this proposal so that this method can be proposed instead. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:57, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

The only mention of Pokemon above is the "Section each game," which this proposal from its inception has sought to remove. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Indeed, which is why this proposal is contrary to what I find to be the ideal solution and why I vehemently oppose it. Also, not anymore: adding gallery mention, since I guess that's not as obvious as I thought. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:04, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Even if I have the authority to cancel this proposal, I'm not going to do it. I'd prefer the "line in the sand" proposal to be in response to this one, whether this one succeeds or fails. Though I don't have an idea as to how such a proposal would be structured. I don't think there's any more points to bring up. You have people agreeing with you and I have people agreeing with me. There's the stress of reading all of the comments above, and I doubt that any more comments will change others' mind on the matter (oppose to support or vice versa). Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:11, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I'm sorry if I implied one "needed" to drop this current proposal. I'm not in charge of anyone or anything, and there's always next time. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:27, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

I'm gonna clarify the "don't delete anything" thing; note that I said that the "pages for the entirety of the Banjo and Conker worlds" were both worth deleting. I more think that if anything has a chance to become relevant again, it's best to keep the history, and even without that case, keeping the history while the page is a redirect helps to better illustrate why it was determined to be unnecessary. Since we don't redirect images, that's not so much an option there, which is why I'm much more wary about them being deleted. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday I'm still letting this proposal run its course first, then perhaps in at least four weeks from now (28 days minimum, I think was the threshold) can revisit that idea. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:01, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

It still makes sense to oppose this proposal out of support for Doc's idea, since we wouldn't need to then undo this proposal's removals. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:28, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Changes

Shorten disambiguation identifiers "(Super) Nintendo Entertainment System" to "(S)NES"

The console names "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" are way too long and clunky, so much so that the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles throughout the wiki, even though we usually don't use abbreviations. And yet, we still use the full console names in the disambiguation identifiers of article names:

• Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)
• Mario is Missing! (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)
• Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)
• Wario's Woods (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)

The identifiers are so long that they take up more than half of the article name and are less immediately legible than their respective abbreviations. This is particularly jarring on the Mario is Missing! disambiguation page because the abbreviations are used on the page (e.g., "Mario is Missing!, the NES game") but it links to articles with names containing the full console names ("Mario is Missing! (Nintendo Entertainment System)").

That's why I propose to shorten "Nintendo Entertainment System" and "Super Nintendo Entertainment System" to "NES" and "SNES" respectively in disambiguation identifiers of article names:

• Mario is Missing! (NES)
• Mario is Missing! (SNES)
• Wario's Woods (NES)
• Wario's Woods (SNES)

Please note that there is already an article which uses an abbreviated identifier: "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)", although if we decide to keep the full identifiers, maybe we should rename it to "Building World (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for Super Nintendo Entertainment System)" for consistency?

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: August 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to August 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to September 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (SNES)

1. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal and similarly passed earlier proposal on shortening identifiers of the second and third Donkey Kong Country games.
3. Technetium (talk) Per all.
4. Mario shroom (talk) too long, agree.
5. SeanWheeler (talk) Let's simplify the names.
6. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal and the earlier Donkey Kong Country proposal that Super Mario RPG mentioned, as well as Technetium and Jdtendo in the comments.

#Pseudo (talk) Per all.

Oppose (Super Nintendo Entertainment System)

1. Hewer (talk) I don't see much of a problem with long names, and I'd rather go without the inconsistency created by these being the only shortened console names. And yes, I suppose we should move the Building World page too, like how "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for 3DS)" got moved to "Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS)".
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. While these shortened versions do make for fine redirects (and honestly, I kinda hope these do get made for other games in the form of redirects, but that's neither here nor there), we probably shouldn't be enforcing these as being the default name unless it's a part of a global move to abbreviate the console names for the articles of every game--not just one random edutainment game.
3. JanMisali (talk) Per all.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
5. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all.
7. Jazama (talk) Per all
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Comments (Mario's Early Years! Fun with Letters for SNES)

now there's a bit of a grey area here, what about consoles like Nintendo 64, Nintendo Switch and so on? It'd feel somewhat weird to abbreviate one but not the others, there'd be an inconsistency. - YoYo (Talk) 09:33, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

The thing with those is that the "Nintendo" part is needed or else it could just be confused as a random number (64) or word (switch). They also just aren't as long. Technetium (talk) 09:57, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

Besides, as I said in the proposal, the abbreviations "NES" and "SNES" are commonly used in the body of articles, but other console names are not abbreviated as frequently. For example, here is an extract of the LodgeNet article: "for the SNES, Nintendo 64, and Nintendo GameCube"; note how only the Super Nintendo Entertainment System's name is abbreviated whereas the other console names are written in full. Jdtendo^(T|C) 10:09, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

I think the shortening of N64, GCN, GBA, etc. could use another propasal. SeanWheeler (talk) 21:30, August 13, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer Okay, The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens' name is ridiculous. I want to propose a shortening of the title, but I don't know enough about the character. But that just shows why page names shouldn't be too long. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:27, August 14, 2024 (EDT)

...Not to burst your bubble, but we actually had a proposal to move it to its current name last month. Prior to that, the article was merely titled "The Old Psychic Lady", which from what I can tell was actually never actually used like that in the episode. She introduced herself by the full title of "The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens" (whether it used capital letters or not is unknown), and the Marios simply refer her to as the "crazy lady" or "that psycho lady" since they can't properly remember such a long name. Since "The Old Psychic Lady" never was used as one of the official names, and the wiki refers to her by her full name anyway, it was proposed to move the article to the lady's full title (I mean, at least "NES" and "SNES" are officially used abbreviations by Nintendo themselves and their full names were not created for comedic purposes). rend (talk) (edits) 20:50, August 14, 2024 (EDT)

Arguments about the name being "ridiculous" or "too long" were used in the proposal linked to by Arend, and much like with those arguments, you haven't substantiated the claim very well. Why is a long page name "ridiculous" when it's just accurately referring to the subject? Why should we sacrifice accuracy in favour of a shorter page name? What about long page names is in any way disadvantageous? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:37, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Tbh, I'd merge the two Building Worlds together if it were up to me, they're still both represented by the same icon in the map screen and differences can easily be mentioned in the article, it'd also be consistent with the rest of the Mario's Early Years Worlds. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:09, August 15, 2024 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

Do not use t-posing models as infobox images

Self-explainatory aim for this proposal with the title, I'm proposing because I personally don't think t-posing models look good as introductory images. One case in point is on the Mega Baby Bowser article which used a t-posing model as its infobox image but was changed to a screenshot. Angler Poplin is an article that currently uses a t-posing model. Should this proposal pass, in-game screenshots will be used instead of t-posing images, or if possible a model which is not in a t-pose.

Proposer: Nightwicked Bowser (talk)
Deadline: September 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser.
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
4. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
5. Sparks (talk) Per all.
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) T-poses are clearly not how the characters are meant to be portrayed.
7. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us! Per proposal.
8. Ray Trace (talk) This should also include non-t-posed bind models (a-posed models, nonbipedal characters) as well but that's a matter of jargon really.
9. SeanWheeler (talk) Considering I went through the effort of posing the characters of my game Speed Prix before I uploaded them to the Speed Prix Wiki, I know T-poses are not good infobox images. And in the context of Mario games that you're not developing yourself, if artwork is not available, just use screenshots. That is much easier to get. The Models Resource is incomplete. And with other media, we have to.
10. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
11. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
12. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yeah, it looks strange and creepy with the t-poses. Per proposal.
13. PaperSplash (talk) Per proposal. I especially agree that screenshots would be better.
14. Arend (talk) Pose accuracy should take priority over asserting dominance.

Comments

There's an issue in that many models in earlier 3D games do not have an easily decipherable rigging or animation system. For instance, on The Models Resource, the Luigi's Mansion model uploads lack proper pose data, so they're just automatically T-posed. I do think non T-posed ones should be prioritized, but prohibiting them fully is not the way to go because that's sometimes the only clear option. EDIT: Never mind, I didn't see the "infobox" part of the proposal. I mistook this for a blanket ban. My apologies. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:53, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

Screenshots of the subjects in the game are strongly preferred regardless. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:58, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

I agree with Ray Trace. If one did not have an organic looking model, couldn't one just use a screenshot? - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:01, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

That's still assuming you either have an emulator available or can find a high enough quality video at the proper dimensions. In several cases, the preview image on The Models Resource is the most available option (such as for the Mario Party games on N64). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:04, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

There is no shame in taking a screenshot of a YouTube let's play. Not ideal, but I think it is more serviceable than a t-posed model. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:08, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

Well I mean that's still assuming you can find one at all. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

Editors should take all their screenshots with emulation regardless. Ray Trace^(T|C) 23:27, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

With how rabid Nintendo can be about ROMs and such, that's sometimes easier said than done. (Plus plenty games have outright never been dumped or officially ported, particularly the more obscure ones; there's a reason there's no maps or screenshots for "Champions' Course" in Golf: Japan Course.) That also assumes one's device has the ability to actually run said emulators or the space for them; even with high-dollar gaming laptops I've had trouble with more advanced game system emulation in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:49, August 25, 2024 (EDT)

With the right tools and resources, ROMs aren't difficult to find at all. And, by the way, those are rare cases and have little to do with the proposal which deals with models. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:59, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games

This has been bouncing around in my head ever since the so-called "gigaleak" happened. This would do exactly as the header says: sprites and models and such that do not appear in gameplay of the finalized game they represent would be moved to a separate gallery, similar to what we do with non-game artwork relative to game artwork. This would allow more easy coverage on them without bloating the "main" gallery with them, particularly in cases where the subject does appear in the final game with different sprites (or with different colors), and would also help encourage more unused sprites to be uploaded in the first place. The other gallery section would be placed underneath the main one.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: September 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. DrippingYellow (talk) Nothing wrong I can see with this. Per proposal, and Doc in the comments.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Seems like a straightforwardly good idea to me.
4. Axii (talk) Per proposal
5. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick in the comments (and per proposal as well).
6. Arend (talk) Per all
7. PaperSplash (talk) Per comments.
8. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Oppose

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) - Opposing because this was done with the gigaleak in mind. The gigaleak consists of unlawfully stolen assets, and one could propose to remove those instead, out of courtesy towards Nintendo.

Comments

@SMRPG They haven't gone after TCRF so far despite them documenting everything from it. I get there's some "fruit of the poisoned tree" moral concern, but as it is, our role is to document known facts. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:02, August 26, 2024 (EDT)

In addition, the current wording of the proposal implies a section for all unused/prototype/pre-release content, not just those that came from the gigaleak (e.g. various prototype/prerelease things from Mario Kart DS came from the kiosk demo, which was distributed to toy stores and game stores by Nintendo themselves). If SMRPG was concerned that hypothetically, those assets would have to be removed as well for Nintendo's concern (in a "one bad apple spoils the bunch" kind of way), then not separating them at all might actually be worse, because hypothetically speaking, Nintendo might request to remove the entire gallery purely because assets from the gigaleak were being included; this of course helps no one. rend (talk) (edits) 12:52, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Indeed, I think it would be a good idea even without the gigaleak occurring, though the fact that the hyper-litigious Nintendo hasn't gone after anyone as far as I can tell (most notably TCRF, who documents that sort of thing as the entire purpose of their existence) for reposting them, it doesn't seem to bother them. And while it makes sense for The Spriters Resource to have a blanket ban on what was uncovered there (they're based on assets that actually do appear and are only barely able to keep the site up monetarily), it makes little sense for us to resort solely to using descriptions and offsite links. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:14, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Being a TCRF user myself, I agree with Doc von Schmeltwick. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 16:10, August 27, 2024 (EDT)

Right indeed. I personally think the whole fearmongering aspect of SMRPG's oppose vote is generally... well, not quite in bad faith, but at the very least somewhat misleading or misunderstanding of the situation. As you said, Nintendo hasn't been witchhunting sites like TCRF for detailing things from the gigaleak even four years after the fact, so we should be safe (and again, these sections would include prototypes that weren't part of the gigaleak, too). Though I simply don't think that oppose vote makes a lot of sense even if Nintendo did send their ninjas to anyone detailing the gigaleak, so we might as well make separate sections for any unused/prototype content regardless. rend (talk) (edits) 16:54, August 27, 2024 (EDT)