MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Wednesday, December 18th, 04:58 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 and support/oppose format

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 squared 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

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

====Oppose: [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|[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 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
• Merge Shy Guy's Space Buffet into Bowser's Warped Orbit (discuss) Deadline: December 25, 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

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

Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"

Currently, the way our proposals are set up, there are two deadlines. On the main proposals page, they last for 1 week. On talk pages, or for writing guidelines proposals, 2 weeks. Now, this is fine. We're not going to claim this is like, some total deal-breaker or nothing. However, lately, there have been a few concerns raised about this inconsistency, and we figured, what the hey, why not put it up to vote?

A few concerns we've seen, both from others and from us, in no particular order;

• The largest one to us is just that, unless a proposal is really specific, it's just not worth it to make a talk page proposal over a main page proposal, since it'll end faster. The only thing immune to this are writing guidelines proposals.
• While the proposals themselves are different lengths, the duration before you can make a second proposal on them remains the same. Thusly, if you want to set a policy in stone, you would actually want to make it a writing guidelines/talk page proposal over an ordinary one, as that means it will last for, at least, 6 weeks (4 weeks for the cooldown, and 2 weeks to put it to proposal again.)
• Lastly, talk page proposals just inherently take longer to happen. This can be an issue if their changes are, overall, quite small (like a simple merge/split or rename), or the consensus is reached very quickly; this stings when an ordinary proposal would happen twice as fast with the exact same amount of votes!

Now, there's a few ways you can go about this, but there's one in particular we've taken a liking to: uh, just make all proposals take 2 weeks, lmao.

"BUT CAM & TORI!", we hear you shout, "BUT YOU SAID 2 WEEKS PROPOSALS TAKE TOO LONG??? WHY WOULD YOU CHANGE THEM TO SOMETHING YOU HATE???", and to that we say... No! We actually like the 2 weeks proposals! They have a distinct benefit to them! The problem is that they're juxtaposed with the 1 week proposals. Let's run through those same bullet points.

• If all proposals were 2 weeks, well, there's no real loss to making a talk page proposal over a main proposal page proposal, as they'll all last 2 weeks anyways. (Sure, a proposal can take longer if there's a tie, but that just happens for all proposals anyways.)
• There's also no incentive to make a talk page proposal/writing guideline proposal if you particularly want your porposal to stick around, as again, now every proposal is guaranteed to last for, at the very least, 6 weeks.
• Now. While it's annoying that all proposals will take 2 weeks, despite the inherent risk of some coming to their consensuses much faster than the deadlines, for one, this is also an issue with talk page proposals as-is. For two, the extra time can offer extra time for new information to come to light or for particularly close votes to make their cases and form a proper consensus, without needing a tiebreaker. Lastly, if it's really that big of an issue, we could perhaps create a rule that if a proposal comes to a particularly large consensus a week in, it'll pass early (the finer details would be created as necessary).

There is, of course, the alternative of making all proposals 1 week. While we realize this does also resolve a lot of things, it does also necessarily mean that some proposals that would want to happen slower, now don't have that time, and are rushed. Even making only talk page proposals take only 1 week means that Writing Guideline proposals will be at a unique disadvantage for how long they take/an advantage for how long they last if they pass. (And of course, we could just leave everything as they are, but that goes without saying.) That being said, we have provided options for these, and you're free to make your case for these.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: October 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Make all proposals last for 2 weeks

1. Camwoodstock (talk) If it's not obvious, this is our primary option; we're a big fan of the idea of global 2 week proposals!. Even with their caveats, in the worst-case scenario, we could make a clause to prevent proposals for lasting too long if they reach their consensus early, or we could simply revert back to the current system. We think the added consistency and preventing of shenanigans is very potent, and it also means that you have to put a bit more thought into your proposal as you make it. Patience fans will be eating good if this passes.
2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal and what was said here. However, I'd also be fine with an option to just shorten writing guidelines proposals to be one week. I don't really understand the third option here, writing guidelines proposals being two weeks felt to me like the worst inconsistency of the bunch. I still don't see what about "writing guidelines" specifically means they inherently need more time than the other categories on this page.
3. OmegaRuby (talk) Regular proposals and TPPs are just as visible as one another and should be treated equally, especially when regular page proposals can be the home of very important decisions (such as this one!) and are just given 1 week. Per all.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) 1 week proposals have always felt a little short to me. I'd rather err on the side of some proposals running a little longer than needed than not having enough discussion time (I don't like banking on a controversial proposal tying). Having to wait an extra week to implement a proposal isn't the end of the world anyway - proposals are rarely, if ever, urgent enough that an extra week with no change would be detrimental to the wiki (and if that were the case, the change should probably come immediately from wiki staff).
5. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Giving an extra week to discuss and vote on proposals is a good thing.
6. Drago (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
7. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per, I never got why sitewide ones always got less time to discuss.
8. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal and the talk page discussion.

Make all proposals except for writing guidelines proposals last for 1 week

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we like this much less, we do see the merit of making Talk Page Proposals 1 week, and it's not exactly the end-all-be-all. However, we would vastly prefer 2-week proposals, and keeping Writing Guidelines proposals 2-week is kind of a necessary evil to prevent them from being too rushed for their own good. However, compared to truly all 1-week proposals, this is better... though, not as good as all 2-week proposals.
2. 7feetunder (talk) For me, it's either this or bust. New information coming to light can still invalidate a proposal's entire premise too late and require a counterproposal even with a 2 week deadline, so extending the deadline of main page props to 2 weeks won't stop that from happening from time to time. Most proposals that don't reach a consensus in a week will probably require extensions anyway. TPPs being less "visible" than main page proposals was more of an issue back when no quorums were immediate, but that's no longer the case.
3. Axii (talk) Voting for this just so the first option doesn't win.

Do nothing

1. 7feetunder (talk) If making TPPs last 1 week isn't desirable, I say just keep the status quo. While the current system does encourage making main page proposals over TPPs when possible if one wants their prop to pass faster, I'm fine with that. A controversial prop is not going to end in a week, and a prop with unanimous or near-unanimous support probably doesn't need that extra time in the oven. I'd be more open to global 2 weekers if a "early consensus = early pass" sub-rule was already in effect, but it isn't, and there's no guarantee that such a rule would be accepted by the community.
2. Axii (talk) The solution isn't solving anything. There was never a problem with inconsistency. Talk page proposals last for two weeks because they're far less visible to people. Mainspace proposals page is frequently visited by many, having proposals last for 2 weeks instead of one doesn't change anything. It doesn't help the community settle on anything, one week is more than enough. Proposals that are tied already get extended automatically, if anything, I would argue writing guidelines proposals should last a week instead. I proposed a different solution on the talk page as well. If a user making a proposal (or an admin) feel like one week wouldn't be enough, they should be able to extend it to two. (I specifically added "or an admin", because most users don't want a proposal to last for two weeks.) Either way, the fact that users often choose mainspace proposals over talk page is perfectly fine as well. It's not about the time in the oven but the visibility of the proposal to the wiki community. Writing guidelines (if they remain at two weeks) could instead be clarified. Right now it is unclear what writing guidelines proposals even are, I think this is the main problem that should be looked at.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Secondary choice. The inconsistency isn't that bad and I prefer that to all proposals being shortened.
4. Killer Moth (talk) Second choice.
5. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is worth scrutinizing our proposal policies and the issues people brought up are valid, but I do not think setting the same time for everything is necessarily the best solution. I will elaborate on my thoughts below.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

Comments

Something that occurred to me: The time allowed to edit TPPs was originally 3 like main page proposals, but eventually doubled to 6 to go with their extended duration. If TPPs are shortened to 1 week, would the time allotted to edit them be reverted? 19:30, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

That seems only fair to put them back to 3 days if that option passes--after all, it would be a glaring oversight to retain that and effectively allow for proposals that were en route to pass suddenly being hijacked on the last day, and pivoting from the original purpose, while still retaining the vote. The plan here is to de-jank the proposal time-lengths and make them more consistent--not to introduce even more shenanigans! ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:18, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: Of course there's still a chance for new information to come too late with any proposal length, but longer proposals mean the chance is lower. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:44, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@7feetunder: On your reasoning under Do nothing, the idea of an early-consensus-early-conclusion rule for proposals is intriguing... I feel as if we have 2-week proposals that can end early if everyone has a near unanimous consensus on what to do with the proposal, we'd have an ideal middle ground. --OmegaRuby (talk) 08:55, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

While finding the discussions where this first took place have not been successful (with the closest approximate being tracked down by retired staff here, which alludes to this issue), there was wisdom in having longer time for talk page proposals, because they would often would get overlooked and fail simply due to lack of engagement, not because there was anything wrong with them. That may not be the case today, but I see a different set issues that this proposal does not address.

Personally, I think certain proposals - regardless of whether they are on the main page or a talk page - are very niche and entail a very granular change that probably does not need two weeks of discussion or even one to be implemented. Proposals that have wide and systematic changes for the site, such as a policy revision or something that would change many pages, do benefit from longer discussion time because the impact would be significant and affect a lot of people. Whether a proposal has narrow or broad impact has nothing to do with whether it is on an article's talk page or this main page.

Additionally, while it may seem like there should be some sort of rule that allows proposals that gain consensus quickly to be implemented, there have been concerns among staff that users have raised similar proposals to ones that had failed in the past with the hope of getting the attention of a different pool of users who may agree with them. (To clarify, there is a difference between raising a new proposal based on one that had previously failed using new information and arguments, versus one using essentially the same argument). If we had some sort of rule that allowed the passing of a proposal due to quick engagement and support, I can see it being abused in such cases and resulting in proposals passing that people at large may not have agreed with.

I don't like complicated rules. I believe the best policies and rules are straight forward, clear, and unambiguous. There is not use in having rules that people cannot easily understand and follow, imo. However, in this case, I think applying a blanket term policy for all proposals (be it two weeks or one) is too broad and does not address the issues I have observed, or even some of the ones raised by other folks on the main proposal page's talk page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:18, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

If you ask me, "talk page proposals are two weeks, but the ones on the main page are one week, except writing guidelines which are also two weeks for some reason" is an overly complicated rule. Every now and then, confusion about the "writing guidelines are two weeks" stipulation arises in proposal comments, which I think is telling. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:54, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think my main issue is the difference with writing guideline proposals specifically. Mostly because it's hard to determine what a writing guideline even means, or which proposal should fall under which category. I'm not sure where I'll place a vote yet, but I do at least think there should be consistency between all main proposal types. Technetium (talk) 16:22, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series

I've pitched this before, and it got a lot of approval (particularly in favor of one-at-a-time small proposals), so I'm making it a full proposal:
I have thought long and hard about the "proper" way for us to cover Super Smash Bros. in a way that both respects the desire to focus primarily on Super Mario elements while also respecting the desire to not leave anything uncovered. As such, the main way to do this is to give pages only to Super Mario elements, whilst covering everything else on the pages for the individual Super Smash Bros. games; unless otherwise stated, they will instead link to other wikis, be if the base series' wiki or SmashWiki. For instance, Link will remain an internal link (no pun intended) because he's crossed over otherwise, Ganondorf will link to Zeldawiki because he hasn't. Link's moves (originating from the Legend of Zelda series) will link to Zeldawiki, while Ganondorf's moves (original moves due to being based on Captain Falcon's moves) will link to Smashwiki.
Other specific aspects of this, which for the most part make the game pages' internal coverage be more consistent with how we handle other games':

1. Change the "List of items in Smash" to how Super Mario RPG (talk) had it in this edit, albeit with the remaining broken formatting fixed. That page always bothered me, and that version is a definite improvement.
2. Merge the "enemies" pages to their respective game - they're already structured like any other game's enemy tables anyway. These pages also always bothered me.
3. 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... a lot of things from the deleted "List of Super Smash Bros. series objects" page, actually) - once again, all except Mario-derived things will link elsewhere (mostly to Smashwiki in this case).
4. Section each game akin to how I had the SSB64 page as of this edit, including sections for Pokemon, Assist Trophies, Bosses, etc., and links to other wikis for subjects that we don't need pages on. Other sections can be added as needed, and table structure is not specifically set, so further info can be added.
5. Leave the lists for fighters, stages, and (series-wide) bosses alone (for now at least), as they make sense to have a series-wide representation on here in some capacity. Also, you never know when one of them is going to cross over otherwise, like Villager, Isabelle, and Inkling suddenly joining Mario Kart, so it's good to keep that around in case a split is deemed necessary from something like that happening down the line.
6. 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, so that will undo that one proposal from a month ago. Just like on the game pages, the labels will link to other sites as needed.
7. 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.
8. Include the "minigame" stages (Break the Targets, Board the Platforms, Race to the Finish, Snag Trophies, Home Run Contest, Trophy Tussle, the Melee Adventure Mode stages) in the "list of stages debuting in [game]" articles. For ones like Targets, it would just explain how it worked and then have a gallery for the different layouts rather than describing each in detail (and if we later want to split the Mario-based ones into their own articles, I guess we can at some point). Said minigame pages should be merged to a section in the SSB series article covering the series' minigames. The Subspace Emissary stages will get a section with a {{main}} to the stage section of the Subspace Emissary article (detailed in an above point).
9. Keep trophy, assist trophy, challenge, and soundtrack pages covering only Mario things, leave the remainder of the images in the game gallery (fun fact: Smashwiki does not have game galleries, nor does their community want them; we can base what we could do on if other wikis do something, but not base what we cannot do from those - nothing forbids coverage just because of that).

People may wonder, "What about Nintendo Land and Saturday Supercade? Why don't they get this level of coverage?" It's simple, really: In Smash, you can have Mario throw a Deku Nut at Ridley in Lumiose City and nobody bats an eye at how absurd that situation is. In those other games, the different representations are very much split apart; all Mario-related stuff is within a few minigames that do not overlap whatsoever with any of the other ones. In Nintendo Land, you cannot have Mario fighting Ridley in the Lost Woods, despite (representations of) all of those things appearing in the game. In Smash, anyone can interact with anything, regardless of origin, so Mario characters can interact with anything, and anyone can interact with Mario things. That's why Smash, the melting pot it is, gets more focus than Nintendo Land, where everything's more of a side dish.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support - clarify it like this

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Axii (talk) Even though I disagree with points 6, 7, and especially 8 (Mario-themed minigames should be covered separately), I feel like this is the solution most would agree to compromise on.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) While we would like to do some stuff of our own (cough cough, maybe a proper solution to Smash redirects clogging categories), this is a good start, we feel. If push comes to shove, we could always revert some of these changes in another proposal.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) This is a great framework for our coverage of the series. I still would like a better handling of smaller things like trophies, stickers, spirits, and music, but I'm not sure what that would look like and we could always make that change later.
5. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, this is a good step towards cleaning up our Smash coverage.
6. Metalex123 (talk) Per proposal
7. Tails777 (talk) I’d like to see where this goes. Per proposal.
8. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose - don't clarify it like this

1. SeanWheeler (talk) We might actually need to reduce the Smash coverage a bit more. We especially can't undo that proposal that reduced Pokémon. And those sticker and spirits list really should have been reduced to Mario subjects like the trophy list. The fact that the middle spirit list doesn't have a single Mario spirit is absurd. And maybe those fighter lists should be split back into their own character pages again. Most of them had appeared in Super Mario Maker. I have a different idea of how we should handle Smash.

Comments - clarify the clarification?

(I was gonna name the options "Smash" and "Pass," but I thought that might be too dirty) - Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:38, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Axii - I wouldn't say any of the minigames are really innately Mario-themed, though. If any were, I'd have them stay separate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:02, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick I know you are familiar with my crossover article draft using Zelda as a base, but I do not think I clarified some of the intents I had with it, which I shared here with Mushzoom. I do not think it intersects with what you layout above, but I just wanted to let you know. (I also welcome other folks to check it out.) - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:45, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

I think both can coexist dandily. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:56, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: Though the middle spirit list has no spirits of Mario characters, it's not irrelevant to Mario because Mario characters, stages, items, etc. appear in many spirit battles. In fact, the very first spirit on that page (Jirachi) has Mario relevance (you need Luma and Starlow to summon it). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:09, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split articles for certain official single-game enemy behavior splits

In the early days, before Nintendo was really sure how they wanted to classify enemies, there were some splits that didn't stick - namely, behaviors that were initially unique to a specific subtype, and then became normal alternatives to the base enemies. I'm specifically talking about:

• Sky Blooper - Blooper variant from Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
• Upside-down Buzzy Beetle - Buzzy Beetle variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Upside-down Spiny - Spiny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Scattering Blooper - Blooper Nanny variant from Super Mario Bros. 3
• Upside-down Piranha - Piranha Plant variant from Super Mario Land

I make this mainly because the Mario Portal splits each of these for these games specifically, across language borders, despite being a newer source (which is notably a lot more than Boss Bass/Big Bertha gets, so that merge remains correct), along with Upside-down Piranha making the Smash Bros. Piranha Plant list; other instances of similar things occurring that have not (yet) been corroborated by a source like Portal (such as Tobipuku from New Super Mario Bros.) will not be counted. Now, I want to clarify something important: this split only covers the appearances where the official word treats them as distinct enemies. Random upside-down Buzzy Beetles and Piranha Plants in New Super Mario Bros. Wii are not counted, as they are not distinguished from their base species in any way in that game. I see this as similar to Fire Nipper Plant, another SMB3 enemy whose fire-breathing characteristics were given to normal Nipper Plants in a few later games.

I have a demo for these pages in the various sections of this page, along with stuff for the below proposal.

EDIT 9/28: Adding an option for only splitting the two Bloopers.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Scattering Support

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per proposal.

Bloopers only, no upside-down!

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I see no problem with this. Unlike the other proposed splits, normal Bloopers have not inherited the defining airborne traits of Sky Bloopers outside of the Super Mario Maker games, which breaks a lot of conventions for the sake of fun creative gameplay. I do not think it is the same situation as Upside-down Piranha Plant or Spiny.
2. DryBonesBandit (talk) Agreed.
3. Hewer (talk) Blooper proposal
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) If this Blooper can be split, then so can the ones listed here. On the other hand, the upside-down variants are splitting hairs. Do we split the Goombas from anti-gravity sections just because they're upside down?
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Second pick, per all.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all
7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.

Upside-down Oppose

1. Arend (talk) Maybe a case could be made for Scattering Blooper, but Sky Blooper and Upside-down Piranha Plant also behave (nearly) identical to their regular counterparts. Not to mention that nearly all the regular versions of these enemies have retroactively gained attributes of these enemies too (Buzzy Beetles and Spinies can appear commonly walking on ceilings and dropping down in various games, Piranha Plants can pop out upside down from a ceiling pipe in various games, nearly all Bloopers encountered on land float above the ground; none of these are regarded as distinct variants in those later games), so it's a little weird to me if only those specific versions of enemies are regarded as separate entities but regular versions of these enemies adapting these attributes aren't; feels inconsistent and confusing for a reader.
2. Axii (talk) Per Arend. I feel like it would be an unnecessary split. Nintendo doesn't refer to these enemies separately in any newer games. Sky Blooper may have had a chance, but Super Mario Maker clearly shows that they are just regular Bloopers. I can see Scattering Blooper being split in the future though.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per opposition.
4. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) i can see the case for scattering blooper and MAYBE sky blooper, but i don't think i agree with the philosophy behind the proposal.
6. DrippingYellow (talk) The idea of splitting certain minor behavior differences in enemies, but only in certain games where they are given a specific adjective relating to the thing they do, honestly just sounds ridiculous. If you're going to split some of them, you might as well split all of them, lest you create a glaring inconsistency in the wiki's coverage of these enemy variants.
   Also keep in mind that these individual acknowledgements of upside-down enemies aren't consistent even between these similar-era games; Piranha Plants can be found upside-down as early as The Lost Levels and Super Mario Bros. 3, yet would be confusingly absent from your proposed "Upside-down Piranha Plant" article due to not being called "Upside-down Piranha Plants" (and also kind of throws a wrench into your theory that these were originally special variants before being merged into the main enemy). These upside-down enemies are only listed on Mario Portal when the game's respective manual also mentions them (with apparently a single exception in SMB3's Upside-down Spiny), suggesting less of a confirmation as species and more of an attempt to parallel existing material.
   The only potential exceptions I see here are the Bloopers, particularly the Sky Blooper with its actually distinct appearance. Though, if the red Koopa Troopa, an enemy that has had consistently has a different appearance and behavior from its green counterpart in all mainline games it has appeared in (the black-and-white SML2 with only the ledge-fearing green Koopa doesn't count due to there being no red Koopa to compare with), is too minor a difference to get an article, then how are these any different?
7. Shoey (talk) Per all.
8. Mario (talk) Some of these proposed splits are overkill.
9. Sparks (talk) Per all.
10. SeanWheeler (talk) Split enemies for one game each? Not unless we split everybody into singular game subpages like Smash Wiki's fighter pages.
11. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
12. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think there's a benefit to splitting Bloopers because the Super Mario Maker games treat them the same anyways. Plus, there's games like Paper Mario: The Origami King where Bloopers come from the water and are fought on land, and there's no specific place to put those.
13. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.

#Hewer (talk) Not opposed to all of these (I'd probably support splitting Sky Blooper), but while I do generally like following official classification of things, having an article for Buzzy Beetles that were upside down in SMB3 specifically and no other game just feels silly and confusing.
#DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Sky Comments

I understand the rationale, but Mario Portal (and most game material) also recognizes things like green-shelled and red-shelled Koopas as distinct from one another and they also have different behaviors from one another. That'd probably be a bigger proposal than you'd be interested in executing, but how would you feel on those types of enemies being split? I at least like the idea of Sky Blooper getting its own article on the face of it. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:27, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Those shouldn't be by virtue of the functional distinctions being inconsistent, especially when you get into things like Shy Guys. Most of them use (identifiers) too rather than actual naming differences. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:09, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

Fair (especially for Shy Guys), though generally, I'm pretty sure red-shelled Koopas mechanically are always the ones that turn when they reach an edge, whereas green-shelled ones don't.

What if, for those enemies, there was a similar scenario as with Koopa Shells, where there is one main article, but also smaller ones for Green Shells and Red Shells for scenarios where the shells have mechanical differences? We could have a main Koopa Troopa article, and then a Koopa Troopa (Green) and Koopa Troopa (Red). - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, September 25, 2024 (EDT)

You're only looking in terms of 2D platformers, there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:02, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

(I hope this is isn't too tangential - I appreciate your insight on this) I think the only 3D platformer with both Koopa Troopas is Super Mario Galaxy, and they still have mechanical differences from one another in those games.

For platformers and spin-offs where colors are only cosmetic, I think it would be fine for them to share a single Koopa Troopa article (again, similar setup to Koopa Shell). But I understand the resistance to that idea, because it could be messy and difficult to curate. - Nintendo101 (talk) 00:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

And there's the black-and-white Super Mario Land 2, where the art shows green, but the behavior's more like typical red ones. Then we get into Paratroopas, where originally green hopped or moved back-and-forth and red moved up-and-down, then games like Super Mario World have red ones moving horizontally or green ones moving vertically. And then there's Cheep Cheep - swimming Cheep Cheeps' colors in SMB1 were purely cosmetic, then SMB3 had lots of behavioral variation among red-colored ones and only one behavior for green-colored ones. I think keeping the "color" ones grouped unless a very notable difference is present (like the Paper Mario and Yoshi's Story versions of Black Shy Guy) is the best way to go in that regard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:23, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

@Opposition I see this as a similar case to Gloomba only covering the blue underground Goombas when they are officially split, or Headbonk Goomba only covering headbonking Goombas when they are officially split. Same for the large-sized Chain Chomps and Wigglers sometimes being considered "big" versions and sometimes considered standard. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:09, September 26, 2024 (EDT)

I see those as a bit different since they have functional or other differences specific to those games, blue Goombas aren't normally stronger than the standard versions. As far as I can tell, the only way Upside-down Buzzy Beetle is more of a variant in SMB3 than it is any other game is in name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:52, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

The fact that Portal, which is recent, bothers to split them for those games specifically rather than ignore it in favor of following what later games do makes me think this is still valid. Especially since Upside-Down Piranhas were also differentiated in Viridi's Piranha Plant list in Smash Ultimate. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:09, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

Technically, do we know whether Viridi was referring to specifically upside-down Piranha Plants from Super Mario Land, rather than just upside-down ones in general? Not sure if it's different in Japanese, but their placement in the list is notably odd especially if it was meant to be referring to just Mario Land, as they are the last variant listed before the three Petey Piranhas, rather than the roughly release date order the list mostly uses. As for Mario Portal, Nintendo101's point about red and green Koopa Troopas compels me to ignore that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:12, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

They're the only ones that are named as such, so yes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

Uhhh, I'd find sources other than Super Mario Land and the Mario Portal before I confidently make claims like that. Personally, I doubt that these games are the only instances in which the Japanese word for "upside-down" immediately precedes the name of an enemy that happens to be upside-down. DrippingYellow (talk) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Treating it as a label, there are none. Prose, perhaps, but not as a deliberate label. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Again, sources???? The only evidence I could find vaguely supporting you (for the Piranha Plant in Lost Levels at least) is in a scan of the Japanese Super Mario All-Stars guide, which is after you claim they dropped the concept. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

What Portal is doing is enough, IMO. It shows their "current interpretation" is that they are different enough for a separate listing (without the parentheses, even) specifically in the respective games I listed, but not elsewhere. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:42, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

@DrippingYellow - Technically, only the Upside-Down Piranha Plants in SML have the point bonus, which is part of how the game defines its enemies. Also, that "paralleling existing material" also doesn't split color, so this doesn't seem inconsistent to me. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:36, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

...Are you seriously trying to argue that the point value of the enemy is the clincher here? As though enemies are supposed to stay exactly the same with no changes between games? Maybe the developers of SML thought you deserved more of a reward for landing a Superball shot on these upside-down enemies, but how does that specifically support them being considered a unique variant of Piranha Plant in only Super Mario Land? And sure, they called the red Koopa Troopas "Koopa Troopa (Red)" or whatever instead of "Red Koopa Troopa", but simply having a unique name is not the end-all be-all of whether something gets an article or not (Black Shy Guy (Yoshi's Story), the countless articles that we had to give a conjectural name, to name a few).
The problem is simply that versions of enemies that are visually idential and behaviorally similar to their normal counterpart usually don't get split, regardless of whether they have a unique name or not. And somehow, what you're proposing is even more bizarre than that; that these specific enemies in these specific games are Upside-down with a capital "U", and should be split, and the others, lowercase "u", with the exact same behavior, attributes, and appearance, should not. DrippingYellow (talk) 01:46, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

I see this as equivalent to Fire Nipper Plant, which only appeared once in SMB3, and later RPGs gave normal Nipper Plants identical fire breath abilities. And the point value is a notable difference in function. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:03, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Even if these truly are separate listed enemies in only these specific games, this is more like the Grinder/Ukiki situation if anything; two completely different enemies from different series that were eventually merged, and we treat them as the same thing. No "Grinder" article that only covers the monkeys in the Yoshi's Island games and not Wooly World. This situation is even simpler than that debacle if you ask me, as we know exactly what to look for in terms of defining traits (that is, they are upside-down). See also: the Helper Monkey article, with all of the uniquely-named-in-Japan variants merged together for the sake of simplicity. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:47, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

The monkeys are mainly a snarl because YNI used both (O-saru-san in-game for a level name, Ucky in the guidebook), but in that case the "two separate enemies" weren't in a single game alongside each-other separately, so that situation is still different. There's also a reverse situation related to that, where Big Cheep Cheep lost its funny big mouth and its original design was eventually given to its derivative Cheep Chomp (in the same game that gave Grinder's design to Ukiki). Now, I do get where you're coming from, but I find this situation clean enough to enact this. Meanwhile, on the Triforce Wiki, I list both of the "Zora" designs together, while Nintendo back-and-forths on whether they're different, the same, or different-looking clans of the same species (which as of Echoes of Wisdom, is their current depiction) - I find that to be too much confusing mingling to bother attempting to split it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:45, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

I will say, Nintendo is inconsistent with whether they list colored variants as separate subjects or lumped together, but in the modern era (the mid-2010s onward), they generally do if there are mechanical differences between them. For example, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia and Mario Portal list red and green Koopa Troopas separately for every game where they both appear (as well as yellow and blue ones in Super Mario World), as well as the Kadokawa guidebook for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. They do not do this for enemies that appear in multiple colors but have no mechanical differences between them, like Biddybuds, Para-Biddybuds, or Lava Bubbles in Super Mario 3D World (of note, they do recognize blue and red Lava Bubbles separately in Super Mario Galaxy 2, where they do have mechanical and behavioral differences with each other. I should also note that I have seen Super Mario 3D Land Biddybud figures sold with color denotations in their listed names in Japan, but it makes sense to do that for physical merchandise).

I do not know the best approach for Super Mario Wiki. My gut feeling is that it would be best to stick to the systematics employed by the source material, and if that material is listing enemies separately by behavior or color or size, then it is not inherently unreasonable for them to get a dedicated article. What constitutes an "enemy" is not innate - it does not necessarily mean they are members of different species or anything like that (as apparent with Giant Goombas, which can split into Hefty Goombas, then normal Goombas, indicating all Goombas have the capacity to mature into Giant Goombas and would be members of the same exact species, but they are not the same enemy). But our source material is inconsistent and fluid, adjusting based on the specific functions of individual games, as is the case with Lava Bubbles in SMG2 and SM3DW. They have flipflopped with whether they recognize different colors as separate enemies or the same ones (such as here, in the bestiary for New Super Mario Bros. from 2006 that lumps Koopa Troopas together) but they are also inconsistent in contemporary sources. In the encyclopedia, Big Deep Cheep is listed as a distinct enemy in the first New Super Mario Bros. and New Super Mario Bros. 2 - it is lumped with the smaller one in New Super Mario Bros. Wii even though it has not undergone any behavioral changes, and this is in the same book. Dragoneels are lumped as one enemy in the New Super Mario Bros. U section, even though there are fast, extremely long red Dragoneels and stout, slow-moving blue Dragoneels, which seems as valid a distinction as green and red Koopa Troopas. In the Kadokawa Super Mario Bros. Wonder excerpt I linked to above, it recognizes Red Koopa Troopas and Red Koopa Paratroopas as separate enemies from the green ones, but it lists brown and purple Trompettes as one enemy, as well as yellow and blue Konks. This is despite the fact that the difference between the brown and purple Trombettes is that the latter turns around when it reaches the edge of a platform... just like red Koopa Troopas in the same game. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:18, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

@ThePowerPlayer - Well those aren't given a different name, especially not in a consistent manner across multiple sources, which was the crux here. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:37, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: What? The proposal is about splitting particular enemy variants. It has nothing to do with what you said. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:24, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

@Scrooge200 - The SMM ones are to stay on the Blooper page, though. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:59, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.

All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros. has various alternatively named graphic swaps of things from Super Mario Bros., most of which relate to the cast and iconography of the show it is based on. These include:

• OkaP and Pakkun OkaP replacing Goomba and Piranha Plant (split demoed here alongside stuff from the above proposal
• The Hiranya replacing the Star
• The various celebrities replacing the Toads (though admittedly the bonus one is unknown)

These are meant to be seen as different things from the originals, so the current system of lumping them in with them is awkward to say the least. The only real outlier here is the NBS logo replacing the axe, because from what I can tell Katsu Yoshida never named the eye.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: October 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Sunplaza Support - all subjects

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Consistent with how we handle, say, Deku Babas in Mario Kart 8.
3. Shoey (talk) I've always said the wiki needs more weirdo articles.
4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per. Don't see why not. Deku Baba is a good parallel.
5. Mariuigi Khed (talk) Per.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) i always thought we dont give ANNSMB enough coverage here. per all
8. DrippingYellow (talk) I'm tempted to say this seems like unnecessary splitting of information, but I guess the information would still also be present in the main article, wouldn't it? This seems fine.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
10. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense, and perhaps this could finally crack the mystery of who that unknown celebrity is! Per all.
11. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all, especially on Deku Baba and Keese.
12. Jazama (talk) Per all
13. SeanWheeler (talk) Those look nothing like the original enemies.

Sunplaza Support - only enemies

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per

OkaP Oppose

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'd personally not want to split these enemies since doing so is practically a degree away from re-splitting Super Mario World's "Fall" graphic swaps (and the Advance 2 exclusives don't have their own names).

Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles - take 2

Since the last proposal, other proposals have cropped up which sought to trim excess appellatives and nicknames from the titles of various character articles. As a result of these proposals, which saw little to no contention, the following changes were made:

• Professor Elvin Gadd was moved to "Professor E. Gadd".
• Baby Donkey Kong was moved to "Baby DK".
• Crossover characters with formerly descriptive titles (e.g. Sonic the Hedgehog, Fox McCloud) were moved to the shortened forms of their names (e.g. "Sonic", "Fox").

As well, before the aforementioned proposal:

• Donkey Kong Country's Animal Friends were moved to their shorthand names.
• Conker the Squirrel was moved to "Conker".

Vigilant gamers and game lore extraordinaires will know why these changes were made: the short forms of these subjects' names have been much more prominent and recent in their relevant official works, and their display titles across the site did not reflect this predilection. The Koopalings, as well as Princess Daisy, are now the outliers in this specific regard--but while the sentiment against moving Daisy's name to its more common shortened form was the inconsistency that would arise with Princess Peach using her long title, I do not recall the Koopalings, as a group, having some special counterpart that would create a similar perceived inconsistency.

Yeah, Larry was called "Larry Koopa" in a specific line of dialogue within Smash Ultimate, in a decade-and-a-half old licensed player's guide, and probably some 2010's toy that I'm sure users will name here in the comments, but the fact is, his short name has been promoted front-and-center within all of the games he has appeared from Mario Kart 8 back in 2014 until today, many of which are namedropped in the previous proposal. Same with his 6 siblings.

Besides, MarioWiki:Naming states plainly:

• "the name of an article should correspond to the most commonly used English name of the subject"
• "the more commonly used modern name should be used as the title"

and I believe it's only sensible for the wiki to mirror the more recent developments of the franchise in how a subject is introduced to readers.

Affected pages include:

Larry Koopa (will be moved to "Larry") Roy Koopa ("Roy") Wendy O. Koopa ("Wendy") Lemmy Koopa ("Lemmy") Morton Koopa Jr. ("Morton") Ludwig von Koopa ("Ludwig") Iggy Koopa ("Iggy")

List of Larry Koopa profiles and statistics (will be moved to "List of Larry profiles and statistics") List of Roy Koopa profiles and statistics ("List of Roy profiles and statistics") List of Wendy O. Koopa profiles and statistics ("List of Wendy profiles and statistics") List of Lemmy Koopa profiles and statistics ("List of Lemmy profiles and statistics") List of Morton Koopa Jr. profiles and statistics ("List of Morton profiles and statistics") List of Ludwig von Koopa profiles and statistics ("List of Ludwig profiles and statistics") List of Iggy Koopa profiles and statistics ("List of Iggy profiles and statistics")

Note:

• This proposal targets only page titles. Even if it's a pass, articles can still acknowledge the full forms of these characters where appropriate, such as in Koopaling article openers.
• If this proposal passes, the templates in Category:Koopaling content templates become obsolete and are to be abolished.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal, and per the former proposal as well, which I encourage participants to peruse. (Though, this time, with no multi-option shenanigans.)
2. Axii (talk) Per con Carne (like the last time).
3. Nintendo101 (talk) This may be controversial, but I think this is fine and in-line with our policies. These characters have largely only been referred to by their first names since Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. This does not mean Ludwig's full name is not "Ludwig von Koopa" or that it does not see occasional use in marketing and in games - it just means the title of the article is just Ludwig. I personally do not think that is as systematically harmful or erroneous as previous proposals seemed to have suggested. Lots of reference material does this. For example, the name of the Mark Twain article on Wikipedia is not "Samuel L. Clemens" in any language.
4. LinkTheLefty (talk) Needless to say, there have been a few changes since the last time this was proposed.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. It seems only fair as we clamp down more and more on these elongated page titles.
6. Tails777 (talk) Supported once and I'll do it again. Per proposal.
7. Hewer (talk) Per all. I never really understood the main argument against this last time ("the full names still exist", as though that means they should automatically take priority over their more common short counterparts).
8. Technetium (talk) Per all.
9. DesaMatt (talk) Per all von Koopa.
10. EvieMaybe (talk) while i don't agree with the de-title-ification that's been going on, if we're going to do it we might as well be consistent with it.
11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) The fact that there exists an entire category of templates just to circumvent a standard that violates MarioWiki:Naming is concerning, to say the least.
12. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
13. YoYo (talk) per all
14. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.
15. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per all, I know I opposed this before but I've changed my mind after several similar proposals since then have passed.
16. Jazama (talk) Per all
17. OmegaRuby (talk) Per Koopall

Oppose

1. SeanWheeler (talk) No. Okay, no. I'm trying to make a case for undoing the proposal that shortened the Sonic characters' names. I've got a strong case for Fox McCloud in that not only was his last name mentioned in every Smash game, his costume in Super Mario Maker is the "Fox McCloud" costume, not the "Fox" costume. And I know that if this proposal passes, Peach and Daisy are next.

Comments

To clarify my position on Daisy, it was not because I thought the proposal was unreasonable. To me, an analogous situation would be drafting a proposal to only change the name of Iggy Koopa's article and none of other Koopalings. Maybe others don't see Peach and Daisy as related to each other as sibling characters like the Koopalings, but that's how I feel at least. I would receive a proposal that included both Peach and Daisy differently. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:31, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

I reworded that point about the Daisy vs. Peach situation to sound less like a potshot. Sorry. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:34, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

I thought it was funny :) Just wanted to clarify my position. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:37, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

I appreciate that you took it in good humor, but I've made a point that I'll try and be more careful with the way I word my statements. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 15:41, September 27, 2024 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: If Mario Maker costume names were the decider, Mr. Resetti would just be "Resetti", and indeed, Princess Peach and Princess Daisy would just be Peach and Daisy. But the main thing the Fox page covers isn't a costume in Mario Maker, it's his more common, prominent, and recent Smash appearances, in which the main name used to refer to him is always just "Fox". (Also, Sonic's Mario Maker costume is just called "Sonic", not "Sonic the Hedgehog".) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:03, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

It's not just the Mario Maker costumes. He's been referred to as "Fox McCloud" in Melee's trophies and Ultimate's spirits, plus in Snake's Codec and Palutena's Guidance. SeanWheeler (talk) 17:22, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

And he's been referred to as "Fox" in his actual role as a playable character in every single Smash game. As I've repeated countless times in our previous debates, this isn't an argument of whether the full name exists, it only matters which name is more common. Please stop cherry-picking the times when the full name was used in profiles and such and acting like that automatically outweighs the more common name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:56, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

I feel like these proposals shortening names are meant to take the "common name" part of the naming policy to it's literal conclusion. The article names were fine before they were changed by proposals, and now we're changing very distinctive article names to generic names. That's not good for disambiguation. The shortened names could be used as redirects, but we are discouraged from linking redirects, making me confused why we have redirects at all. I mean, link templates for the Koopalings? In November, I'm going to make a proposal to encourage linking redirects. My proposal to overturn the crossover character naming was only delayed by me not having unlocked the Sonic Character Book at the Secret Shop in Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. Yes, I was going to bank on the full names being used somewhere in the games being enough to outweigh the player names. Are Peach and Daisy are going to lose their princess titles for the sake of following the naming conventions? I think the naming rule should be changed. Problem is, I can't figure out how to word it in a way to have the pages moved back to the names I want. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:55, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

This proposal is trying to get rid of those Koopaling templates, though. We have redirects for search purposes, not for linking. And why shouldn't the common name policy be taken to its "literal conclusion"? Are you saying you'd rather we enforced it inconsistently? That we should only enforce it when you personally happen to prefer the common name? We shouldn't ignore official sources just so that we can use the names we prefer. Also (another thing I've repeated endlessly), calling these names "generic" is subjective at best and just false at worst. Nothing about "Larry" makes it inherently a more "generic" name than "Mario" or "Pauline", and if Nintendo is content to use the shorter names to identify the characters, we have no reason not to follow suit. "But Peach and Daisy" is also a bad counterargument when several of the users supporting this proposal also supported the Daisy proposal, myself included. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:07, October 1, 2024 (EDT)

Redirects just for search purposes are practically useless when there's autofill and search results. Linking to a redirect would have less bytes then pipelinking wouldn't it? And no, I don't like inconsistent rules either. I'm still trying to figure out my proposal to the naming convention. I don't want the most frequently used names which would just reduce everyone to just their first names or nicknames. Wiki page titles should be more formal than that. But during the Shadow proposal, you have pointed out some awful full names, so giving literally everyone their full names would be out too. And I feel nostalgia for the names the wiki had for years, so I wouldn't want Bowser to be moved to King Bowser Koopa. What would be the best naming convention that would have us move most if not all these characters back to their original page titles? I thought maybe "the longest common-used name" as in the full name that was referenced in most of the characters' appearances, which would keep Peach at Princess Peach (because she hasn't used her Toadstool surname in a long time, and she has been referred to as Princess Peach at least once in most of the Mario games, right?) That would definitely move Fox back to Fox McCloud. But with that rule of naming the characters their fullest name used in the most appearances, that would force us to use the full names of one-time characters like Squirps becoming Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina, so that rule wouldn't work out with me either. I don't have that many Mario games, so it would be hard to verify when each name was used in each game. If I go for "best known name," that's probably going to rely too much on bias, so that wouldn't work either. And if I just make a proposal to undo every move in the wiki's history and make it so that every article name is simply the original title, I doubt anyone would be on board if there were more legitimate reasons those pages moved like if some page titles started out misspelled. I've voted to shorten parentheticals, so it would make me a hypocrite to revert all the moves I've supported. This is really hard, especially as we're moving articles on a case-by-case basis when the articles should already be following the naming rules. Instead of the case-by-case basis, we really need to clarify the naming rules and what we mean by the "most common name." If we mean by the given name most frequently said in every game, then maybe the rule should be changed. Tell me, how many games have the Koopalings been referred to as their full names at least once? How many manuals and guides have their full names? They use their first names in playable character data, so how do we count playable character data? I would like to only count the playable character data just once. But how will we count dialogue? If we count every instance in dialogue, would we shorten Diddy Kong to just Diddy? Would Bowser Jr. be called Junior? This is all so complicated. All it shows is that our current naming rules aren't good. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:06, October 1, 2024 (EDT)

In my opinion, I think our approach to article names for characters has been a bit technocratic. I don't think we need a strict, blanketedly applied naming policy is as beneficial as some think, and I really deciding these things on a case by case basis is perfectly fine.

I personally would be in favor of returning the Fox article to Fox McCloud, purely because the word "fox" alone as plenty of connotations on its own and including the surname is just immediately clarifying that it is the main character from Star Fox. I similarly would feel fine with returning the Sonic characters to their full names because it is just immediately pretty clarifying what the article's subject is about, as opposed to something else in the Mario series called a shadow. Some of them had to have clarifications between parentheses attached to the end anyways, which wouldn't have been necessary if we just kept the full names.

Making decisions like that does not have to have ramifications on the names of other character articles. Inconsistency is not inherently bad if it leads to better clarification for readers. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:50, October 1, 2024 (EDT)

Inconsistency is bad. Following your logic, we could end up with characters like "Sonic" and "Espio" keeping short names while others like "Shadow the Hedgehog" and "Big the Cat" get their full names, since only the latter share their names with other subjects. And wasn't inconsistency the main reason you didn't want to shorten "Princess Daisy"? Also, why would "Fox" cause clarification problems when he doesn't share that name with anything else on the wiki? Would we just arbitrarily decide which names do and don't need clarification? The best solution to all these problems is to stick to how official sources most commonly handle the names, i.e. the current naming policy (which I don't think needs changing, just enforcing). Also, @SeanWheeler, redirects are not "practically useless", they help significantly with streamlining the search process and helping people find what they're looking for. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:32, October 2, 2024 (EDT)

Well, looks like my naming conventions amendment proposal in November is going to have a bunch of options. And yes, Fox could cause clarification problems because that's his species. Sure, we don't have an article on the Fox species but we have articles on Dragon, Elephant, Goat, and used to have pages on Human and Talk:Giraffe. Then again, those Dragon, Elephant and Goat pages are now more about enemies than the species. And 20th Century Fox would be a bigger Fox name than Fox McCloud. I wouldn't be surprised if someone searched for the company only to end up on Fox McCloud's page. Sonic is also the name of a restaurant, and is a word related to the concept of sound. It really does help clarify things to use the longer names. To take the common name part of the policy too literally, you'd find most characters having just their first names be the most common name. I'd vote to change the wording from "most common" name to "best known name." Yes, that would rely on bias of the users, but I really can't stand these proposals reducing names. At least if the "best known name" was followed instead of the "commonly used name," the move proposals made afterward wouldn't be so much about rule violations in the naming convention but what the wiki finds to be the more popular name for the characters. And of course, fan nicknames and speculation wouldn't count. SeanWheeler (talk) 02:36, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Your suggestion is to ignore official sources in favour of fan preferences (especially when they're your personal preferences), which goes against everything the naming policy and the wiki in general strive for. Besides, it's not like these characters' shortened names are obscure (all the results when I google "Sonic" are about the hedgehog, and I find it a bit hard to believe that "Miles "Tails" Prower" is a more well-known name than "Tails"). Also, who is looking up 20th Century Fox and Sonic Drive-In on the Super Mario Wiki??? Mario is two films, two TV series and two songs, is it time to rename his page? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:06, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Well, since we have pages on Universal Pictures and Taco Bell, maybe someone browsing the companies could be wondering if 20th Century Fox or its subsidiaries had ever made anything Mario related. And if the Sonic Drive-In were to ever make a Nintendo promotion with Mario toys, then we would have given the Sonic Drive-In a page like Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's. Oh yeah, we've got a Wendy's just like the Koopaling. As for the case with Mario, those two films, TV series and songs have nothing to do with our Mario. Mario is the face of the wiki, so it would be obvious what Mario people would search for on this wiki. But Fox McCloud was just a character that Mario met in Super Smash Bros. As a Star Fox character, nobody would think to look for him on here without knowing how we handle crossover characters, would they? And for people who remembered the Nintendo and Sega rivalry in the nineties but were unaware of the Olympic series or Smash's use of third-party characters would be very surprised to find Sonic the Hedgehog on here. The crossover characters definitely need to be more distinguished than Mario himself. SeanWheeler (talk) 16:05, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Why do we specifically have to cater to people who know about our relatively out-of-the-way fast food pages, yet also people who don't know about the Mario & Sonic series? You're making up whatever extremely specific hypothetical minorities of users are convenient for your preferred way of doing things. Frankly, it's ridiculous that you're implying someone looking up Fox McCloud or Sonic the Hedgehog on the wiki is less likely than someone looking up 20th Century Fox or Sonic Drive-In. Neither company has ever done any Mario-related thing, regardless of hypotheticals, so there's no reason to cover them on the wiki or to accommodate for people who do search for them. If someone does look up "20th Century Fox" and somehow ends up on the Fox page (despite the "20th Century" bit), then that's not a problem because there is no actual 20th Century Fox coverage to redirect them to, so they're not missing out on anything. And yes, those "Mario" films/TV series/songs do have nothing to do with our Mario (in the same way 20th Century Fox has nothing to do with our Fox), that's precisely the point I was making. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:31, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

It's also worth noting that, even in the one case of this that is not strictly limited to hypothetical (the Wendy's/Wendy O. Koopa pair), both articles have had a distinguish template since around June of this year. (Rather ironically given the proposal subject, the initial attempt to add one to the restaurant linked to Wendy O. Koopa's article via a redirect... simply titled "Wendy".) In the worst case scenario, we could probably just add a few distinguish templates or create a disambiguation page; though, we imagine the odds of us having no fewer than 5 unique things that can be called "Fox" or "Sonic", let alone 4 if that other proposal passes, are... going to be slim for awhile, at best. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 22:11, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

@Hewer inconsistency is not inherently bad if it promotes clarification of information, which is important to me and part of the reason why I supported retaining "Princess Daisy" over just "Daisy," because the language of most of the games she appears in convey a relationship with Peach who was not incorporated in that proposal. The analogous situation would be proposing to just change Larry Koopa's name and no one else's. I would similarly support changing the names of all Sonic characters back to their original names because they are more clarifying, but not just one of them.

It is erroneous to suggest the usage of names like "Big the Cat" or "Fox McCloud" are analogous to fan preference when they are curatorial choices made to clearly convey information to readers, and I maintain that is 100% okay to do. These are not even names invented by fans nor names not used by their IP holders (note page 11 here for Big or page 39 for Fox), so they are not invalid by any means. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:43, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Ignoring the primary names used in official sources for the characters so that we can use names we think are better is prioritising fan preference over official preference. If Nintendo/Sega think "Sonic" alone is enough to identify the character in most contexts, who are we to disagree? It's exactly the same logic as this proposal, just applied to another set of characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:31, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

It does not feel like you engaged with the point I was making, or reviewed the pdfs I provided links to where Sega uses "Big the Cat" for Sonic Heroes and Nintendo uses "Fox McCloud" for Super Smash Bros. Melee, conveying they are just as valid of names as "Big" or "Fox," but that is besides the point. You can call it "fan preference" if that is what makes most conceptual sense to you, but intentionally deviating from the primary name in one's source material for substantive reasons is not at all invalid or against the "spirit" of maintaining encyclopedic material. To the best of my knowledge, that is not attested off of this website. I am privy to many examples of comparable projects in other fields where they do deviate from the the institutionalized/authorized names of certain subjects, including academic and scientific references. I can provide examples if interested and the justifications for subjects vary by source, but the point is that making decisions like that is not inherently wrong. I feel like some proposals or ideas on this site have been shot-down prematurely because of this type of posturing. I don't think that is appropriate. If one wants the Fox article to continue going by "Fox," that's fine, but one should not suggest moving it back to "Fox McCloud" is inherently or objectively wrong regardless of reason. Because it is not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:01, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

"Big the Cat" and "Fox McCloud" are indeed official names used sometimes, but they are not "just as valid" as the short names, because the short names are the main ones used in the Mario-related official media they appear in (also Sonic Heroes isn't covered on this wiki). The main point of this wiki's naming policy is to ensure accuracy to official sources. I never intended to suggest that "intentionally deviating from the primary name in one's source material" is wrong in the context of any encyclopedia or in general academic and scientific contexts, which probably differ greatly from the context of this fan wiki. My point is that specifically this wiki generally strives to match official sources as closely as possible, and therefore uses the logic of official sources being the ultimate authority on everything. I don't see a "substantive reason" here not to stick to that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, October 3, 2024 (EDT)

Overturn the proposal that resulted in the deletion of Category:User eo (category for speakers of Esperanto)

Myself, I don't care about this language, and needless to say, neither do most people on the planet, but I take issue with the proposal that had it removed in the first place for a few reasons.

• The proposal argues that this language "is not a real language", that "nobody really picked it up", and likens it to the fictional language of Klingon. Despite its status as a constructed language, it is, in fact, very much a real language intended and created to be functional. It has a(n admittedly small) number of speakers across the planet, some of whom may well be potential editors on this wiki for all we know. The comparison to Klingon, which was created with an artistic purpose, is misleading.
• The proposer was outed as an extremist (read up on the details at your own risk) who seemingly was planning to have other language-based user categories removed, as he followed up with another proposal targeting the Georgian user category. The wiki's policies outline that we shouldn't assume bad faith in users, but given the circumstances here, I hope you'll allow me the assumption that this user had ulterior motives in their little curatorial project, namely in altering the wiki ever so slightly according to their outlooks. Proposal failed and the user was banned for their concerning behavior, preventing further such proposals from being made.

Now, as you'd expect, the Esperanto user category certainly never saw much use--in fact, only one user employed it as of 2014 (archive.org) and even then only listed Esperanto as a second language (archive.org) (though, the very point of Esperanto was to be an auxillary language between people who don't speak the same native language). That user, who goes by Pakkun (talk), has since taken the category off their page, so you could argue that this proposal lacks a tangible purpose as "User eo" would be dead on arrival should it be recreated.

The point of this proposal, however, isn't to recreate this language immediately; it is to negate the proposal that currently prevents its creation if someone ever considers they'd derive some use from it. This community should be open to anyone regardless of their cultural background. The previous proposal is contrary to that.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) per proposal.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we would be down for more Conlangs to have user categories. We can't imagine the overlap of, say, Vötgil speakers to Mario Wiki users is very large, but like, in regards to a strictly English wiki, the Conlang categories in particular are just for-fun categories at the end of the day, and who the hey are we to expressly prohibit other people's fun? And even in the most generous reading of the events, it still feels like a bit of warped priorities when some categories have been in need of reforms for awhile now (sorry about the Thieves category thing, we're still thinking of that and honestly at this point we wouldn't mind someone else chipping in with that) and haven't gotten them, but we have an entire proposal dedicated to... Deleting a category for Esperanto speakers??? (And for the record, this was back when Category:Canines was called Dogs--something something, obligatory mention of Penkoon.)
4. Shadow2 (talk) We DID this? wtf??
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
6. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per proposal.
7. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
8. Arend (talk) With the provided context, something about Trig Jegman's proposals rubs me the wrong way. If it's true that he was trying to gradually remove other languages, where would he stop? He stated that Esperanto and Gregorian are languages not supported by Nintendo (a weak argument IMO, as Nintendo =/= this wiki), and not widely spoken, so would he first try to get all small-spoken languages removed? Would he eventually try to get larger languages removed just because Nintendo doesn't support these languages? Would he eventually go even further and get even languages that are supported by Nintendo removed because they're not as widely spoken as other languages? Would he eventually make it so that English is the only language remaining? Would he then remove that category too because if that's the only language category for users, then what's the point of keeping it? Or worse, is this a ploy to recognize who is native to other languages and would he try to get non-English users banned so only English-speaking users have access to the wiki (and then remove the English category)? ...Uh...fearmongering aside, per all.
9. Waluigi Time (talk) No harm having it if people want to use it.
10. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
12. Axii (talk) Per all.
13. Mario (talk) The more the Marior. That older proposal was dumb.
14. Jazama (talk) Per all
15. SeanWheeler (talk) I'm not a fan of banning users for off-site drama, especially when it's political. But if his proposal was bigoted, then maybe it should be overturned.
16. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, especially Sean. This proposal was asinine at best, in retrospect, and harmful at worst. And that's coming from a man who doesn't have full context as to what happened.
17. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. That category never hurt nobody.
18. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Comments

The real question is if we can have a Klingon category (as a certain other editor who is no longer with us due to concerning behavior mentioned on that proposal). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:11, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Up for debate whether user categories can have some basis in fiction. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:16, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

We think that Conlangs in general should just be allowed, just because it both feels really, really weird to try to police what Conlangs "count" as languages, and because the idea of focusing even more proposals on such a for-fun topic feels.... A little too much, when that effort is best used elsewhere. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:14, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

We should be open for Inklingese and Smurf. rend (talk) (edits) 20:24, September 28, 2024 (EDT)

Per Arend. -- FanOfYoshi 05:50, September 30, 2024 (EDT)

Lower the requirement for a disambiguation page from 5 to 4

As of now, the requirement for a disambiguation page's creation is five pages:

"If there are five or more pages which could be reasonably associated with a given name, then a disambiguation page must be created" (MarioWiki:Naming)

This rule feels needlessly restrictive, considering the amount of clutter links make at the very top of the page. "For a minigame in the WarioWare series, see X. For an object in Super Mario Odyssey found in the Luncheon Kingdom, see Y. For an underwater enemy from...", you get the idea. If this proposal passes, the threshold on MarioWiki:Naming will be lowered from 5 to 4.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: October 6, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Axii (talk) ^
2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) One or two other articles are fine, but having three separate articles in the {{about}} template at the top of the page is the point where a disambiguation page is ideal.
3. SeanWheeler (talk) We don't need to clutter the {{About}} template.
4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
5. Pseudo (talk) Frankly, I'd support bringing the requirement as low as 3. Per proposal.
6. Mariuigi Khed (talk) I too I'd go with 3. Per proposal

Comments

Do you have any examples of how many subjects would be affected by this change? — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 10:52, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

I don't think there's an easy way to tell, but I can't imagine it being too many. Axii (talk) 12:05, September 29, 2024 (EDT)

Shorten the disambiguation identifier for Yoshi's Island pages with the subtitle only - take two

Last season, I had to cancel my last proposal since I was caught plagiarizing someone else's proposal. This time, I've come up with another proposal that is not plagiarized.

Take the "Choose a Game" screen and the main game's title screen in Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 for example. As you see, the logo for the main game on both screens ONLY reads Yoshi's Island, not Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island.

The following pages will be affected:

Current name	Will be moved to
Fuzzy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	Fuzzy (Yoshi's Island)
King Bowser's Castle (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	King Bowser's Castle (Yoshi's Island)
Magnifying Glass (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	Magnifying Glass (Yoshi's Island)
Spiked Fun Guy (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	Spiked Fun Guy (Yoshi's Island)
World 1 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 1 (Yoshi's Island)
World 2 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 2 (Yoshi's Island)
World 3 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 3 (Yoshi's Island)
World 4 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 4 (Yoshi's Island)
World 5 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 5 (Yoshi's Island)
World 6 (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)	World 6 (Yoshi's Island)

Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to use the shorter disambiguation identifier with ONLY the subtitle for the Yoshi's Island pages.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: October 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (Yoshi's Island)

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)

1. Hewer (talk) Reusing my oppose vote from last time: the remake replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called Yoshi's Island, and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "Yoshi's Island" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.