MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

Consider Super Smash Bros. series titles for recurring themes low-priority

Do not consider 5-10
Something I noticed late yesterday was that the page for "Flower Fields BGM" from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (Or just Yoshi's Island from now on for simplicity) is still titled Yoshi's Island (theme), even after Nintendo Music dropped, and then I realised that some other song titles (Most notably Obstacle Course, also from Yoshi's Island) just don't make a lot of sense. Then I feel it's important to note that even though this is a Mario Wiki (What?!?!?!? Huh!?!?!?) we should also take a look at the Super Smash Bros. titles for themes from other series, with the biggest example I can think of being "Meta Knight's Revenge" from Kirby Super Star, which is actually an incorrectly titled medley of the songs "Boarding the Halberd" and "Havoc Aboard the Halberd". It's also good to look at songs Super Smash Bros. is using a different title for than us, like how it uses the Japanese titles of the Donkey Kong Country OST instead of the correct ones. Between all these facts it should be obvious the track titles in Super Smash Bros. are not something the localisation team puts a whole lot of thought or effort into (Though the original Japanese dev team also mess these up sometimes). Going back to the original point that gave me this realisation, "Yoshi's Island" is a very nondescript track title for a random stage theme which most people would look for by searching for something like "Flower Stage" or possibly even "Ground theme" (Even though that would lead to another song but still), this is especially considering the title screen theme from the game is ALSO called Yoshi's Island, and that's not even considering the Yoshi's Island world map theme from Super Mario World, which I don't know if it even has an official title (Yet, it is coming to Nintendo Music eventually) but I would bet that's ALSO YOSHI'S ISLAND. So I am suggesting to just make Smash Bros. a VERY low-priority source for this specific small aspect of the Wiki to avoid confusion and potentially future misinformation if things go too far.

Proposer: biggestman (talk)
Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. biggestman (talk) Did you know there's a theme titled "Per this proposal" in Super Wiki Bros. Ultimate but the original title is simply "Per Proposal"? INSANE! (Per proposal)
2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - the theme names given in Smash (particularly Brawl and previous) are more just general descriptions of the contexts they play in rather than actual names. Hence why DK Island Swing became "Jungle Level."
3. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per Doc and proposal.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal. To me this feels like making a non-Mario game determine the name of a Mario-article.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) The names are from an official source whether we like them or not. Not only that, they come from within the games themselves, putting them at the top of the naming priority list. Tracks that have gone by different names more recently can use those, but those inconsistencies shouldn't invalidate the whole source. We also accept "inconsistent" names from Smash for other subjects, e.g. Propeller Piranha, so it would be odd to single out music. (Also, I'd argue "Meta Knight's Revenge" isn't incorrect, but is the name of the medley rather than of either individual song. On the topic of Kirby music, I'm pretty sure "A Battle of Friends and Bonds 2" from Kirby Star Allies was first called that in Smash before the name appeared in other sources, which would suggest Smash's names aren't all bad.)
2. Nintendo101 (talk) The names used in the Super Smash Bros. series are from first-party games, are specific localizations of Super Mario specific material, and are localized by Nintendo of America. In my view, that is all that matters for citations, especially given most of these music tracks have not been officially localized into English through other channels. I similarly would not support a proposal to discredit the names for music tracks used in games like Mario & Sonic. However, I do think this proposal is in the ballpark of a reality, which is that melodies that sometimes incorporate multiple compositions (like "Meta Knight's Revenge") and specific arrangements sometimes are given unique names. (This is not unique to the Smash Bros. series — a cursory view of the Video Game Music Database or of officially published sheet music reveals Nintendo is often inconsistent with these names in the West.) In some installments, what is given a unique name for a particular arrangement (like "Princess Peach's Castle" from Melee and labeled as such in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U) is attributed to just one piece in a subsequent game (in Ultimate, this piece is named "Ground Theme" despite interlacing the "Underground BGM" in the piece as well, so while more simplistic for the Music List it is not wholly accurate, and I do not think "Ground BGM" should be called "Princess Peach's Castle" in any context other than this Melee piece). So I think it is worth scrutinizing how we name pieces that are "misattributed." However, I do not support a blanket downground of first-party Nintendo games just because we do not like some of the names.
3. Salmancer (talk) If I recall from Miiverse correctly, the reason many songs are not given official public names is that naming songs does require spending very valuable developmental bandwidth, something that not all projects have to spare. (Sometimes, certain major songs have names because of how important they are, while other songs don't.) Given this, I am okay with Smash Bros. essentially forcing names for songs out early because it's interface requires named songs. Names don't have to be good to be official. My line is "we all agree this uniquely identifies this subject and is official".
4. Waluigi Time (talk) See my comment below.
5. Tails777 (talk) Per Waluigi Time
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
7. Koopa con Carne (talk) per Nintendo101 & Waluigi Time. Some scrutiny is warranted, but let's not entirely discredit Smash Bros--a series of games published and sometimes developed in first-party capacity--as a source of information.
8. Axii (talk) Per all.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) These are still the most recent official names. Let's not unnecessarily overcomplicate things.
10. SeanWheeler (talk) If we've got a song from a crossover game, information from that crossover matters more than the non-Mario source.

Comments

I'm not sure if this is a necessary proposal, or what it's going to accomplish in practice that isn't already handled with current organization and policy. As far as I'm aware, the Yoshi's Island examples here are just the result of no editor taking the initiative to move those pages to the new titles yet. The Nintendo Music names are the most recent and I think also fall under tier 1 of source priority, technically, so the pages should have those names, end of story. We don't need a proposal to do that.

Additionally, "Yoshi's Island" and "Obstacle Course" do not refer to the original themes from Yoshi's Island - they're the names of specific arrangements of those themes from the Smash games. Maybe it's not cemented into policy, but our current approach for theme articles is to use a title referring to the original theme when available. Take "Inside the Castle Walls", for instance. There's been several different names given to arrangements of this track over the years, including "Peach's Castle", "A Bit of Peace and Quiet", and most recently in the remake of Thousand-Year Door, "A Letter from Princess Peach", but we haven't and most likely aren't going to move the page to any of those. (And that doesn't mean any of those games got it wrong for not calling it "Inside the Castle Walls". It's perfectly valid to give a different name to a new arrangement.)

Basically, I don't think this would be beneficial and could potentially cause headaches down the road. I can't think of any actual examples where we're stuck with a "worse" name from Smash based on everything else I've said here, especially with Nintendo Music being a new and growing resource for track titles in the context of the original games. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 14:17, November 4, 2024 (EST)

Indeed, Ground BGM already got moved to its Nintendo Music name, despite being called "Ground Theme" in Smash (among other sources). Nintendo Music should already take priority over Smash just for being more recent. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)

@biggestman I recommend skimming through our naming policies for some clarity. The only reason why "Yoshi's Island (theme)" has not been moved to "Flower Fields BGM" is because no editor took the initiative yet, and another one had already turned "Flower Fields BGM" into a redirect page. That must be deleted by an admin first before the page can be moved, but that is the only reason. Super Smash Bros. and Nintendo Music are at the same tier of coverage, and because Nintendo Music is the most recent use of the piece, it should be moved. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:50, November 4, 2024 (EST)

@LadySophie17: What do you make of Propeller Piranha, Fire Nipper Plant, Nipper Dandelion, etc., which are named based on what Viridi calls them in Smash? And more generally, why does Smash not being strictly a Mario game matter? It's still an official game from Nintendo that uses the Mario IP, and the Mario content in it is fully covered even if it's exclusive to Smash (e.g. Mario stages and special moves all get articles). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:29, November 4, 2024 (EST)

There's also the fact that Nintendo Music, which this proposal aims to prioritise, is not a Mario game either. It has a collection of music from various different franchises that just so happens to include Mario, much like Smash. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:10, November 5, 2024 (EST)

A lot of you have made good points, but one I don't understand or like is the one that those are the names of specifically the Super Smash Bros. versions, which is just painfully inconsistent. With very little exception remixes in Super Smash Bros. almost always use the original title in one of two ways, either using the name completely normally or by titling it (SONG NAME 1 HERE)/(SONG NAME 2 HERE) for remixes that are a relatively even split between two songs. Outside of this the only examples of "Well it COULD be the name of specifically the Smash version!!!" from every series represented are "Yoshi's Island", "Obstacle Course" and "Meta Knight's Revenge". Out of these Yoshi's Island and Obstacle Course theoretically COULD be original titles, but Meta Knight's Revenge is (probably) just meant to be named after Revenge of Meta Knight from Kirby Super Star, which is where both of the songs represented debuted, but was mistranslated. However I can't prove anything because none of these 3 Smash Bros. series remixes Japanese titles are anywhere online as far as I can tell so there's nothing to compare any of them to. There might also be examples from something like Fire Emblem or something idk I play primarily funny platformers. The point though is that if they were to name some remixes after the originals while making original titles for some it would just be so inconsistent I simply can't see a world where that's the intent. BiggestMan 13:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)

I believe the Japanese name of the track was the same as the Japanese name of "Revenge of Meta Knight", but I maintain that translating it as "Meta Knight's Revenge" is not necessarily a mistake, the translators might have just thought that name was better suited for the theme specifically, especially since medleys in the Kirby series are often given different titles to the included themes ("Revenge of Meta Knight" is still not the title of either of the individual tracks included). For example, a different medley of the same two themes in Kirby's Dream Buffet is titled "Revenge of Steel Wings". Even if "Meta Knight's Revenge" is an error, though, that's one error in over a thousand track names, and one not even from the Mario franchise. One or two errors aren't enough to invalidate an entire source, especially one of this size. As for the Yoshi's Island tracks, as has already been pointed out, they should be changed anyway because Nintendo Music is the more recent source (Flower Field BGM already has been changed since this proposal was made). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:49, November 5, 2024 (EST)

FWIW, that point isn't meant to be an argument against this specific change anyway, it's "we already shouldn't be prioritizing those names for article titles regardless of the outcome of this proposal, and here's why". -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:13, November 5, 2024 (EST)

Ok so now that it's been a few days I have very quickly realised that I very much said a bad reason this change should be implemented. I just realised that all of these titles have already been moved but I have since realised a somewhat more understandable reason for it. If a new Smash game came out and reused these titles then according to our rules they would need to be moved back to those titles again, wouldn't they? Would it make sense to move Flower Fields BGM back to the less descriptive title just because a game reused a (debatably) worse title? Overall though I don't care too much about the result, even when I started this proposal, my impatience just got to me too early. BiggestMan 11:09, November 7, 2024 (EST)

Yes, that's how recent name policy works. We should choose what name to use based on what the most recent official source says, not what we subjectively prefer. I personally feel like "Flower Field BGM" isn't much less generic than "Yoshi's Island". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:38, November 7, 2024 (EST)

Not a simple yes/no answer, actually. If they're just arrangements again, then no, we wouldn't move the pages. If they added the original tracks from the SNES version and used those names, then they would probably be moved. (However, you might still be able to make a decent argument for keeping the Nintendo Music names on a recency basis considering it's a live service?) -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:48, November 7, 2024 (EST)

I've actually been mulling over a proposal like this, but for names in general, not just themes. We generally don't consider out-of-franchise content as a source of a recent name if the original Super Mario franchise supersedes it; for example, Podoboo, which is still in use over Lava Bubble in The Legend of Zelda franchise. I don't see why the same thing can't be said for Super Smash Bros., especially now with its reduced coverage. For that matter, possibly breaking it down to a per-series basis (like how "Gold Goomba" was the most recent name in the Super Mario series despite being "Golden Goomba" in the most recent Mario Party)? It might not be a bad idea to establish a new rule over this. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)

Decide how to prioritize PAL English names

Prioritize NTSC names 6-4-0-0
As with my previous proposal, this one aims at getting a consistent method of how PAL names are used alongside NTSC names. One thing that I noticed is that the priority of some of these names are inconsistent, like Mini Bowser, which redirects to Koopa Kid rather than link to the name actually used in NTSC countries. Other pages, like Bowser Party, are disambiguations between the Mario Party 10 game mode and the Mario Party 7 event that is only known as "Bowser Party" in PAL regions.

This map shows which countries use these different systems. The terms go beyond just color conversion; in terms of English, the PAL system is used in countries like the United Kingdom (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think Australia and New Zealand too), while the NTSC system is used in North America, specifically in the United States and Canada. MarioWiki:Naming says that the North American name takes priority, which means that Mini Bowser would link to the toy and Bowser Party would redirect to the section in Mario Party 10, potentially among other pages, although tophats linking to pages with alternate PAL names will remain.

Therefore, I am proposing four options:

• NTSC>PAL, in which when linking pages, the page with the name in NTSC English or all-English takes priority over other pages sharing the same PAL name, even if it isn't as significant. If another page with the same name in PAL English exists, it can be linked to in the tophat.
• NTSC=PAL, in which pages that share the same name in both NTSC and PAL English appear in a disambiguation page regardless of whether the name is used in NTSC English multiple times or not. This is already done with Bowser Party.
• NTSC<PAL, in which pages that share the same name in PAL English have the highest priority name linked to it, even if it doesn't have that name in NTSC English but the other pages does, in which case it will redirect to the higher-priority PAL name and the lower-priority NTSC (or all-English) page will be linked to in the tophat in the Redirect template. This has been done with Mini Bowser.
• Do nothing - do I even have to explain this?

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT

NTSC>PAL

1. Altendo (talk) I think that abiding by SMW:NAMING is the best option. Yes, Koopa Kid is more notable than Mini Bowser toys, but if this is an American English wiki, might as well make pages link to the one that actually are named like that in NTSC.
2. Mari0fan100 (talk) I've seen courses and vehicles in Mario Kart Wii that have names that differ between the NTSC and PAL versions. If the articles to those courses and vehicles use the NTSC version, shouldn't other things use the NTSC version as well?
3. YoYo (talk) This would have to expand into other games too, like Mario Kart. Now, there are entire courses in Mario Kart with different names between PAL and NTSC, like Cheep Cheep Cape, Wario's Galleon, Piranha Plant Pipeway and DK's Snowboard Cross. How would one make there be no priority here? One would have to occupy the article name, an article cannot have two names. That, by default, means making both equal priority is impossible. - YoYo (Talk) 13:19, November 12, 2024 (EST)
4. Camwoodstock (talk) We're a primarily American English wiki, and use American English in the actual article bodies (e.g. we use spellings like "color" over "colour", we use terms like "flashlight" over "torch", etc. etc.), so it only makes sense to prioritize American English releases for these too.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) If we prioritize American English for the article names and the article content, it makes logical sense to also do so for links and redirects.
6. MeritC (talk) Although this is an international wiki with English as the primary language, this was primarily founded by the proprietor who apparently resides in the U.S. in which the NTSC names of Super Mario and related franchise materials are used. IMHO, it's best to stick with this kind of naming as the primary (while other naming versions can still be mentioned in certain portions of respective articles too).

NTSC=PAL

1. Ahemtoday (talk) I think this is the best solution — completely deprioritizing the PAL names doesn't quite seem right to me.
2. Jdtendo (talk) This is an international wiki, not an American wiki. Whilst prioritizing NTSC names for naming makes kinda sense (an article can only have one title), there's no need to prioritize a specific region when it comes to linking.
3. Biggestman (talk) Per all. This is not an american wiki.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) we dont need to relegate PAL names to a footnote

Comments

can i ask for some more examples? i'm having a bit of trouble fully grasping what you mean EvieMaybe (talk) 20:11, November 4, 2024 (EST)

The Mini Bowser situation, for instance:

• NTSC>PAL: Mini Bowser would link to the page actually named "Mini Bowser" instead of Koopa Kid (who is known as Mini Bowser in PAL English)
• NTSC=PAL: Mini Bowser would be a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and the Mini Bowser toy
• NTSC{{<}}PAL: Mini Bowser would continue to redirect to Koopa Kid.
• Do nothing: Nothing changes.

Hope this makes more sense. Altendo 21:07, November 4, 2024 (EST)

So in the first option, "Mini Bowser (toy)" would lose its identifier? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:19, November 5, 2024 (EST)

Basically. The tophat will say, "This article is about the toy. For the characters known as "Mini Bowsers" in Europe, as Koopa Kid." I prefer abiding by SMW:NAMING by prioritizing NTSC names over PAL names. Basically, the current Mini Bowser (toy) page will be moved to Mini Bowser, which will no longer redirect to Koopa Kid. For people who have only owned NTSC copies, this is more straightforward, as many would be unaware that Koopa Kid is known as Mini Bowser without having a PAL copy. As for Bowser Party, if Option 1 passes, it will redirect to the section in Mario Party 10, with a tophat leading to Bowser Time. If Option 2 passes, Mini Bowser would become a disambiguation page between Koopa Kid and Mini Bowser (toy). If Option 3 passes, Bowser Party would redirect to Bowser Time and would have a tophat leading to the Mario Party 10 section. If Option 4 passes, well... nothing changes, making everything remain inconsistent.

So, to answer your question, yes, the identifier will be removed. The only other page with the exact same name minus the identifier is simply the redirect to Koopa Kid, who is only known as "Mini Bowser" in European English, and SMW:NAMING prioritizes American English names. Altendo 07:15, November 5, 2024 (EST)

Now that I think about it, couldn't the identifier for the Mini Bowser toy be removed anyway? There's no actual article named Mini Bowser. For that matter, I thought it was discouraged to use the terms NTSC and PAL now in regards to English, especially now that region-locking is mostly a thing of the past. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:24, November 8, 2024 (EST)

I'm pretty sure whether the identifier can be removed for that reason is what this proposal is trying to decide. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:06, November 9, 2024 (EST)

Hewer: Not necessarily just that - it's to decide if NTSC or PAL names should take priority when linking to a page that might have the same name in a different coded region. If Option 1 passes, it doesn't matter if a page with the same PAL name as another page with an NTSC name is more prominent; if that name isn't used in NTSC, then the page with the actual NTSC name takes priority, and the page with the PAL name is linked to with a tophat (take my Koopa Kid and Bowser Party examples above for instance). SMW:NAMING says, and quote:

• "The Super Mario Wiki is an English language wiki, so the name of an article should correspond to the most commonly used English name of the subject, which, given our user and visitor demographics, means the North American name. For example, the North American title of "Mario Strikers Charged" takes precedence over the PAL region's "Mario Strikers Charged Football" title."

If this is true for naming, why isn't it true for linking, specifically and especially for subjects in which they are the only ones with a specific name in NTSC? I don't have a problem with mentioning other English games in the top of a page, but I feel like linking to a page that is either a disambiguation page between a mode named "Bowser Party" in all regions and a gimmick only named "Bowser Party!" in PAL and as "Bowser Time!" in NTSC, as well as "Mini Bowser" linking to Koopa Kid over the actual toy even though only the latter is used in NTSC, would make extra steps for people who type it in the URL or even wiki search expecting to see the term only used in NTSC regions. Linking to these pages will also be easier, as, take the Mini Bowser case for instance, they don't have to use the identifier, which not only removes identifier space, but also visible text space. If multiple names continue to share the same NTSC name, then the most prominent one will continue to have no identifier, and if there is no dominance, then a disambiguation page will remain. For example, the Mini Mario form continues to be used because it is more prominent than the toy, and even then, the toy's name is slightly different, and both names are used in NTSC English. I understand that some people are from PAL countries and have PAL-configured systems, but seeing as this is an NTSC English wiki, and according to the quote above, how the majority of the views are from NTSC countries, whether from IPs or registered users, I feel like NTSC names should take priority over PAL names, even if the subject itself has a lower priority. I would rather give extra steps to PAL names than to NTSC names due to the fact that NTSC English viewers are more prominent and therefore would see "Mini Bowser" as the toy rather than Koopa Kid. Priority should be given to the most prominent visitor group, so the names that appear in the version shown to the majority of these visitors should be linked there instead of a more prominent character with the same name mainly used by a less prominent group.

LinkTheLefty: Except for Nintendo Switch consoles sold in Mainland China, region-locking does not exist on the Switch, and the region is not actually set based on where the console is purchased - instead, it is configured during setup, and can be changed at anytime, unless a Nintendo Account is connected, in which case, the region for each game is set to the region the Nintendo Account is based in (it doesn't have to be based in the country of setup, it can be based in any country as long as the user has an applicable credit card using the same currency as the Nintendo eShop) per each user that plays it. Game Cards also don't have region locking (IDK if this is true for those purchased in Mainland China), and also use settings based on either system region or Nintendo Account region, not based on where the game was bought in (exceptions are likely made for region-exclusive games, for which I have none, so I cannot test this out). This does mean that setting up PAL English in NTSC regions is possible, and vice versa, but due to the fact that most people only have credit cards for currencies of their home country, it is almost always that their Nintendo Account (and therefore their game region) is set in their home country, meaning that the majority of people who view this wiki, which are Americans, have their region set to the United States, and therefore play NTSC versions of their games regardless of where the console or games were purchased. Altendo 23:49, November 9, 2024 (EST)

@YoYo: I think you may have misunderstood the proposal (which I don't blame you for, it's a bit confusing). It's about what names get priority in terms of identifiers and redirects in cases of different things sharing a name, not which name gets priority as the article title. None of those Mario Kart courses share their names with any other thing, and their titles will continue to prioritise the American name regardless of this proposal's outcome. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:40, November 13, 2024 (EST)

Allow certain proposals to close after one week

vetoed by the administrators
Slightly different version put into effect by the proprietor
Alright, hear me out.

Recently, a proposal has passed, making all proposals last for 2 weeks instead of 1. Though I was opposed to this change, I can definitely now see the benefit of giving proposals more discussion time. However, not all proposals need that extra week. Some proposals leave zero room for discussion, because everyone already agrees with the proposer. So the proposal just sits for another week and the outcome obviously isn't going to change. I propose to introduce a rule that would close proposals with high participation and unanimous consensus after one week, like it was before that. Let me explain:

1. If a proposal has 10+ votes with no opposition or 12+ votes with 1 oppose vote by the end of the first week, it passes.
2. Same applies to proposals with unanimous opposition, 12+ oppose votes with only 1 support vote (that being of proposer, or 10 if the proposer didn't vote) closes a proposal at the end of the first week.
3. If this condition isn't met, a proposal runs for two weeks as expected, even if it gets 10 votes after one week. In short, the proposal only has one opportunity to get closed early: at the end of the first week.
   Proposals with more than two options also abide by this rule, though they're very unlikely to ever close early. Though it can happen! If the proposal has multiple options, it probably needs more discussion time anyway, so I decided not to touch those at the moment.
4. If the proposal has an ongoing discussion in the comments section or the proposal may for any other reason benefit from running for two weeks to generate more discussion (e.g. writing guidelines, wiki policy changes, etc.), both the proposer and the admin team have the right to add the "Do not close early" tag below the deadline (they then need to state their reasoning for doing so in the comments). This will ensure proposals with unanimous support that need that extra week of time can still get it.
5. When closing the proposal early, the deadline needs to be crossed out and "Closed early on ..." needs to be added instead:

Deadline: November 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT

This rule will not apply to talk page proposals

I believe this change to be a good compromise between giving proposals more discussion time and eliminating proposals that can do without it.

Proposer: Axii (talk)
Deadline: November 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Axii (talk) This can be a good compromise
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Altendo (talk) Why drag on proposals that already have anonymous support? Per proposal.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense to us! We are a little on-the-fence about the exact thresholds, but this is definitely a pretty elegant system to help unanimous proposals pass sooner, and given it has only one method to proc, it leaves it pretty shenanigan-proof.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Sounds good!
6. EvieMaybe (talk) per!
7. Killer Moth (talk) Sounds like a good idea. Per proposal.
8. OmegaRuby (talk) An idea I and others brought up in the initial proposal that made proposals two weeks long. Yes!

Comments

Would this also apply to talk page proposals? Never mind, I can't read. I do think this could apply to TPPs though. What's your reasoning for it not? Technetium (talk) 14:09, November 13, 2024 (EST)

Talk page proposals just aren't as visible to the community as mainspace proposals are, so I believe they should still last for two weeks regardless. They also do not clutter the proposals page. I may consider adding it as a third option. Axii (talk) 14:13, November 13, 2024 (EST)

Axil, I think it's a better idea to replace a direct URL ([https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Revise_how_long_proposals_take:_.22IT.27S_ABOUT_.28how_much.29_TIME_.28they_take.29.22 proposal]) to a direct wikilink ([[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"|proposal]]) so that it removes bytes on the archive page and doesn't always open a new window when clicked. Just my recommendation, though.

Also, what happens with proposals that somehow retain the aspect ratio of at least 12 to 1 (like 25 support votes to 2 oppose votes)? I feel like the case for closing proposals after one week with oppose votes should be changed to a ratio of at least 12 to 1, not at least 12 support votes and only 1 oppose vote. Altendo 15:07, November 13, 2024 (EST)

I think clause 2 needs to explicitly account for proposals where the proposer does not vote in support of their own proposal. It's not the least common thing in the world, after all — and if we miss it, we could have people retracting their solitary vote to buy more time, which would not be an intended feature of this. Ahemtoday (talk) 02:59, November 14, 2024 (EST)

This proposal only considers two-option proposals. We could adapt rules 1 and 2 to take into account any proposal, regardless of the number of voting options: "A proposal must meet these criteria to be closed early: the first place option must have at least 10 votes and at least 92% approval, and the second place option must have at most one vote". This is equivalent to rules 1 and 2 for two-option proposals (though I don't quite understand what would happen in rule 2 if the only support vote is from a user who is not the proposer), and it would work well with {{proposal check}}. Jdtendo^(T|C) 08:00, November 21, 2024 (EST)

It is too late to modify the proposal now, though I like your idea. Axii (talk) 08:36, November 21, 2024 (EST)

Since there is support for an early close rule, I'm going to add one, but I'm canceling this proposal since I want it to be a little different than what's proposed. 1) It should be applicable to all proposals regardless of the number of options. 2) Let's go with a margin of 8 or more votes with at least 80% approval. It's a little more lenient, but given that up until recently many big proposals ended after a week with much closer margins, I don't think we should shy away from closing heavy-consensus proposals after a week. This will further help to reduce clutter and process our proposals more efficiently where it is reasonable to do so. 3) Let's leave the "Do not close early" stuff up to wiki staff only. Allowing proposers to use it when their proposal is failing but there is no real hope would enable them to drag things out and defeat the whole point of having this rule. This is all about retaining the benefits of both two-week and one-week proposals simultaneously: Heavy-consensus proposals simply become one-week proposals, and for that not to happen should be a somewhat rare staff decision. 4) Even though I was unsure about making all proposals two weeks, one thing that I do like about the change is that there are fewer arbitrary differences between proposals and TPPs. In that spirit, this rule should apply to TPPs as well. If it's a good rule, then I think it's a good rule for both. I'm not concerned about TPP visibility because the required vote margin handles that: If a TPP falls under the radar, then it will fail to get the number of votes needed in a week. But if it is able to get the required votes, then it must have been visible enough to do so. 5) The #5 part about noting the early close in the archive sounds good. 6) I also need to reduce the proposal editing timeframe of six days since now that it's possible for a proposal to conclude after seven days, there needs to be a larger window than one day between the editing cutoff and a proposal's potential closure to ensure that people have enough time to be made aware of any edits and adjust their vote if needed. Let's try four days. 7) We will monitor and make further adjustments if needed. Thank you --Steve (talk) 16:28, November 21, 2024 (EST)

Would this change apply to currently ongoing proposals? Axii (talk) 01:21, November 22, 2024 (EST)

I think it already does. Altendo 09:43, November 22, 2024 (EST)

Move "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to "Peach" and "Daisy"

Do not move 15-11-19
Earlier this year, I made a proposal suggesting that the article "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy". That proposal was rejected, with one of the main reasons being that people were concerned about the inconsistency this would cause with Princess Peach. Since then, another similar proposal has passed that suggested moving the Koopaling articles to just their first names. So, I would like to suggest once again that I think "Princess Daisy" should be moved to "Daisy", except that this time I'm also including the option to move "Princess Peach" to "Peach".

This proposal is not suggesting that we stop using these titles for these characters completely. We should continue to do as we have done: use whatever name is used in a specific work when talking about a character's appearance in that work. I am only suggesting that the articles themselves be moved to "Peach" and "Daisy", which I believe to be their primary names.

The case for moving Daisy's article

You can read my full argument for Daisy in my previous proposal about this subject, so I'll be brief here. My key point is that Daisy has never been called Princess Daisy in any game as her primary English name. It's certainly not an unofficial title by any means, but she is and always has been called "Daisy", with no honorific, considerably more often and more prominently than her full title.

The case for moving Peach's article

The case for Peach is much weaker than the case for Daisy. Unlike Daisy, Peach is actually called by her full title in-game as her primary English name sometimes. In fact, as was pointed out in the comments of the previous proposal, Nintendo has on occasion used the names "Princess Peach" (with the honorific) and "Daisy" (without) together.

Nonetheless, her highness is called "Peach" in-game considerably more often than "Princess Peach". (To be clear, my point is not that she's never called "Princess Peach", just that "Peach" appears to be her primary in-game name, which is what the naming policy recommends.) I believe the strongest example here is Mario Kart Tour, which uses "Peach" despite having no shortage of playable drivers with excessively unweildy names.

Proposer: janMisali (talk)
Deadline: November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Move both princesses

1. JanMisali (talk) First choice, as proposer.
2. Tails777 (talk) Primary choice. Even if Peach uses her title more often, MANY games usually relegate to just calling the princesses by their names without their titles. And since Bowser is also referred to as just "Bowser" over "King Bowser" (a titled name used about as often as Princess Peach), I feel all three can just use their names without titles.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Only choice, per proposal. I was part of the opposition to the previous proposal, but this one fixes the issue I had with it. And anyway, in basically any game where Peach is playable, the thing written under her on the character select is just "Peach", same as Daisy, so this feels like the natural solution.
4. Super Mario RPG (talk) "Princess" is just a title of Peach's name, and most appearances refer to her as simply Peach. The name for "Daisy" is very seldomly preceded by "Princess". Compare to Dr. Mario, where the "Dr." is an inherent part of his name, rather than a full title.
5. Altendo (talk) If we can remove names from Sonic characters, the Koopalings, and even named identifiers like Sir and Admiral, there is no reason to not do this. Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, and the original proposal that spurred this one.
7. LinkTheLefty (talk) Things are headed in this direction, let's rip the bandage off.
8. Arend (talk) I'm more comfortable with removing the "Princess" title from both articles rather than just Daisy's. Yes, Peach is often called "Princess Peach", but I find it comparable to Koopa minions referring to Bowser as "Lord Bowser" or "King Bowser" (or, in the case of game titles such as Super Princess Peach or Princess Peach Showtime, it's comparable to the Super Mario games, which bear this title even if there's no Super Mushrooms to turn Mario into Super Mario).
9. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
10. Hewer (talk) Fine, second choice.
11. Cadrega86 (talk) Per all.
12. Jdtendo (talk) Per all.
13. Blinker (talk) Per proposal.
14. WayslideCool (talk) Per proposal. Consistent with how we've handled this sort of thing in other contexts, would feel weird to make an exception here specifically.
15. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.

#Pseudo (talk) First choice, per proposal. The princess titles for both characters can definitely be seen as their full names, but it seems to occupy a similar space to "King Bowser" in most games.
#EvieMaybe (talk) per Altendo, specifically

Only move Daisy

1. JanMisali (talk) Second choice, as proposer.
2. Pseudo (talk) Second choice, since Daisy has stronger reason to be moved.
3. Tails777 (talk) Secondary choice. Daisy is referred to as "Princess Daisy" far less than Peach is referred to as "Princess Peach", with some modern games still using Peach's title. Daisy is almost always just referred to as "Daisy".
4. Koopa con Carne (talk) per the case being made for Daisy. Games and other media as recent as Princess Peach Showtime and the Mario Movie alternate between naming Peach with and without the honorific, so MarioWiki:Naming cannot enforce one over the other based on recency, frequency, or source priority. None of this can be said about Daisy, however. Some have argued that "Daisy" is chosen for functional purposes within games, i.e. is an attempt to keep the character's name short in areas where you can allocate a piece of text only so much memory--and I'd understand the argument, if it weren't for cases like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)", "Yellow Shy Guy (Explorer)", and "Purple Koopa (Freerunning)" which push that memory limit much further than "Princess Daisy" ever could. I also question why the naming scheme of either character has to remain consistent with the other just for the sake of it; if their patently similar appearance and roles is the sole thrust behind this point of view, what's stopping Rosalina from being moved to "Princess Rosalina", then? That's an official title, too. Better lock in and make the facts readily apparent on the fan encyclopedia.
5. Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. I see the argument for moving Peach as well, but feel more strongly that Daisy should be moved since she's rarely called "Princess Daisy".
6. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.
7. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary choice. We need to do something about Daisy, at least.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne.
9. Cadrega86 (talk) Secondary choice, Daisy is pretty much never referred to as "Princess Daisy" as her primary name.
10. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per Koopa con Carne.
11. UltraMario (talk) Per all. I voted on the other one so that both Princesses could not get changed, but I'm also going to vote this because I agree that Daisy should just be called Daisy, specifically.

Keep both princesses the same

1. SeanWheeler (talk) Stop shortening names! Seriously, I knew this was next after the Koopaling proposal.
2. Mario (talk) I don't think any these moves are great (especially the one where "Shadow the Hedgehog" was shortened, I dislike that one). They greatly hinder searches on the wiki (in Peach's case, it's going to conflict with the fruit), and more people online are going to search "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" to find the character. What these moves are going to do, like with those older name moves (which I am not on board with) is going to have searches rely on redirects. I'm not sure how much SEO and search engine discoverability is going to be impacted (Porple confirmed with me on Discord that it will certainly hinder discoverability on search engines but it's not catastrophic, just something to keep in mind) but I think there is a great reason we chose Chuckster over Pianta Thrower. These are distinct, recognizable names. Don't fix what isn't broken, and the current method of piping and using redirects for the shortened, overlapping names seemed to serve us well enough.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Mario. I don't think focusing in so heavily on the exact places or times the full names vs. the shortened names are used is beneficial if those names are still in frequent use. Some of these make sense (E. Gadd is rarely called Elvin, the Koopalings' full names seem to be mostly phased out these days), but the Sonic proposal was a misstep IMO. Princess Peach is still very commonly used, the average person knows her by that name, I don't see a need to change it. I feel less strongly about Daisy, admittedly.
4. UltraMario (talk) Per all.
5. Pseudo (talk) Upon further thought and seeing Mario and Waluigi Time's votes, I'm inclined to think that moving pages like this is probably not such a wise idea, especially as it hurts searchability. I've removed my original vote for merging both and now consider this my primary one, though I think that moving Daisy would still be alright with me.
6. FanOfYoshi (talk) Yeah, no; per all. We'd need a counterproposal... That Sonic proposal already was a pretty bad enough decision as-is and this... this is no different.
7. MeritC (talk) Per all; first of all, in terms of a fan managed encyclopedia like this, it's still the best route to keep the "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy" article titles for this Wiki, even though certain and recent games like the sports, kart racing, and Mario Party games just address the two as "Peach" and "Daisy" in their names. Plus, in terms of linking their names to the respective articles, we're already making sure that "Peach" links to the "Princess Peach" article and "Daisy" links to the "Princess Daisy" article anyway.
8. Arend (talk) Secondary choice, the current names are fine too.
9. Dwhitney (talk) Per all. Also, Daisy is referred to as Princess Daisy in Mario Tennis Aces.
10. Lakituthequick (talk) Per all, in particular Mario and WT. As for the SEO point, while that certainly does matter (even outside of "corporate" contexts), in this case it's just clearer to denote the princesses with their titles. SEO happens to be a happy by-product of that.
11. SmokedChili (talk) Per all. Since these proposals are made with following the rules in mind, then the obvious alternative is to change the rules. The naming guidelines have nothing about full names and titles, that should be changed so that conditions pertaining to them to allow use of extending their titles based on official material over (identifiers). Let's use Princess Peach as an example. "Princess Peach" was first seen in Yoshi's Safari then later in Mario 64 and here and there ever since. Thus "Princess" is part of Peach and should be kept as "Princess Peach" to distinquish from Peach the fruit. Same with Roy Koopa and Roy from Mario Golf, the latter doesn't really need an identifier if the former is moved back to his full name. On the other hand, I've been also thinking such a policy would have to be restrictive: "Princess Peach Toadstool" wouldn't be legit because it wasn't seen in Yoshi's Safari first, "King Bowser" wouldn't be either for similar reasons, "Boo Diddly" wouldn't count because it's only seen in Mario 3 and its remakes, and Mollusque-Lanceur's full name won't because it comes from a secondary source and its length may be an issue. There's probably a lot more that needs to be figured out, those are just examples that came to my mind.
12. MCD (talk) Per all.
13. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
14. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
15. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. And don't move my username to just Sophie.
16. DesaMatt (talk) Per all, but not strongly.
17. Shoey (talk) Per all
18. PnnyCrygr (talk) Per all. Removing the princess prefix could confuse them for the actual fruit and the actual flower, respectively. We have also an article about the LM ghost knows as Daisy. The "Peach Blossom" move involves Peach summoning literal Peaches, to give an example. Better to keep them "Princess Peach" and "Princess Daisy".
19. Ray Trace (talk) I really want to move Sonic back to Sonic the Hedgehog and Shadow the Hedgehog.

#EvieMaybe (talk) per Waluigi Time

Princess Comments, Peach

@SeanWheeler: Why is shortening names a bad thing? If the shortened name is the more current title of a character or game, shouldn't the article be moved to the more current title? The length of the titles of the characters is not the main issue here; it's how current those titles are. Mari0fan100 (talk) 20:41, November 9, 2024 (EST)

@Mario: Given "Peach" and "Daisy" are very commonly used names, and also shorter (thus easier to type), I can't imagine it being that bad for searches. The shortened names are also "distinct, recognizable names", and the ones Nintendo is fine to use for the characters (as well as what I usually hear fans call them), so why shouldn't we follow suit (especially given all the other renaming proposals, some of which, e.g. Bobbery and TEC, had literally no opposition)?
@Waluigi Time: I would argue Princess Daisy isn't really "still in frequent use". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:13, November 10, 2024 (EST)

I think if I wanted to look up the Mario character named "Daisy" in Google, I would use "Princess Daisy" to try to get more results that aren't daisies. Mario's popular, but not the center of all reality. (Though a company selling BB guns somehow beats out the plant.) Google suggests I may also want to use "Daisy mario". Bobbery is unique enough to be the main topic of that name. TEC has technology companies beat out the character unless "TEC-XX" is used.

Super Mario Wiki appears to be far enough ahead in results that if Google recognizes the search is for a character this site is first up, even in cases like Bobbery, TEC, and Ludwig. But I'm no search engineer, so I don't know if changing the article names can impact this.Salmancer (talk) 06:29, November 10, 2024 (EST)

I was more referring to searches on the wiki itself. Google searches shouldn't really be what determines page names in my opinion, or we'd have a good case to move Pauline to "Mayor Pauline" (or to add "mario" in brackets to a ton of article titles). Either way, I feel like having to search "daisy mario" instead of "princess daisy" (as I imagine many people already do) isn't that big a deal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:44, November 10, 2024 (EST)

As I alluded to, my reasoning mostly concerns Peach, but I don't really want to put my official support behind a Daisy move either, which is why I chose that option. IMO, external searchability absolutely should be something taken into consideration when it's relevant, but not the deciding factor. At the end of the day, a wiki is here for its readers, so let's not make it needlessly harder on them to find things if we can help it. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:56, November 10, 2024 (EST)

I'd think using the name the character most commonly goes by would make it more intuitive to find. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:15, November 10, 2024 (EST)

I'm not convinced that switching to a shorter name has any negative influence on external searchability regardless of if that should be a priority or not. We're still on the front page of Google results for "Shadow the Hedgehog wiki", and the only results that come up before our "Shadow (character)" article are from Wikipedia and dedicated Sonic wikis. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 13:51, November 10, 2024 (EST)

I don't understand why the topic of SEO is still part of the debate. It's a misplaced priority. This site is a community-run educational resource, not a corporate product that you're incentivized to optimize every little aspect of in the name of clicks. Look at Fandom--outwardly, it provides the former, but it's also an ad-ridden hellhole artificially planted on the front page of Google results with no regard to the quality or accuracy of the content herein. I'm questioning whether it's worth compromising accuracy so the wiki could compete with such actors. Not to say this site would exist without traffic and participation at all, every project needs funding and other manners of support, but, like
guys,
This is the biggest resource on the Internet for the most popular video game franchise on the planet.
Do you really believe losing 0.005% of total searches because Glup Shitto got renamed to the less popular but more accurate "Shart Faqeer" is such a big deal in the grand scheme of things? -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:33, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 10:55, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I think "corporate product" is a bit of a misread. Rather, there is little value in maintaining an encyclopedia that people cannot find. I do not know if it impacts this particular case (i.e. when I last searched "wendy mario" or "wendy o. koopa" on Google, our article still shows up near or at the top, regardless of name), but I do not think it is invalid to keep in mind.

I think it is worth keeping in mind that the Super Mario Wiki has different goals than a character-selection screen or a level-selection screen, which typically prefer simple truncated names. New Super Mario Bros. U refers to a boss as "Larry" in one context and as "Larry Koopa" in another. An encyclopedic reference that encompasses many series and subjects may similarly best support its information by adopting fuller names with discretion. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:22, November 10, 2024 (EST)

The character select screen name shortening argument has already been addressed: names like "Light-blue Shy Guy (Explorer)" are longer than "Princess Daisy", yet the former is used while the latter is not. Clearly Nintendo just has a preference for the shorter name, so we should too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)

This is not consistent though. On the character-selection screen in Super Mario Bros. Wonder, you can select "Light-Blue Yoshi." The standees for this character's name is truncated as "L. Blue Yoshi." The Star Fox protagonist goes by "Fox" on the character-selection screen for the Super Smash Bros. titles, but goes by "Fox McCloud" on the costume list for Super Mario Maker. Our pink princess character goes by "Princess Peach" on the box for her standalone game, and simply as "Peach" in the game itself. Is it invalid to suggest whether a character goes by a truncated or full name is really context dependent, and less about the phasing out of monikers or surnames for certain characters? If the former, is Super Mario Wiki inherently not the platform where full names would be helpful? And if it is not, why? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:07, November 10, 2024 (EST)

The length of a character's name can undoubtedly be subject to technical limitations in a game. I personally just don't think this is necessarily the case with Daisy's name as of today, and my view is that the wiki should be observing what the most current official consensus on those names is. The standees in Wonder are a highly particular instance of name rendering even within the game; the character selection screen otherwise uses "Light-Blue Yoshi" and "Daisy" simultaneously, and I'd hazard a guess that players are more likely to make better note of those than how they are rendered in the standee menu. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:41, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:50, November 10, 2024 (EST)

As people have related in this discussion, Mario Wiki tends to be pushed forward in Google results for a Mario character. It is decidedly not an encyclopedia people cannot find. Porplemontage can probably conjure some projections, he has the data for this sort of thing after all, but I'm confident given the wiki's size and popularity that Mario Wiki will remain in the top search results for "peach mario" and "daisy mario" whether the characters retain or lose their mantle titles. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:04, November 10, 2024 (EST), edited 19:12, November 10, 2024 (EST)

@JanMisali Same with googling "shadow sonic wiki". Even just "shadow wiki" still brings up his Mario Wiki article on the second page on my end, which is pretty impressing considering the breadth of coverage either of the words "shadow" and "wiki" have on the Internet. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:48, November 10, 2024 (EST)

@MeritC: "We'd have to change links" is never a good argument. If this passes, a bot will take care of fixing all the links. That's how we were able to rename the "Super Mario (franchise)" page, probably one of the most linked to pages on the entire wiki, with no issue. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:59, November 10, 2024 (EST)

@Dwhitney Where in Mario Tennis Aces is the name "Princess Daisy" used? I can't find any evidence of her being called anything but "Daisy" in that game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:27, November 11, 2024 (EST)

It's right there in the beginning of the story mode. This video, around the 5:15 time mark. rend (talk) (edits) 11:19, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Ah, missed that. Thanks! But regardless, it's definitely not her primary name in that game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:25, November 11, 2024 (EST)

It should also be noted that the Super Mario Land manual consistently refers to Daisy as "Princess Daisy" in the story section and gameplay section; the character section is the only place in the manual where she's referred to as just "Daisy" (plus mistakenly calling her "Daisy Princess" as well). The manual of Mario Kart: Double Dash refers to her as "Princess Daisy" once, too. I get that these aren't exactly "in-game" materials, but that should put "Princess Daisy" on the same level as the Koopalings' full names.
Do Super Smash Bros. games count too, btw? Palutena has referred to her as "Princess Daisy". rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I mentioned Smash Bros. in my previous proposal about this. She's called Daisy everywhere else in that game, including elsewhere in that same Palutena's Guidance conversation. But yes, I agree that "Princess Daisy" is a name used on the same level as the full names of the Koopalings, and I think we should use it the same way we use the Koopalings' full names (ie. not in the article title). jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:25, November 11, 2024 (EST)

@SmokedChili: There is no universe where peach the fruit that made minor appearances in five games could get naming priority on this wiki over Peach the major character with hundreds of appearances. That's why Peach already redirects to the character, and Peach (fruit) already has an identifier - shortening the name wouldn't change that. The same goes for Roy - the Mario Tennis character always had an identifier for years before Roy Koopa's name was shortened, because the former is significantly less prominent and less likely to be what people searching "Roy" are looking for. (Also, Mollusque-Lanceur's full name recently appeared in Nintendo Music, which I don't think is a "secondary source", and length wouldn't be an issue.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Why would the fruit need an identifier if Peach being in the "Princess Peach" page frees up the "Peach" page? And why use conveniences this wiki made up over what's found in official material? Wiki-made identifiers should thus be used as sparingly as possible. And my argument for Mollusque-Lanceur is that by using naming priority, since his short name comes from the in-game music player while his full name comes from the Prima guide, the latter shouldn't be qualified for use as a page title even if it comes up later. SmokedChili (talk) 13:13, November 14, 2024 (EST)

The reason "Peach (fruit)" needs an identifier is that a user who goes to www.mariowiki.com and types "Peach" into the search bar is more likely to be looking for information about one of the main characters of the Super Mario franchise than the fruit. It's the same reason Mario 1 (level) needs an identifier. Even if the thing it's disambiguating itself from isn't the name the wiki actually uses for that subject, one subject is simply so much more notable than the other that we choose to disambiguate other articles from even its unofficial names. This is a strictly positive thing for the user experience of anyone using this wiki, and I strongly disagree with the implication that we should stop considering "which subject is a user who searches for this term on this wiki more likely to be looking for?" to be a priority. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 14:25, November 14, 2024 (EST)

The difference is that Mario 1 (level) references SMB (and even then adding an identifier sounds like an overreaction) while Peach got her name from the fruit. Your assumption also ignores the possibility that readers may know about peach fruits and/or call Peach "Princess Peach" in their heads regardless of how formal the source is, so the search result argument wouldn't be as reliable because how many actually search for "Peach" over "Princess Peach" when they want the character? SmokedChili (talk) 04:55, November 17, 2024 (EST)

I think you're missing the point of identifiers and redirects a bit. Plenty of people would search "Peach" instead of "Princess Peach" (after all, it's shorter so easier to type), and I can't imagine the positives could outweigh the negatives of making it not redirect to the obviously more likely intended result. It would just harm the wiki's usability. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:11, November 17, 2024 (EST)

@SmokedChili Peach is not called "Princess Peach" at any point in Super Mario 64. She is called "Princess Toadstool", "Peach", "the Princess", and "Princess Toadstool, Peach". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 12:48, November 11, 2024 (EST)

For clarity, this is not true. According to our own article Toad says "Hold on to your hat! If you lose it, you’ll be easily injured. If you lose it, look for the course where you lost it. Speaking of lost, Princess Peach is still stuck in the walls somewhere. Please help, Mario! Oh, you know there are secret worlds in the walls as well as in the paintings, right?" And in Super Mario 64 DS, the narrator also refers to her as "Princess Peach." People should do with that what they will. "Peach" is still more commonly used in the game, but it is not in isolation from "Princess Peach." - Nintendo101 (talk)

That article contains a mix of quotes from both Super Mario 64 and Super Mario 64 DS. The corresponding Ukikipedia article, which has a direct textdump of the raw text files from the Nintendo 64 game, has the original dialogue and does not contain the name "Princess Peach". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 14:40, November 14, 2024 (EST)

We should most certainly revise our naming conventions, since it's warranting proposals for every character to be moved to just their first names. And now that we have the Sonic restaurant, the hedgehog should definitely get his full name back. And with Shadow and Big, their full names would be better page titles than identifiers. And after opposing the proposal to add identifiers to similarly named pages, I might advocate for Peach (fruit) to get it's identifier removed just for the princess to keep her title. That page already has the {{About}} template linking to the princess anyway. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:52, November 13, 2024 (EST)

Are you suggesting that someone who types "Peach" into the search bar on mariowiki.com and presses enter is more likely to be looking for the fruit than the character? jan Misali (talk · contributions) 00:29, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Sonic Drive-In also changes nothing, it's called Sonic Drive-In and not just Sonic. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:53, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Alright, whose responsible this? Still, it's not like "Princess Peach" completely disappeared after being seen in Yoshi's Safari first. SmokedChili (talk) 13:16, November 14, 2024 (EST)

@LadySophie17 To be clear, the purpose of this proposal is not simply a preference for shorter names. I wrote the proposal to move our article about The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens to her full title for the same reason I think it makes sense for our article about Daisy to be moved to "Daisy". We should prioritize the most common current primary name of a subject regardless of if that's a shorter name than their most formal full name or a longer name than what most fans would rather call them. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 14:07, November 14, 2024 (EST)

I'm aware. My comment was a just a cheeky remark at the fact that simply "Sophie" is the most common current primary name of the subject that is me. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 14:19, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Joke's on you, I'm writing a proposal for your name as we speak. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:23, November 14, 2024 (EST)

@PnnyCrygr We don't have an article about Daisy from Luigi's Mansion 2. That character is covered in a subsection of a longer article. Lower on this very page there is currently a proposal that has literally no opposition that's suggesting that it's unnecessary to use the title to disambiguate between a subject that has an article and a subject that only has a subsection of an article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 08:51, November 16, 2024 (EST)

Thanks for the heads-up. Now I remember.  ^P_nn^yC_ryg^r  09:07, November 16, 2024 (EST)

Where did the "Drive-In" part of the name come from? The logo only has the word "Sonic" and every commercial I've seen simply called it Sonic. At least with Sonic the Hedgehog, his full name has been the title of many games and media, and he was called such quite frequently in his franchise. Sonic Drive-In is just advertised as Sonic. I only saw that full name as a wiki page title. If a crossover character has the same common name as a restuarant, who gets the short name? SeanWheeler (talk) 20:47, November 17, 2024 (EST)

The character? This is a problem this wiki has already solved. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 21:39, November 17, 2024 (EST)

How had the wiki already solved that problem? By the fact that Sonic the Hedgehog was already moved to Sonic by the time the Sonic Drive-In got an article? Considering the Sonic Drive-In article is about Sonic's promotion of Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam in 2016, it was created eight years late. SeanWheeler (talk) 16:38, November 18, 2024 (EST)

The way the wiki solved the problem is that "Sonic" is the article about the character (and in fact already redirected to the article about the character before it was moved) and "Sonic Drive-In" is the article about the restaurant. Unless you're suggesting that we should change this (and I legitimately cannot think of a single good reason why we would), there isn't really anything else to say about the matter. That just factually is the solution that is currently in place to the problem being asked about. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 17:29, November 18, 2024 (EST)

Why do you bring up the Sonic Drive-In page being "eight years late" like it's relevant? Sonic the character was relevant to the Mario franchise years before Sonic the restaurant anyway. The idea that the character can't be called just "Sonic" despite generally being called that in his several Mario appearances but the restaurant that has an article because of one promotion in 2016 must be called just "Sonic" sounds biased to me. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:04, November 18, 2024 (EST)

Well, with the proposal to rename the princesses by their shorter more common referred names failing, it would be good to rethink some of the earlier renaming proposals. Especially the one about the crossover characters being moved, because I feel like a lot of these characters would lose their identity without their full names here, a few of them like Shadow got the unnecessary "(character)" identifier, because Shadow is a Super Mario RPG enemy, and there are still other users wanting to overturn that proposal. And if Zelda were to get her article back, I would want it to be consistent with Peach and Daisy. I do want to overturn that proposal that put the Smash characters on list pages, because I am not a fan of having articles stacked together as a list like we did with the Banjo and Conker series pages long ago, the sections for Mario characters and characters who made more Mario appearances linking to their own pages making those pages even less about the franchise we're about, and because of the amiibo having them appear in Super Mario Maker and other games. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:37, November 19, 2024 (EST)

And yet proposals like this, that, and the other passed with no opposition. Not sure how the Smash list pages are relevant, but the point of them is to cover the fighters not relevant enough to Mario for their own pages, so naturally they'll be some of the less Mario-relevant pages. If your problem is them not being relevant to Mario, I don't see how splitting all the characters back out will help. At this point I feel like outright deletion is probably the more likely eventual fate of those list pages, to be honest. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:54, November 20, 2024 (EST)

Those list pages for the fighters aren't just covering Smash, but other appearances they had with Mario such as Super Mario Maker. Pit has so many Mario appearances that I'm wondering why he's on the Brawl list instead of getting his own article. The fighters who didn't appear with Mario outside of Smash would definitely be deleted, unless the majority votes to keep all of them. But I'm voting to split the ones with Mario cameos and delete the rest. SeanWheeler (talk) 20:16, November 20, 2024 (EST)

Those cameos are not notable enough to warrant their own articles, though. You're suggesting that being in Smash doesn't automatically make a character relevant to Mario, but also that being in Smash is what makes a character whose other appearances are a few cameos worthy of an article. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:44, November 21, 2024 (EST)

What to do with Steve and Ike

Remove identifiers 10-0
Despite that now the Smash Bros. characters don't get their own articles but instead grouped into lists by game, the actual Mario characters that have the same name as Smash fighters (being Steve from NES Open Tournament Golf and Ike from The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!) don't have their identifiers removed. This has been brought up before, however no actions have been taken. I think there is some good points to these identifiers being removed.

• Roy, Alex and Zombie don't have identifiers despite also sharing names with Smash Bros. characters.
• If a casual user wanted to find information on Steve from Minecraft, they'd go to the Minecraft Wiki. If they wanted more detailed information for Steve in Smash, they'd go to the Smash Bros. Wiki, not here.
• This could easily be distinguished with the "about" template.

With these points, I really don't see any reason for these identifiers. They're pointless if anything. This is a Mario wiki. Mario elements should take priority over things we don't fully cover anymore.

Proposer: Starluxe (talk)
Deadline: November 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on November 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Starluxe (talk) Per proposal!
2. EvieMaybe (talk) i feel some ways about the level of coverage we give Smash stuff. per proposal
3. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Very straightforward update to these article names given the merging.
5. UltraMario (talk) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us. Per proposal.
7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
8. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
10. BMfan08 (talk) Per all.

Do not surround song titles with quotes

Continue using quotation marks 4-2-8
This is a change to this section of our Manual of Style. Currently, our policy is to surround song titles with quotation marks whenever they appear. However. We are a Mario wiki, and the Mario series overwhelmingly does not do this.

The comparison arises to italics, but I feel there's quite a difference between that (an effect applied to text) and the inclusion of punctuation marks, which are text in and of themselves. Not to mention, unlike italics, which would require special programming to implement, quote marks are supported by anything that supports English text, meaning it's not a question of technical limitations — every game that names its songs is perfectly capable of listing them inside quotation marks, and yet they make the choice not to.

As such, surrounding song titles in quotes is questionable as adherence to an unofficial naming scheme over the original one. Not to mention the effects this can have on lists of song titles — their inclusion on Template:DDRMM fluffs up the width of the song section by the width of several song titles.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to mention how inconsistently these quote marks are applied across the wiki already — many entries in Category:Music do not use them in their article, none of the lists of songs from the shows or of WarioWare DIY records use them, Starring Wario! and only Starring Wario has had its article title changed to have the quotes. I take this to mean the rule is not serving the wiki as it stands.

The one exception to everything I've mentioned thus far is Paper Mario: The Origami King's music discs: "Deep, Deep Vibes", "Heartbeat Skipper", "M-A-X Power!", and "Thrills at Night". These are the only time the names of songs are formatted this way (possibly due to the items being CDs of the songs and not the songs themselves). Therefore, these will be the only exception if this proposal passes, and will keep their quote marks.

To circle back around to my original point: I think the nail in the coffin for displaying music this way is Nintendo Music. This application, specifically meant to play music, does not surround their names with quote marks. And yet this article surrounds them in quotes anyway, stringently adhering to our unofficial way of formatting these over the way Nintendo Music actually formats them. It's almost lying, frankly.

So, our options:

• Option 1: Exclude quote marks from song titles in all cases. Our manual of style will remove the mention of song titles from the section of italicizing titles. Just for clarity, this excludes Origami King's CDs.
• Option 2: Keep quote marks when song titles are used in a sentence, but exclude them from standalone appearances of the title. Such standalone appearances would include article titles, navboxes, infoboxes, track listings, and table entries. Just for clarity, this option, too, excludes Origami King's CDs.
• Option 3: Do nothing. I guess this option includes Origami King's CDs.

Proposer:: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. Ahemtoday (talk) My primary choice. I've firmly laid out my reasons why here.
2. Jdtendo (talk) I prefer to think of each music as a work in its own right rather than a part of some "greater whole". Jump Up, Super Star! is more than just a piece of Super Mario Odyssey's OST. Therefore, song titles should be italicized like any other work and not be in quotation marks as if they were merely chapters.
3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, and there's precedent for following Nintendo's official formatting in spite of usual conventions. The inconsistencies described in the proposal ought to be fixed regardless of the outcome, though.
4. Biggestman (talk) While I to a degree understand the entire thing with the songs simply being a part of a greater thing, that isn't really fair when I would make an argument some of these songs are a larger part of the series' history than those "greater" things. For example music from Yoshi's Story is still used relatively often to this very day, but Yoshi's Story as a whole is just kinda there. Per all, too.

Option 2

1. Ahemtoday (talk) I will settle for this — part of my ire toward the quotemarks is that I find them highly unsuitable for these particular usages.
2. Nintendo101 (talk) Secondary option, per my comment below in Option 3.

Option 3

1. Nintendo101 (talk) The purpose of the quotation marks is to quickly convey to the reader that a "named subject" is part of a greater whole (that is italicized), and/or what type of subject it is in the context of where it is discussed in an article. For music, that whole is typically an album or CD (or in this case, a video game), but it is not exclusively used for musical pieces. For example, "Chicken Man" is the fourteenth chapter in The Color of Water. "The Green Glow" is the seventh episode in season one of Resident Alien. One of the benefits of doing this is that music, chapters, episodes, etc. sometimes share the same exact name as the whole they are a part of, or something related in the whole (like the name of a character or place), and discrete formatting mitigates confusion for readers. This is readily valuable for many pieces in the Super Mario franchise, because most of them are given utilitarian names. Wouldn't it be valuable for readers to just recognize that "Gusty Garden Galaxy" (with quotation marks) is a musical piece and Gusty Garden Galaxy is a level? Because that is what the quotation marks are for. I think it is a good and helpful tool, one that is used almost everywhere else when discussing music, and more would be lost than gained if we did away with it.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) per N101. quotation marks are a writing convention! most mario games also don't have italic titles, but we italicize them anyways because it's a formal writing convention that makes sense
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Strong oppose, per all. This is a well-recognized writing convention, the fact that Nintendo doesn't typically follow it within their products is irrelevant.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. These quotes are here for a reason, no matter how remote it may seem.
5. Ray Trace (talk) Quoting songs is from the manual of style itself, it's the same reason we italicize game titles. I would go even further and quote song titles as a display title like I did in "Starring Wario!"
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
7. Axii (talk) Per all.
8. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "Because game writing" is what leads to wikis encouraging jokey sarcastic writing, which I'm pretty sure is not the direction we want to go.

Comments

If this passes, how would it affect coverage of non-Mario music? Our only options are either to have two standards, or ignore established convention based on what Nintendo does for media they had no hand in actually producing. Neither seems ideal to me. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 20:24, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We'd treat non-Mario music the same as Mario music. Established convention doesn't mean much when we're always saying on this page that we're not other wikis and we don't necessarily need to do things the way other wikis do them. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I don't think anyone is advocating to hold onto a convention just for the sake of it. Rather, that we should hold onto the convention because it is useful and the proposal doesn't provide persuasive reasons to abandon that usage, or at least it does not for me. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

In addition, I wouldn't use applications such as Nintendo Music as proof that we shouldn't abide by formatting either. Neither music metadata nor files themselves quote song names, neither does Spotify nor Amazon Music. Yet Wikipedia still does because that's how it's standardized in writing articles. In addition, you pointed out how "Starring Wario!" is the outlier as your point, I've only just started working on those articles mate. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:01, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Even Wikipedia doesn't use the quotes in article titles though. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:17, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I would support an option that called for just removing the quotation marks in the header for articles (as done here, which should be compared to here). This is not uncommon in written books on music. But there currently is no voting option to do just that. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, November 11, 2024 (EST)

@Ray Trace I'm aware it's in the manual of style. That's why the proposal is about changing the manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 08:01, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm not talking about the wiki's manual style. I'm talking about general guidelines especially MLA Ray Trace^(T|C) 15:41, November 11, 2024 (EST)

If it's not our manual of style, then there's no reason for us to care about it because we don't use it. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:04, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Our manual of style is based on this manual of style. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:11, November 11, 2024 (EST)

If it's only based on it, then it isn't it. The manual of style is ours, so this quote mark convention has to survive on its own merits, not just by virtue of being in someone else's manual of style. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:22, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Not using general formatting standard guidelines solely because "we shouldn't just because we're not them" is not a good argument. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Well, then — Nintendo doesn't do this either, so there's no reason for this wiki to pretend like they do. That's been my argument this whole time. Ahemtoday (talk) 18:35, November 11, 2024 (EST)

The main difference is that they're a video game, and they're inherently informal in their presentation. They're not trying to write things and bios formally, they're trying to present writing to players, so formatting like italicizing game titles is optional, because that's what it's set out to do. On the other hand, we're an encyclopedia, our writing formatting is far more similar to Wikipedia which observes these things and MLA writing guidelines, and how to format sourcing, and it's something we should emulate over a video game's script. Ray Trace^(T|C) 18:47, November 11, 2024 (EST)

@Ahemtoday I don't think that is the strong argument you think it is, because almost no piece of media where it has become conventional to include quotation marks include them themselves. They are not on the back of most albums, books, or title cards for television shows. But they are all still presented with quotes arounf them in reference material like Wikipedia and physical books. What makes the Nintendo music we cover here so different that warrants unique treatment? - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:53, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Nintendo doesn't always italicize game titles either, this site does. To be honest, though, I'm not sure how consistently this wiki observes MLA. There's some superficial basis in it (mostly coming off of Wikipedia's style guide, which is sprinkled with some MLA), what with the titles of whole works being written in italics and those of constituent parts of a work being surrounded by quotes, yet the manner in which citations are formatted, arguably a priority of any academic style guide, seems rather peculiar to Wikipedia's house style. Take any citation formatted using the {{cite}} template on this wiki and compare it to how MLA proposes it is done (owl.purdue.edu). There's also been at least one attempt at explicitly adopting a standard purveyed by MLA that got shot down. Not to digress too much, I just wanted to point out that MLA is not currently as pervasive here as it's made out to be and can't be appealed to solely because of a few instances that (happen to) observe it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:20, November 11, 2024 (EST), edited 19:24, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I am personally forgiving on how we structure citations in that template, because many academic journals don't adopt the MLA structure either. Everyone does something a little different from one another. The information included in a citation is more important than how it is organized, and things like ISBN are pretty helpful for an online reference like Super Mario Wiki.

But I also don't believe in supporting conventions just for the sake of them being conventions. I'd rather support them if they are beneficial. What are your thoughts on what I said in my vote above? - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:33, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I cannot argue with your vote. If a writing standard promoted by outside guides can harmonize with the needs of Mario Wiki, there's no reason not to adopt it. Quotation marks serve their purpose well in this case. so if it ain't broke, don't fix it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:10, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Cool! I was just curious. I value your perspective. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:14, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I'm realizing I haven't given my full thoughts on @Nintendo101's vote yet. I agree that there are benefits to formatting song titles in this way (particularly in sentences, which is why I have the option to keep the quote marks exclusively in sentences) — but this formatting scheme misrepresents how the actual works in question are referred to by official media. I had to ask a friend who had Nintendo Music to find out whether or not the app displayed song titles in quotes, because I couldn't trust this wiki to tell me — and, like I said, Nintendo Music doesn't. Yet this article writes the song names as if it does, because apparently this convention is more important than this kind of information. I know this is a minor piece of information, but this formatting convention causes me to be unable to trust the wiki about it. No benefit can counterbalance that. Ahemtoday (talk) 20:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

I am sorry that you felt mislead, but are you sure it is not because you were unfamiliar with this being a convention for music pieces in the first place? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:12, November 12, 2024 (EST)

I was well familiar with the convention and how this wiki used it at the time, which is why I knew to ask a friend instead of taking the wiki's word for it. I take such a hardline stance against it not because this untrustworthiness has personally wronged me, but because untrustworthiness is a failure of the wiki on principle. Ahemtoday (talk) 00:02, November 13, 2024 (EST)

I am sorry, I was not referring to Super Mario Wiki in isolation. I was referring to the convention at large. In books and articles on music, regardless of topic, individual pieces are placed within quotation marks. I know I myself first learned one is supposed to put quotation marks around music titles while I was taking English class in middle school. So while I am sympathetic that this bothered you, I do not agree it is misleading. Maybe the issue lies with folks who do not have a lot of experience reading or writing about music. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:05, November 13, 2024 (EST)

Whether or not readers are familiar with the convention doesn't change the fact that the convention is not reflective of what is being talked about. The only reason wiki readers know "Thrills at Night" and its ilk are actually surrounded in quotes officially is because we haven't been thorough in applying this convention. If we did, then the distinction would vanish completely, because the wiki currently considers adhering to this guideline more important than this kind of information. You can't pin that on readers being unfamiliar. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:17, November 13, 2024 (EST)

I have contacted the director of the Purdue OWL at Purdue University to ask them how one should cite music tracks that already has quotation marks rendered in their name. However, to be honest, I am still not really sure what the issue here is. How are the quotation marks any different from italicization of video games and albums? The name Paper Mario: The Origami King is not displayed anywhere in Nintendo's official material italicized, but we do it for the same reasons one puts quotation marks around music tracks - because it is a useful MLA convention. For music, it is unclear to me on what is being miscommunicated or lost when they are accurately displayed between quotation marks, especially since articles for "Thrills at Night" and other tracks are accompanied with screenshots that show how they are rendered in-game. Is this not sufficient? - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)

It is not sufficient. To begin with, not every use of song titles is accompanied by images showing that the music titles are formatted without quotes — the majority of articles in Category:Sound tests do not have such images. (Not to mention that to use these images to establish the formatting of every song title in a given game would require a comically excessive amount of images.) Furthermore, even if they did, this information would be entirely invisible to users of screen readers, raising accessibility concerns. This information can't be conveyed by images alone. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:14, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Couldn't it just be clarified in the article itself that a piece of music is displayed with quotations mark around it? It is not a very common thing to do. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:22, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Writing in an explicit note clarifying that this time the article is actually reflective of how the music is referred to officially is a much more convoluted way of going about this compared to just referring to them in the official way to begin with. Ahemtoday (talk) 16:50, November 14, 2024 (EST)

Biggestman: The formatting of quotes in songs aren't discussed from a cultural relevancy angle, they're in context of being part of an album. It's the same reason short poetry gets quotes, but novels get italicized, we'd quote "The Raven" but still italicize The Day My Butt Went Psycho. Ray Trace^(T|C) 21:40, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Create a category for "catch-all articles"

Do not create 1-4
By "catch-all article" (tentative term; please suggest names) I mean those that describe elements that are not related, but share an article because they boil down to the same generic, often real world object. Many of them fit what the guidelines call a "generic subject". Examples of this kind of article are:

• Hook, which includes the object from Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and the hooks on poles from Super Mario Sunshine;
• Lift, which includes the yellow lifts seen in Super Mario games, elevators from Donkey Kong Country, Moving Platforms from Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis, among others, all just basic platforms;
• Bubble, which includes the underwater bubble from Super Mario 64, the player-carrying bubble from New Super Mario Bros. Wii, the Bubble trap from Diddy Kong Racing, among others;
• Banana, which includes the bananas from the Mario Kart series, the bananas from the Donkey Kong Country games, the bananas from Yoshi's Story, among others;
• Heart, which includes the heart item from Super Mario Odyssey, the one from Donkey Kong Country Returns, the one from Dr. Mario World, among others.

They may also boil down to a similar fictional basic concept, which are their own distinct thing, despite all of them taking a similar form:

• ! Block, which includes the red blocks from the Yoshi's Island games games, the block-spawning yellow blocks from Super Mario Maker 2, the ! Block switches from the Wario Land games;
• Poison Mushroom, which includes the mushrooms from Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, the Poison Shroom item from the early Paper Mario games, among others;
• ? Panel, which includes the panels from Super Mario Kart, the ones from Paper Mario: Color Splash, and others.

Compare subjects to which this category would not apply, like ? Block or P-Switch, where every reappearance of the subject is really a deliberate revisitation of a specific concept that already existed.

This category would be applied to articles on concrete subjects only (most of which, if not all, would be objects).

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Bro Hammer (talk) My proposal.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I don't see how such a category would be useful, and I don't like that it's pretty subjective and is based on a trait shared by the articles rather than the objects themselves. Even if there was value in distinguishing these pages, I don't think a category like this is the way to do it.
2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Is History of Mario a catch-all article because it covers both a fictional character and Bob Hoskins? We would have to have that sort of debate for too many articles to count. This is too subjective and doesn't really accomplish anything.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Unnecessary, and the word "generic" alone is unclear whether it goes by the definition of real-life or Super Mario.
4. Arend (talk) Honestly, the inclusion of fictional items like Poison Mushroom, ! Block and ? Panel would make it more confusing for me what a "catch-all article" is supposed to be; if it's supposed to be about generic subjects, then their inclusion would definitely muddy the concept quite a bit. Not to mention that the term "catch-all article" isn't clear enough as it is.

Comments

My gut reaction is that I disagree that the Poison Mushroom and Lift articles encompass generic subjects. They are supported as discrete in the paratext for these games. But even if narrowed to articles I agree are generic, it is not inherently clear to me what the benefit of having a "catch-all category" would be. My general view is that there are quite a few subjects that we consider to be generic which really are not. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:45, November 10, 2024 (EST)

What would be some subjects you don't consider generic? My case for the Lift is that it's an article that encompasses almost all types of flat, moving platforms (a basic platforming game object), many even with their own distinct names; I believe you could even argue for some of the versions to get their own articles. And yeah, I agree that there's no huge benefit to having this category, as it would be there mostly for the sake of acknowledgement that "this article does not describe the history of a single idea, but it's instead an aggregation of the histories of various ideas that fit under this umbrella". Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 16:25, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s)

Split off 11-0
Mario Kart Tour has quite the reputation on this wiki in terms of pages, at one time nearly forming the top ten of the largest pages here in terms of bit size. However, what was glossed over was the size of Tour's template, being large enough to hold several templates within itself, and making the page, should the user click on it, almost double in length, more so with the other templates open. Using DS DK Pass as an example, a page for a race course that doesn't have a lot of information on it making for a relatively quick read, is now nearly half taken up by the monstrously large Mario Kart Tour template.

A total of four sub templates exist within the Mario Kart Tour template: Characters (and their skins), Vehicle Parts, Courses, and Other (miscellaneous). For example, if the Courses template were split off and applied to DS DK Pass' page, it would make for a much more palatable experience for those looking for courses found in Tour, rather than making the reader scroll for a centuries and looking for it amongst a sea of numerous skins and kart parts.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: November 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. MightyMario (talk) I heartily endorse this proposal.
2. Tails777 (talk) I kinda agree with this. I feel this would be a bit more organized too, so people don't have to scroll through loads of characters, karts and other things just to find the tracks section. I have found myself on numerous occasions jumping from track articles and with Tour's template, it was rather irritating searching through massive sections of characters and tours just to find tracks. I support this idea.
3. Waluigi Time (talk) We've split navigation templates for much less, this makes sense for the sheer amount of content in the game.
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) A navigation template that buries content in an area larger than an entire computer screen defeats the purpose.
5. Super Mario RPG (talk) Agreed with all.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) per all
7. Dark Jonathan (talk) I didn't know Tour templates gave so many problems, but hey, that's a good proposal.
8. BMfan08 (talk) I was just thinking about this the other day when I was changing tense on tour articles. It's definitely a lot to take in, and it's also overlooked because people don't put into a template quite as much as they do a page. I agree with this idea.
9. SeanWheeler (talk) Per all.
10. PnnyCrygr (talk) This will make page-by-page navigation of MKT articles more efficient or convenient. Supporting.
11. Mario (talk) The size of this nav template would make Wario proud, but I'm sure this complaint has already been forwarded to a lot of aspects of Mario Kart Tour content on this wiki.

Comments

I think alternatively, they could be given different collapsible sections, like we do with the galleries template. But I agree it is overwhelmingly enormous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:58, November 10, 2024 (EST)

We're talking about the navigation template at the bottom of these pages, right? Because that's the only Tour-related template on the DS DK Pass article (subpages notwithstanding) and it's indeed quite huge. If we do split it off into several subtemplates, I suppose it'd be comparable to various levels from specific platformer titles having a navbox template for themselves instead of sharing a primary nabvox template with the rest of that game's content (e.g. Super Bell Hill featuring {{SM3DW levels}} instead of {{SM3DW}}); or the existence of various navigation templates for the various microgames or minigames in specific WarioWare or Mario Party title. So while it's atypical for us to split Mario Kart-specific nav templates, it's not unheard of for us to split off nav templates in the first place. rend (talk) (edits) 17:04, November 10, 2024 (EST)

Add identifiers to near-identical titles

Do not add identifiers 2-6
Current MarioWiki writing guidelines state that articles with shared titles recieve an identifier to disambiguate between them (see: Mark (Mario Tennis series) and Mark (NES Open Tournament Golf)). However, this currently relies on the articles sharing an identical, character-by-character name. This means Color coin (Super Mario Run) and Colored coin (Wario Land 3) do not recieve identifiers, despite sharing functionally identical titles. Other sets of articles with the same dilemma include Secret Course 1 (Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins) and Secret Course 01 (Super Mario Run), Spyguy (Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis) and Spy Guy (Paper Mario), and Rollin' Down the River (Yoshi's Woolly World) and Rolling Down the River (The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!).

This proposal aims to amend MarioWiki:Naming to consider near-identical titles like these as "shared titles", and thus qualify for recieving an identifier according to the established criteria. This is already applied in some articles, but this proposal aims to formalize it as part of the naming rules.

Note that this proposal only covers names that are semantically identical, and only differ in formatting or minor word choices. Buzzar and Buzzer have extremely similar names, but they aren't semantically identical. Balloon Boo and Boo Balloon are extremely similar as well, but the word order sets them apart.

Edit: Per Hewer's question and my comment below, I'd like to point out MarioWiki already does this sometimes. Pairs of near-identical names with identifiers include Family Basic (microgame) and Family BASIC (as ruled by a proposal), Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) and Hot-air balloon, Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame), and Avalanche (obstacle) and both Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4). If this proposal doesn't pass, all of these would get their identifiers removed.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: November 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. EvieMaybe (talk) per.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Altendo (talk) I don't see a need for this. If the names are similar, tophats containing the other pages can be placed on the pages with similar names. Identifiers are used to identify subjects with identical names, not similar names.
2. Hewer (talk) Per Altendo, this is what Template:Distinguish is for. We have to use identifiers for identical titles because the wiki can't have multiple pages with the same title, but that limitation doesn't exist if the titles are just similar. This would make the titles longer than they need to be, and I could also see this leading to disagreements about what's similar enough to count, if the examples are anything to go by. Easier to stick to the objectivity of only giving identical names identifiers. The proposal also doesn't specify what the "some articles" are where this has already been done, but I'm assuming they should be changed.
3. Ray Trace (talk) Per Hewer.
4. Dine2017 (talk) Per Hewer & I'd like to see the use of identifier kept to a minimum because it simplifies typing (URL, wikicode, etc.)
5. SeanWheeler (talk) Per Hewer. No need to extend the title just because of a couple letter difference. The identifiers are there for identical titles because it's impossible for wikipages to have the same name.
6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Hewer. Making this change would only cause more confusion, not less.

Comments

I'm not sure why this is a problem in the first place, can you please elaborate? -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:13, November 11, 2024 (EST)

i just find it a bit unreasonable to expect people to remember the difference between two names that are identical in all but formatting, or essentially irrelevant word choice differences (in the case of Color coin and Colored coin, which have also been). this is especially true while editing; i had to verify whether Secret Course 1 was the SML2 one or the SMR one when writing the Secret exit article. without resorting to a literal, robotic interpretation of the rules, all of the articles i mentioned have functionally "the same name" as their pair, and there is precedent for adding identifiers to article names like these. Family Basic (microgame) recieved a differentiatior because a mere capitalization difference from Family BASIC was deemed unreasonable. folks in the MarioWiki Discord server agreed with me when i asked if i should rename Hot Air Balloon (Donkey Kong franchise) (previously just "Hot Air Balloon", with no hyphen and Air capitalized) to differentiate it from Hot-air balloon. Avalanche (obstacle) has an identifier to separate it from Avalanche! (Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix) and Avalanche! (Mario Party 4), even though both of them have exclamation marks. Finish line (object) and Finish Line (microgame) get identifiers, even though they're capitalized differently. this is something we already do, the aim here is just to formalize it. EvieMaybe (talk) 14:51, November 11, 2024 (EST)

This proposal passing wouldn't mean you no longer have to check whether it's Secret Course 1 or 01, it'd just mean you now have to type an unnecessary identifier and pipe link it as well. I'd say it's different for finish line and Family BASIC where the only difference between titles is casing, as the search function on the wiki is case insensitive (and also, that proposal made Family Basic a redirect to Family BASIC, so an identifier is still needed to distinguish from that). But in the other cases, we don't need the identifier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:49, November 11, 2024 (EST)

Create an article named "MarioWiki:Staff"

vetoed by the administrators
Staff have determined article to be unnecessary
I'd like there to be an article on the staff. It should say like, the current admins, the current patrollers, the former admins and patrollers, the 'Shroom staff, the former 'Shroom staff, the forum staff and the former forum staff. I's just like to keep in mind who contributes to this wiki. I mean, like, who "officially" contributes, you know? Weegie baby (talk) 05:44, November 28, 2024 (EST)
Proposer: Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: December 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Oppose

1. Altendo (talk) We already have dedicated staff pages for patrollers, administrators, bureaucrats, and the proprietor. No need for this page to be made unless all of these pages are consolidated here.
2. MeritC (talk) Also agree with Altendo; we already have respective pages for this. Creating this "extra page" in question would be nothing more than a waste of time and server resources/space for this site.
3. Sparks (talk) Per all. The links to the current staff are found in the recent changes.
4. Technetium (talk) Per all. As for retired staff members, you can find them by looking at the autopatrolled users page.
5. Hewer (talk) The idea that only admins "officially contribute" to the wiki is very flawed. The point of admins isn't to boast that they're "better" contributors than other users.

Create articles for Glohm enemies or merge them with their normal counterparts

Create articles 8-0
I'm currently contributing to Mario & Luigi: Brothership content, and I'm currently creating articles for enemies in the game. It has been brought to my attention that Glohm enemies are basically stronger versions of preexisting enemies, although they have unique characteristics.

This proposal aims to determine whether or not Glohm enemies get their own articles. So, there are two choices for when Glohm enemy coverage eventually occurs:

1. Glohm enemies get their own articles. They get their own dedicated pages.

2. Glohm enemy coverage is limited to the articles for their normal counterparts. This means all Glohm related information for them is explained for the normal versions of the enemies.

Let's see what happens!

Proposer: Sparks (talk)
Deadline: December 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on November 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create new articles for Glohm enemies

1. Sparks (talk) My preferred choice. Sure it could get repetitive and redundant, but it's worth it to document the abilities of these Glohm enemies.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We give articles to other stronger RPG enemy and boss variants, so why should Brothership be any different?
3. Tails777 (talk) They are stronger variants with different stats to their originals, no different from every example Camwoodstock gave. Per proposal.
4. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
5. Zootalo (talk) The Shiny Paper versions of enemies from Paper Jam have their own articles as well; this is no different. Per all.
6. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Probably best for overall consistancy with a game like this one.
7. Technetium (talk) Per all.
8. Cheat-master30 (talk) Given that some of them have specific differences in attack patterns, it seems like they should probably get unique articles.

Comments

@Zootalo The Paper Jam shiny enemies are not split, but the Sticker Star ones are.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightwicked Bowser (talk).

Kinda torn to be honest. I voted yes because some of them have specific differences from their regular counterparts (Glohm Floopfly Rs and Glohm Soreboars always explode once defeated for example), but then we've got the weird situation of trying to figure out what exactly you'd include on a page for the enemies without these things, like the Glohm Palookas (which as far as I know, look and act almost identically to their standard counterparts). --Cheat-master30 (talk) 22:30, November 23, 2024 (EST)

In fairness, this could also be said about many other stronger variants of enemies. The only real difference between a Goomba and Gloomba are the color schemes, in a similar way to how the only difference between a Palooka and a Glohm Palooka is the darker coloration and Glohmy aura. It's kinda just a natural thing for most stronger variants (not all mind you, but most). Tails777 Talk to me!

Tag images of bind-posing models for reuploading

Do not tag 1-7
It's been two years since the previous proposal had passed. Now let's talk about tagging images of bind-posing models for reuploading. Take this image for example. As you can see, this image is a bind-posing model. Once this proposal passes, we'll be able to tag every bind-posing model with this:

{{image-quality|Bind-posing model; should be replaced with a rendered game model}}

That way, if a bind-posing model is reuploaded as a rendered game model that serves as a replacement, we'll be able to reuse it as an infobox image.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: November 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

#ThePowerPlayer (talk) Like I said in the other proposal, T-poses are generally not how characters are supposed to look. If this is any indication, the wiki should favor game accuracy in images.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I think it is great when users replace images of bind-posed (or "t-posed") models with organically rendered ones. It is a practice I personally encourage and welcome. However, I do think there can be educational and illustrative purposes to bind-posed models, and I think a blanket rule would put unnecessary pressure on the users of this site to render models when a bind-posed one can be more than serviceable, and may even discourage the cataloging of 3D assets in the future if a user cannot render them. Rendering models is a very time-consuming process, and I think it is healthier to just allow users to replace the bind-posed images we have if they can. Not require them to. Perfection is the enemy of the good.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems better handled on a case-by-case basis rather than a full sweep
3. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
4. Hewer (talk) Per all, a hard rule isn't necessary here.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. Given there are scenarios where bind-posed/T-posed models are actually more illustrative than properly rigged alternatives, we should probably handle these on a case-by-case basis.
7. Mario (talk) Tag them if they're bad quality, not because they're t-posed.

Comments

Wording should be changed to "bind pose" since not all characters are T-posed, especially non-bipeds (like Yoshi from Super Smash Bros. Melee or Brawl, Wiggler, Buzzy Beetles, Piranha Plants, and more) and A-pose exists as a default pose too. In addition, models technically aren't "t-posing", they're modeled this way before animations and a rig are applied to them, the wording makes them look like they're animating when they're not. Ray Trace^(T|C) 20:36, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Does this proposal advocate replacing these ripped models with ones that are posed from a screenshot or posed in a 3d program with ripped animation files? Not all models are ripped with animations, so it's a bit of a task to undertake if you really want models with animations AND a rig (let's not get started in lighting, which is a separate skillset that's demanded from renderers; not many people get the lighting very good, no offense!); a chunk of models tend to not have a rig, much less an animation. Additionally, some t-posed models are great to use when comparing models or viewing models as they are. File:MLNPC.png is an example where it's easy to compare the proportions of Mario, PC Luigi, and NPC Luigi. Sure, you can probably put them all in a orthographic lineup in the same keyframe of a shared animation, but due to the arms, legs, spine, and head all straightened out, it's better to illustrate in T-pose imo. Mario^-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 21:00, November 15, 2024 (EST)

Create a template to crop images on-the-fly without having to tamper with the base file's dimensions

Create template 10-0
So Wildgoosespeeder (talk) shared this nifty template that TCRF has: tcrf:Template:CSS image crop, which allows images to be displayed in mainspace at a cut-out size from how they are on the image files themselves. This has two utilities: one is shrinking to a relevant entity in group textures such as this oneMedia:M&SatL2012OG Wii audience.png, and the other is to avoid blank space without having to crop the raw graphic parameters - thus allowing best-of-both-worlds for the previous proposal I attempted (and failed), as it satisfies the OCD itch of avoiding bad and/or inconsistent crops on the base files without taking up unnecessary space where the images are actually used. It also removes a lot of unnecessary work actually cropping/uncropping images since you don't have to save them to a machine/web address to upload a new version - you can just put in the parameters you want and go from there.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: December 11, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

C-S-Yes

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Goes without saying I think this is a good idea.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Sounds like a reasonable compromise.
3. Jdtendo (talk) It's better to crop an existing image programmatically than having to upload a cropped version for a specific use case.
4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.
5. Pseudo (talk) Seems useful.
6. Wildgoosespeeder (talk) Sometimes I just find random things on other Wikis and remember a previously failed proposal. I hope this helps out!
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Jdtendo! this seems very useful
8. Axii (talk) Per proposal.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
10. Mister Wu (talk) I guess this could lead to less image editing which is definitely a positive.

Comments on CSS image crop

This appears to be similar to a template I have made in order to crop images to perfectly squared off icons for uses on pages such as Pipe Frame (e.g. displaying Mii Racing Suit icons in the same table as other character icons); however, the version you're presenting seems to include more options. I'm not gonna vote yet, but so far I don't see the harm to have this other template too. rend (talk) (edits) 06:42, November 27, 2024 (EST)

Remove video game console generations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

1. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) console generations make more sense when comparing against several different consoles. for our use case, they're pretty irrelevant.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposer and EvieMaybe.
4. Bro3256 (talk) Per proposal.
5. Hewer (talk) Per proposal, specifically the second suggested solution of not numbering consoles at all. Saves the unnecessary confusion.
6. winstein (talk) Per proposal.
7. PopitTart (talk) Per all.
8. Fun With Despair (talk) Per all, I've always found console generations to be confusing and unclear.
9. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all.
10. MCD (talk) I don't feel massively about this either way, but the concept does feel a bit arbitrary now and I can't see it getting any more relevant in future.

Oppose

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do nothing 1-0-1-1-1-11
Let me tell you what: the {{ref needed}} and {{unreferenced}} templates read too similar to the {{citation needed}} and {{unreferenced}}/{{more citations needed}}/{{unreferenced section}}/{{more citations needed section}} templates from Wikipedia, respectively. I just wonder if those are errors. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to decide what to do with the templates using three options:

Option 1

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

Option 2

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

Option 3

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

Option 4

ONLY make {{ref needed}} more specific.

Option 5

ONLY make {{unreferenced}} more specific.

Option 6

Do NOTHING.

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

Which option do you wish to choose?

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: December 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Option 1

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) First choice

Option 3

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Second choice

Option 4

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Third choice

Option 5

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Fourth choice

Option 6

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Families

Do not create anything 1-1-0-10
It's not the first time I ask this, and certainly not the last (unless you approve it), but since there are articles for the families of Mario Mario and Luigi Mario's and Donkey Kong's, there should be articles for the major characters' families, like King Bowser Koopa's and Princess Peach Toadstool's. And probably Toad's, but I don't really think that'd work. If there were, the wiki'd be kinda more organised. And if there won’t be any articles, a least let there be categories! Or templates, like Template:Mario and Luigi's family.

Proposer:Weegie baby (talk)
Deadline: December 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create articles

1. Weegie baby (talk) I made this proposal, so I'm voting on articles. Peace ✌️. vanishes

Create categories

1. Hewer (talk) I guess I don't see the harm in this, since categories often serve to group together subjects that have some trait in common despite not being related conceptually, and redirects can be put in categories to account for the implied ones.

Oppose

1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) There's a lot more to it for Mario and Donkey Kong's families, but we hardly know anything of Peach's family and as far as Bowser is concerned he has one son and that's about it.
2. Altendo (talk) Bowser only has one confirmed son; the other "children" might not even be his son.
3. Hewer (talk) We don't have pages on Mario and DK's families because they're major characters' families, we have pages on them because they're notable and there's stuff that can be written about them. These other characters' families barely exist. (Also worth noting the Kong Family isn't even its own page, it's a section of a page.)
4. Sparks (talk) Per all.
5. Axii (talk) Mario and Luigi's family is large enough to have a separate page. Donkey Kong's family doesn't even have a separate page.
6. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per Hewer.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Per all.
8. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; in addition, we feel like the DK one in particular would likely be rendered largely redundant to the already-extant Kong article.
9. Technetium (talk) Per all.
10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Comments

Since we don't prioritize either conflicting source, a Bowser's family article presumably includes the Koopalings as "formerly Bowser's children" and brings in data from Koopa Kid#Relationships. But now I'm questioning if the extant section on Bowser#Relationships can serve this need. A Peach's family article is presumably a no go because of a sheer dearth of data. Salmancer (talk) 10:39, December 6, 2024 (EST)

The reason why we have an article for the Mario Bros' family and a subsection for the Kong families on the Kong article is because a lot of members for either family have been introduced somewhere in the franchise. Admittedly, we already know of a couple of Bowser's family members: the Koopalings (former children), Bowser Jr (current only child), Kamek (caretaker, advisor and father figure), Bowser's mother, and then some implied/mentioned ones. But I don't think four subjects and then some that appear only on a list of implied characters would justify an article on the matter. As for Peach, we only know of the Mushroom King, Gramma Toadstool, and maybe Toadsworth and Granny; and as for Toad, there's only Gramps, and the implied character Moldy (though it's sometimes been stated that Toadette is Toad's sister). I'm pretty sure I'm still missing some things, but I doubt it would be as much. rend (talk) (edits) 11:46, December 6, 2024 (EST)

In the Super Show, Toad also has 3 cousins. Toad's cousin, Mushroom Marauder and Jake the Crusher Fungus. And don’t forget his wife! And I didn’t know about the other ones you mentioned, so thanks. See? That just comes to show we need family articles! As for Bowser, Boom Boom is the long lost Koopaling (see this in the bottom of the section), which means his Bowser's child. Bowser also has: a dad, a grandfather, a great-great-grandfather, a grandmother (brought up by Morton in TAoSMB3), a magikoopa who is his third cousin twice removed, a brother and a sister. Now, time for Peach's family: Mushroom Queen (her mother); Obā-chan (a grandmother); Daisy (a cousin); Ojīsan and Obāsan (other parents); Pichi-hime (descendant). And just so you know, I mentioned Bowser, Peach and Toad, but there could be other characters' family articles, like… other characters… Peace ✌️. disppears Weegie baby (talk) 14:45, December 6, 2024 (EST)

By the way, you are allowed to vote in your own proposal. Since this one has more than two options, you can even vote for multiple of them. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:59, December 7, 2024 (EST)

Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations

Split locations from first list 14-1-0-0
Based on this proposal.

Location articles for RPGs have a unique issue in that there's a lot of data that needs to be catalogued. Enemy encounters, item locations, area maps. Normally this is not much of an issue, unless the location reappears in several games, where it becomes a VERY big organization problem. The game's data is split across two separate locations and bundled with the information for other several games, making it a pain to extract useful info. Toad Town, Bowser's Castle and Peach's Castle are the greatest offenders here, being way more unwieldy to navigate than other comparable RPG areas such as Beanbean Castle Town or Palace of Shadow. With the recent return of the Mario & Luigi series, this issue is only going to become worse unless something is done about it.

This proposal aims to treat all of these castles and towns and islands as their own location, in the same way we split Super Mario levels, race tracks and sports courts. The main page would still link to it in its History section.

The question is, what counts as a major appearance? I'd say a major appearance is any appearance that warrants a Profiles and statistics section. That means Bowser's Castle in TTYD or Mario's house and Peach's Castle in M&LSS would not get split.

By my count, these pages would need to be created. It might seem like a big list, but most of it would just be copying over what is already in the base articles.

• Bowser's Castle:
  • Bowser's Keep (Super Mario RPG)
  • Bowser's Castle (Paper Mario)
  • Bowser's Castle (Paper Mario: The Origami King)
  • Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)
  • Baby Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)
  • Bowser Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story) (potentially merged with Fawful Theater, per Pseudo)
  • Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Brothership) (potentially merged with Wayaway Island, per Technetium)
• Peach's Castle:
  • Mushroom Castle (Super Mario RPG)
  • Peach's Castle (Paper Mario)
  • Peach's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)
  • Peach's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)
  • Peach's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam)
  • Peach's Castle (Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle) (I'm not familiar enough with the game to be 100% sure if it's warranted. Input is welcome.)
• Toad Town:
  • Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG)
  • Toad Town (Paper Mario)
  • Toad Town (Paper Mario: The Origami King)
  • Toad Town (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)
  • Toad Town (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)
  • Toad Town (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)
• Yoshi's Island:
  • Yo'ster Isle (Super Mario RPG)
  • Yoshi's Island (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)

Additionally, there are some grey areas that are worth considering separately.

• Star Hill: This one's a unique situation, seeing as it's a location that has only appeared in RPGs, and has only shown up in a major capacity. Splitting all three would leave us with no "main" article for the location itself.
  • Star Hill (Super Mario RPG)
  • Shooting Star Summit (Paper Mario)
  • Star Hill (Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time)
• Mario Bros.' House: This only BARELY counts as a major appearance. The amount of stuff listed in the Profiles and statistics section can be counted on one hand. Nontheless, it's included here for completion.
  • Mario's Pad (Super Mario RPG)
  • Mario's House (Paper Mario)

These are all the examples I could find, but suggestions are very welcome. I'm also not completely sure about the names each article should have.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: December 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Closed early on December 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Split locations in only the first list

1. EvieMaybe (talk) Voting for this currently, and I'll add a second choice after some conversation on the second list happens.
2. Pseudo (talk) Strong support for this as it would make navigating and maintaining the relevant sections of these articles much easier; it’s also in-line with how we handle appearances of locations like Bowser's Castle in platformers already (see World 8-Bowser's Castle (Super Mario Bros. 3) et al). Star Hill seems fine to me as-is as an RPG-exclusive location with less unique to say about it in terms of its individual appearances, as does Mario's House since it is typically a fairly minor location in its appearances; I think that it's OK to handle these things on a case-by-case basis.
3. Zootalo (talk) Per all.
4. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Articles are getting really big and this is probably best for organisation purposes.
5. Sparks (talk) Per all.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) While we would like it more if the Neo Bowser Castles were included, this is a step in the right direction and one we'd like to see.
7. Tails777 (talk) I can see merit with this, organization being the big one. Plus the whole Neo Bowser Castle thing does add to being a good point.
8. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
9. Exiled.Serenity (talk) The current setup seems a bit inconsistent. It's especially strange that the boss fight from Bowser's Inside Story doesn't have its own page.
10. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
11. LinkTheLefty (talk) Star Hill should probably have its own proposal like it and Neo Bowser's Castle have had in the past, though it stands to reason that these listed articles are big enough to split in a way similar to histories and galleries.
12. Scrooge200 (talk) This has always bugged me! Articles like Toad Town and Bowser's Castle can be such a pain to navigate and they tend to get less coverage than unique locations. I also advocate for splitting the Neo Bowser Castles because if they had went with any other name they'd be separate (it's just that Paper Jam isn't particularly known for its originality).
13. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
14. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Split locations in the first list, split Star Hills, do not split Mario's Houses

1. Pseudo (talk) Also voting for this; not sure what I'd consider my first or second vote currently, with further consideration. Splitting Star Hill as well would probably aid with navigability at least a bit, though I still think that splitting Mario's House would accomplish little.

Comments on splits

I'm wondering something about Bowser's Castle in Brothership specifically. It’s located on Wayaway Island, which has its own page. Assuming this proposal passes, should we merge the castle into the Wayaway Island page, or make a new one as titled in the proposal? Technetium (talk) 13:46, December 8, 2024 (EST)

If we do this, could we please split the Neo Bowser's Castles too? Because like. One of those is a wholly unique castle, and the other is literally just Paper Jam's incarnation of Bowser's Castle, after having been lifted up into the sky on a purple drone doohickey. It is literally just the exact same castle aside from that, and yet it has its information put into the same article as Dream Team's Neo Bowser's Castle, just because they share a name. This has been bugging us ever since we noticed it, and we feel like this proposal could be a good time to finally split those two up. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 14:36, December 8, 2024 (EST)

I would be in support of this, including adding it to the current proposal. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 14:40, December 8, 2024 (EST)

The Neo Bowser Castles were merged from another proposal. By the way, Peach's Castle in Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle is like in Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time and Super Mario 64, the main hub of the game. Nightwicked Bowser 14:43, December 8, 2024 (EST)

Honestly, one of the main reasons why the Neo Bowser Castles remain merged is largely because of places like Toad Town and Bowser's Castle. If those started getting split by game, Neo Bowser Castle would become more reasonable to split as well. Tails777 Talk to me!

yeah, i don't feel comfortable adding Neo here bc i feel it's a slightly different case, since it's not exactly a recurring location. there's definitely room for using this proposal as precedent for it if it passes, though. eviemaybe (talk / contributions)

For what it's worth, Fawful Theater, a location within Bowser's Castle, which takes up most of the castle in Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story, already has its own article, so it may be prudent to merge Fawful Theater with the to-be-split Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story) article if the proposal passes. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 15:03, December 8, 2024 (EST)

There's also the matter of the boss fight against Bowser's Castle. Nightwicked Bowser 15:36, December 8, 2024 (EST)

that presumes BIS Bowser Castle getting split, though eviemaybe (talk / contributions)

If this passes, can we split Yoshi's Island (Super Mario World) from Yoshi's Island (location) in a similar way as well? I just think it's weird that this is the only platformer world (to my knowledge) that doesn't have its own article, and that kinda data is instead lumped on a page for the general location. By that logic, Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario Odyssey) should be merged with either Mushroom Kingdom or Peach's Castle as well. rend (talk) (edits) 17:01, December 8, 2024 (EST)

the original draft for this proposal covered SM64 and SMO's Peach's Castles before i decided to scale it down to just the RPGs, actually! hopefully this serves as precedent to split both those and yoshi's island. eviemaybe (talk / contributions)

I would definitely be in support of these splits as well, though I can understand wanting to keep the proposal focused. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 10:39, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I'd support Super Mario 64 Mushroom Castle. I don't remember how big or notable the Super Mario Odyssey one was. Yoshi's Island had its own discussion and proposal at one point that should be reviewed. The individual Super Mario World articles do do their job... LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:11, December 9, 2024 (EST)

Technically, Peach's Castle from Odyssey is already split from the main Peach's Castle article, as it's being integrated into the aforementioned Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario Odyssey) article. In the game, Peach's Castle is treated as the Mushroom Kingdom's greater location, aka the main explorable world from that kingdom, in the same way how Tostarena is treated as the Sand Kingdom's greater location/explorable world and how New Donk City is treated as that to the Metro Kingdom. rend (talk) (edits) 15:38, December 9, 2024 (EST)

Recently, I changed the Yoshi Sphinx article from solely covering its Sticker Star appearance to covering all of its appearances throughout the series, which sparked a bit of discussion about splitting it. I can't say this particular split excites me, given how minor every other appearance of it is, but I wanted it to bring it up here since it's related — do y'all think that should be split as well? Ahemtoday (talk) 19:32, December 8, 2024 (EST)

The Yoshi Sphinx is only really a "location" in Sticker Star and is just kind of a recurring motif in other games, so we feel like a split in that context is largely unnecessary. I mean, what, are we meant to make an article called Yoshi Sphinx (Super Mario 64 DS) which just says "The Yoshi Sphinx (Super Mario 64 DS) appears in the interface of the Puzzle Panel and Puzzle Panic minigames. It re-appears in New Super Mario Bros. DS, also in the Puzzle Panel minigame."? That seems excessive. ;P ~Camwoodstock (talk) 20:14, December 8, 2024 (EST)

the proposal says "major RPG appearances of reocurring locations", not "interface decorations of platformer minigames", so i assume Ahemtoday means splitting Yoshi Sphinx (Paper Mario Sticker Star). eviemaybe (talk / contributions)

I would prefer the Yoshi Sphinx article remained as is now. The other recurring sphinxes are so minor that the article already has a decent focus on the Paper Mario appearance. (Great article, by the way!) — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 22:05, December 8, 2024 (EST)

Do Bowser's Keep, Mario's Pad, Yo'ster Isle, Shooting Star Summit, and Baby Bowser's Castle need identifiers? I'm pretty sure those names are localized entirely within their games and related media. Also, I believe "Toad Town (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)" should be "Toadtown Square" and "Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)" should be "Bowser Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)". There could be others missed. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:50, December 9, 2024 (EST)

the identifiers are mostly to let people know which game each town or castle is from, they can def be removed for the actual articles. thanks for the naming tips, however! eviemaybe (talk / contributions)16:05, December 9, 2024 (EST)

I honestly wouldn't want the Bowser's Inside Story Bowser's Castle article to be titled as "Fawful Theater". The game itself labels it as "Bowser's Castle" and the theater is only the smaller upper portion of the castle whereas the larger basement has nothing to do with the theater. I'd do it the other way around: either merge Fawful Theater with "Bowser's Castle (Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story)" or keep Fawful Theater as its own article. Nightwicked Bowser 20:05, December 9, 2024 (EST)

Just to be clear, these will continue to have main-article templates on the origin's article and not be treated as a distinct subject, correct? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:08, December 9, 2024 (EST)

The proposal says that "the main page would still link to it in its History section", so I think so. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 22:20, December 9, 2024 (EST)

That's the impression I had. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:48, December 12, 2024 (EST)

Add the LinkSuggest extension

canceled by proposer
This proposal is about adding the LinkSuggest extension to this wiki. There are several pages with identifiers, so this could help prevent cases where someone accidentally inserts a disambiguation link; for example, there are two Captain Warios: one is in Wario: Master of Disguise and another is in Game & Wario. With LinkSuggest, it would suggest both links as the user is about to insert Captain Wario as a link.

On the documentation it says users can turn off LinkSuggest from their preferences, so if someone doesn't like it, they can disable it manually.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per.

Oppose

1. DryBonesBandit (talk) Don't we already have this? I just started typing in Captain Wario as a link and three suggestions appeared.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Dunno what to say; it works like that on our machine without this plugin just fine. If this turns out to be a more prevalent problem for others, though, we wouldn't be opposed to flipping our vote.

Comments

@DryBonesBandit Odd, since it hasn't been showing for me. Could either be a script issue on my end or it had just been added. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:58, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Check your editing preferences, you might have the "Do not show link suggest" box marked. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:01, December 18, 2024 (EST)

@Super Mario RPG It's something on your end, the feature's existed since before I joined the wiki. This is me, D-B-B! 18:04, December 18, 2024 (EST)