MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63

Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source

Template:ProposalOutcome See this proposal for full context. Nintendo is sadly known to make mistakes in their filenames found on their websites (especially Play Nintendo). I think we can all agree there is zero reason to believe these files should have the same priority as number 4 in the acceptable sources for naming policy, but I also believe we shouldn't throw them away. If Nintendo blunders, we mention it. If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:

1. Nintendo's weird website filenames can be added either as trivia or in the same section as internal names, but these names shouldn't be anywhere near the first paragraph.
2. In a potential unforeseen case where the website filename is the only name Nintendo provided, it will occupy the last 7th place in acceptable sources for naming (yes, even below the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia)

Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about.

Proposer: Axis (talk)
Deadline: August 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support, use these names as redirects as well

1. MegaBowser64 (talk) No harm done by using redirects, unless we want to obliterate these names off the wiki.
2. Hewer (talk) Honestly, I still don't really get why the last proposal had so much vehement opposition just because "no one thinks these are the actual names". While that may be true, it's not like we're trying to make these the article titles - I'd obviously agree if that was the proposal, but I don't really see the harm of making a note of these on pages like we usually strive to do with all the official information we get. And I tend to support redirects for any names that have been officially used, since having more redirects is completely harmless - it's potentially helpful and never a hindrance, so again, I don't see a problem.
3. Mister Wu (talk) If we can distinguish them from the games’ internal names, I think that these names can be a nice addition to the pages.
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Since the original option was, evidently, not in-line with what we were expecting, this one seems at least closer with our original intent. While these should be low-priority due to their obscure nature, but there's no harm in acknowledging that they exist in the first place.
5. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.

Only cite them in case of no other source being available

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) I don’t know how often this might happen, but if a filename is the only source we can work with for a given name, it shouldn’t be discounted.

#Camwoodstock (talk) In the extremely unlikely case that the Nintendo website's data is the one, the only authority on a name, we may as well use it; otherwise, though, we can probably get away with discounting them. After all, these are names you'd only encounter by prodding at the site data.

#Pseudo (talk) Per Koopa con Carne.

Oppose

#Koopa con Carne (talk) I actually think it's a good idea to cite web filenames as a recourse when absolutely nothing else comes in clutch, and I support mentioning the original filename of a wiki upload on its file page as it still defines the image in an official capacity, but the overall course of action proposed here still puts too much stock in this kind of material. Per some of the opposers to the previous proposal.

Comments

@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

Yeah, I was bewildered by this argument in the previous proposal too. It's nonsense, as the wiki already cites no shortage of material you'd normally have to look really deep into finding--and it seems weird to think a filename for an image that is readily available on Nintendo's website is somehow more obscure than a section in some '90s player's guide that is not sold anymore. However, I'll grant you that there are still some reasons to argue against the use of these filenames as sources of information, namely that those who help piece together promo material aren't obliged to demonstrate a staggering amount of professionality in the way they represent Mario concepts, and are not what you'd construe as an authority on such. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:47, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

Indeed, hence why I don't think we should make these page titles or otherwise give them much credence, but noting them in trivia sections and the like seems like it should be fine to me as this is still official material, and it's certainly not like we usually tend to ignore promotional material like these websites. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

We should probably clarify that we specifically mean our vote in the sense of, if there is zero other authority for a name, we can use it as a last resort, as it is still a valid name. Not "discard" it as in "it gets ignored outright the moment more authoritative name arrives", heavens no! But if a more definitive name exists, it should get priority over the website name for stuff like, y'know, article names, while the website name can remain as a redirect if it doesn't conflict with anything. Apologies for not being very clear. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 22:39, August 20, 2023 (EDT)

So you agree with making redirects for the file names but are supporting the option to not create them? This just makes me more confused. The support options here aren't to regard these as a high source of authority, just to make them redirects and make a note of them on articles like we usually do with alternate names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:01, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

...Okay, now we're confused, OOPS. We voted that because we thought the option was to consider those a valid name, but only as the second-to-lowest priority, literally only beating out the Encyclopedia; as better names from higher priority sources follow suit, we follow our standard protocol from there. If that's not what the option meant (and it's seeming like there is, indeed, a semantic difference, but we wanna make absolutely certain first that's the case!), we can change our vote as need be. And, once again, sorry for the confusion. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 10:20, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

The option you voted for does not allow these files to be used as redirects, and the Enclyclopedia names would actually take priority over these weird web filenames. I should have made it clearer, but it's too late to edit the proposal now Axis (talk) 10:35, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Our bad. Changin' our vote then! ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 10:40, August 21, 2023 (EDT)

Create an article for Tetris 99 and add it to the list of games

Template:ProposalOutcome Tetris 99 currently does not have an article on this wiki, and I believe one should be created and the game should be added to the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. The game features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, including from Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush, WarioWare: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars.

There is direct precedent for this in the form of Tetris DS. Like Tetris 99, Tetris DS features many Super Mario- and Nintendo-themed elements, and as a result, it has an article on this wiki and is included in the List of games, List of games by date, and List of games by genre articles. Examples of other games that feature Super Mario elements and thus have articles and are in the list of games articles include Minecraft, Rhythm Heaven Megamix, NES Remix, NES Remix 2 , Ultimate NES Remix, Nintendo Land, Captain Rainbow, SSX on Tour, and NBA Street V3.

Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk)
Deadline: August 26, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. ToxicOJ (talk) Per proposal.
2. Axis (talk) Given a large amount of Mario themes present in this game, there is enough content to justify creating a full article on this game.
3. Ray Trace (talk) Tbh, we have an article for the Nintendo Badge Arcade even though it's a Nintendo game with the extent of Mario-related appearances being practically Mario-themed skins. This game appears to have more Mario-inspired content than that, and even comes with its own soundtrack (which is more than something like SSX on Tour and NBA Street V3). In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with), I'd say the changes are enough to warrant an article, especially with the high amount of Mario content it did receive.
4. Tails777 (talk) Per Ray Trace.
5. Killer Moth (talk) Per Ray Trace. After thinking about it this makes sense.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) Was formerly on the fence, but after thinking about it, this really isn't out of the ordinary at all. In the interest of narrowing down any specific details, though, if we've got stuff like Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (a game that mostly features cameos and a few Mario items as pivotal game mechanics), Densetsu no Stafy 3 (a game that is otherwise linked to a single series, but has a full Wario Land 4 crossover level), and especially the aforementioned article on standard Tetris and Nintendo Badge Arcade, both of which feature as primarily cameos but have notable things beyond that (The Tetris cameos had a hand in later titles like Tetris Attack, and y'know, Badge Arcade has the multi-time niche fandom anomaly that is Crazy Galaxy), Tetris 99 fits just right in as another one of those guest appearances we can give some level of coverage.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I think this is really stretching what can be considered a guest appearance. It doesn't have you playing as Mario characters like many of those examples do, and the Mario elements it features don't even directly affect gameplay or get interacted with, it's just skins based on other games that change visuals and sounds. I'd say it fits better on the list of references.
2. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) per Hewer. I get that they are a lot of effort put in them, but it doesn't really modify the gameplay. Let, if the Tertis blocks were maybe replaced with Mario blocks, maybe? I mean, Just Dance was voted a guest appearance but that was because of the effort of the music videos. Even if I would agree with you, you don't try to explain how it is more than a skin. Because that's how it feels to me.

Comments

Please note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements.

• How many themes/levels are Mario themed?
• Are there sounds/music borrowed from the Mario games?
• And most importantly, how much of a game do these levels/objects/themes occupy compared to non-Mario elements?

If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

For the last point, the Mario themes are only some in a plethora of themes based on Nintendo Switch games that are exclusively available in limited-time events, so I don't think it gets a great score there. And from what I can tell from its article (I haven't played the game), it seems like Pictobits does feature interactible Mario elements in the form of coins and POW Blocks. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:37, August 19, 2023 (EDT)

As resident Pictobits-head, we can vouch that you do in fact use Mario items to an extent (you can collect coins very obviously modelled off of SMB1, and there's the POW block as a mechanic). So, there's definitely a stronger argument for Pictobits over Tetris 99, as you can directly interact with both of those (you spend coins, and as mentioned, the POW is an outright mechanic of the game). ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 22:37, August 20, 2023 (EDT)

In addition to the Super Mario elements already mentioned, Tetris 99 does actually feature Super Mario elements in gameplay. In the Super Mario Bros. level, Empty Blocks fill the bottom of the playing area when other players attack, and the player must destroy them with tetrominoes before they get too high. In the Donkey Kong level, the bottom fills with barrels. In the Super Mario All-Stars level, the bottom fills with Hard Blocks. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, the bottom fills with brick blocks. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, the tetrominoes themselves have Wario, Ashley, Young Cricket, Kat, 9-Volt, 18-Volt, and Mona on them. Further, in the Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario All-Stars levels, the player can earn up to four Super Stars when they defeat other players. In the Donkey Kong level, you earn Hammers. In the Luigi's Mansion 3 level, you earn Polterpups. In the Paper Mario: The Origami King level, you earn coins. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, you earn Cat Shines. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, you heard the Golden Coin from Wario Castle. In the Mario Party Superstars level, you earn Stars. Tetris 99 also features several arrangements of Super Mario musical themes not heard in any other game. The Super Mario Bros. level features original arrangements of the "Ground Theme", "Shiro BGM", and the "Course Clear" themes, and the Donkey Kong features original arrangements of the "Game Start", "25m" and the "Hammer" themes. Additionally, the Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush!, Warioware: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars levels feature several original musical themes from each of their respective games, as well as a wide variety of Super Mario sound effects. ToxicOJ (talk) 16:43, August 23, 2023 (EDT)

@Ray Trace: "In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with)" I beg to differ. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:55, August 23, 2023 (EDT)

Trim requirements for elemental creatures categories

Template:ProposalOutcome This proposal follows from the responses on Talk:Koopa Troopa#Water creatures. Currently, the requirements for these categories are for the subject to either be composed of an element or use it in some way, and more recently the latter has led to some arbitrary cases that may only be exclusive to one or very few games, for example Bowser is under Category:Poisonous creatures for some of his attacks in the first two Paper Mario games causing Poison, and Koopa Troopa is now under Category:Water creatures for a water-based animation in Mario Power Tennis. This proposal aims to ditch the second half of the requirement of these categories; only if the subject is clearly composed of the subject may the category be used.

PROPOSAL EDIT: Addition of another option to keep the second half but tighten it. This will lead to usage of the categories if the subject isn't composed of the element but is still strongly associated with it such as Bowser remaining categorised under Fire creatures for his fire breath, and one-off RPG enemies that cause status effects with these elements such as Poison Pokey and Flamin' Stooge.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: September 16, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Remove second half entirely

1. Swallow (talk) Secondary choice

#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. Second choice.

Tighten the second half

1. Swallow (talk) Primary choice
2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Primary choice. Per proposal.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per myself, as I originally proposed it lol. Jokes aside I would prefer a more defined wording on where the line would be drawn.
6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.
7. Ray Trace (talk) Honestly I'm iffy on the existence of these category at all since for example in the poisonous creatures category, they're either composed of creatures that can cause a poison status effect in RPGs or characters that can spit purple fluids. It spans across too many games of wildly different genres and idk, it just doesn't sound right at all when something like a Sniffle Thwomp occupies the same category as a Malboro.
8. Mario (talk) Categories should be reworked yeah. We should be calling several of the poisonous creatures "VENOMOUS". 😤

Do nothing

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I find it rather difficult to be "clearly composed of [poison]," myself. That category is primarily for things that cause the poison status effect, are mentioned as being poisonous in their name or description, or are capable of spitting poison projectiles. The only examples I can really think of are Poison Bubble, maybe Mokura, and possibly some Pokémon. It also makes sense to have things that can cause the burn status to be listed as fire creatures, things that can freeze be listed as ice creatures, and so on and so forth.

Comments

If we go with simply tightening the second criteria, how would this affect Mini Goomba, which I brought up in the preceding discussion? Disregard this—I didn't notice the "one-off" in the proposal. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:12, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

What do you think should be defining terms for "tightening" the second half? Like, where would we draw the line? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:10, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

Mostly if it's an element the subject never uses outside of the game or series where it does, as has been brought up with Bowser and Koopa Troopa. Nightwicked Bowser 19:14, September 9, 2023 (EDT)

If that's the case, then how would this option affect instances of a subject using an element across multiple series, but it's not a frequent attribute in their overall history? Case in point, Bowser being under Category:Electrical creatures for his usage of electricity in Hotel Mario, the opening of Super Mario Galaxy, and—although it's not mentioned on his character page (likely because it's via the Star Rod and not natural here)—Paper Mario. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 08:52, September 10, 2023 (EDT)

Delete the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates

Template:ProposalOutcome It's been four months since My last proposal to create interwiki templates to various wikis (like NIWA) has been declined, and the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates are still there. In fact, the Super Mario Wiki does not need these. Like Steve said, when the prefixes work just fine. If you don't want to type things twice, just do either [[wikipedia:Mario|]] or [[wikia:c:mario:Mario|]]; the following will work: Mario for Wikipedia and Mario for Fandom. Just like that!

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: October 2, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. Axis (talk) Just because there is a relatively short alternative way, it doesn't take away from the fact that the template names are even shorter. Especially the Fandom one.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Axis.
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) *cough* *sigh* "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Axis. The template names are already as short as they can get short of full-on one-letter templates of borderline incoherence, and we probably don't need to lengthen these names arbitrarily if anyone editing these already understands WP is Wikipedia and Fandom is... well, Wikia/Fandom. Besides, it saves time in inserting these links and in some extreme cases (read: basically any scenario involving Fandom articles) can even shrink the overall page size--both of those are very good things to have on particularly large articles!
5. Hewer (talk) Per all, these templates are some added convenience that have no reason to be removed, and having just two such templates that are commonly used and easy to remember is quite different to the labyrinth of abbreviations suggested in the previous proposal (not that I really feel very strongly either way about the inclusion of those other templates, I just don't see the need to remove the ones we already have).
6. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I don't really see the point of doing this.
7. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
8. YoYo (talk) the amount of times ive used the wp template specifically is just too many times to even make a change like this be merely plausible.
9. Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
10. Dine2017 (talk) Per all. In addition, [[wikipedia:Mario|]] lengthens to [[wikipedia:Mario|Mario]] after the page is saved, creating more visual clutter when someone later edits the paragraph.
11. Windy (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Axis Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? ^S _o ^m _e ^t _h ⁱ _n ^g _o ⁿ _e ! 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)

Well, {{wp}} and {{fandom}} are very commonly used and quite nifty interwiki link templates (the former because, well, it's Wikipedia, and the latter because it's the largest and most well-known wikifarm that hosts thousands of wikis: linking to a specific wiki on Fandom is in itself a bit complicated as it is, too). That whole laundry list of the previous proposal, though... they're mostly there just because they're NIWA wikis. Some of them, such as for Zelda Wiki and Nookipedia, make sense to have a template for, since Super Mario has some connections with Legend of Zelda or Animal Crossing, and thus interwiki links would be commonly used, but then there's those for Wapopedia, Dragalia Lost Wiki, and Kovopedia, which represent series that barely have any connection to Mario, and so is barely linked by this wiki, so in turn the template would barely be used as well. Not to mention it's a lot of suggested shorthands to keep track of. In such a case, it would be easier to just type [[kovopedia:Magical Vacation|]] whenever the one occasion we have to link to one of these games makes itself apparent rend (talk) (edits) 21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)

Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released

Template:ProposalOutcome What this proposal aims to enforce is that if a subject is confirmed to have a new name in an upcoming game, the article must not be moved to the new name until the game has released. A prime example is the recent situation with Psychopath, which the Nintendo of America Twitter account referred to as "Thought Peek" for the remake and the article was immediately moved, but was since moved back to Psychopath as it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name, so this proposal should also prevent jumping the gun like this. The new name can still be mentioned in the article, but as stated must not be the article title until the game's release regardless of source.

EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable.

Proposer: Swallow (talk)
Deadline: October 5, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Swallow (talk) Per proposal
2. Tails777 (talk) Not even just for games, content overall. Not to dig up old cases (and not to sound insensitive or anything), but we've jumped the gun before on upcoming content so I support the idea of waiting until everything is fully known before making any moves.
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... Or is it?
4. Waluigi Time (talk) This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
5. Herobrine (talk) Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
6. Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. As anyone acutely familiar with game development will tell you, things change mid-development, even (and in some cases especially) after promotional content says something about the game, all the time. And even if things don't change, all it takes is one blunder of cyclical reporting to accidentally trip people up anyways--remember God Slayer Bowser? Better safe and wait for the game to release than pre-empt it and get caught with our proverbial pants down if they walk back on it for whatever reason. And as Herobrine mentions, Nintendo has held different English translations between American English and British English for awhile now--who's to say this isn't another case of exactly that?
7. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
8. LinkTheLefty (talk) Let's just say that I have unfortunate reason to believe that the retranslation situation is in a way more precarious position than all of us would've liked, but since I really should not get into that here/now/ever, I'll just say "I agree it's a good idea to treat everything as a placeholder until release" and leave it at that. (Also, I thought this was already standard practice.)
9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
10. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
11. 7feetunder (talk) The Mario Party 5 bonus disc demo had early minigame names, ""Pale Piranha" was a last minute change, and so on, and so forth.
12. BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
13. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all, and i just agree in general.
14. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per all.
15. Mister Wu (talk) Agreed, we can’t be sure of the final name until the actual release.

Oppose

1. Hewer (talk) I can understand not immediately moving based on one social media post, but this easily has the potential to just seem silly if a rename is ever made very clear in pre-release material. This would also create a bit of an inconsistency with pre-release material being acceptable for the names of new subjects but not returning ones. This should probably be case-by-case in my opinion.
2. PaperSplash (talk) I see no reason to distrust official social media and other pre-release marketing material in cases like these.
3. Juan90980 (talk) Per PaperSplash's reason.

Comments

@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

Then why hold off? And apologies for misunderstanding, but I didn't know how else to interpret "it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name". It makes sense to wait until release for latest appearances, and while I don't necessarily agree with our current rule on infobox images I can see the reasoning for there, but I don't here. I don't think the DS Mario Circuit edit Tails777 cited is a good enough argument for a policy change across the board because Mario Kart Tour and the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass have a rather unique situation of having content released (and seemingly developed) concurrently. (Also said edit and the reason given for it in the edit summary feel rather contradictory to me...) This also isn't like God Slayer Bowser since we're dealing with an actual official source here. I'd also like to point out that Nintendo had largely put a stop to separate American English and British English localizations by the beginning of the Switch era; pretty much all the games that still have them separate are ports of games that already had them separate and are seemingly kept that way for consistency more than anything. (And even then, there have been exceptions like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury where the original game's British English localization was discarded anyway.) The only comparable situation I can think of where the English localization ended up going back on a rename from pre-release to post-release is the Fishman ("Merman") spirit from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (which didn't end up affecting us either way since it's not a Mario character, but I'll still concede on this). That's what we should be looking at if anything. PaperSplash (talk) 22:18, September 28, 2023 (EDT)

The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas

Template:ProposalOutcome While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the Temple with Five Doors (discussion here), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and Llama's Temple (both parts of Angry Aztec) the only level-specific areas of Donkey Kong 64 to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for just these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like Surf Cabana and Sand Cabana, so why not? Well, there is one problem: names.

Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.

• Only split named sub-areas: Simply put, we only split the sub-areas that would not require a {{conjecture}} template. This avoids the issue of setting a potentially troublesome precedent involving nameless sub-area articles, but creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope. The rather expansive but unnamed underground crypt in Creepy Castle would not get an article, but the very small "Silo" from that same level would, purely because it and not the former was named in a guide with a seemingly arbitrary policy for naming and capitalizing things.
• Split everything: Every sub-area gets an article, even if we have to use some conjectural names. I've already mentioned the can of worms this would open, but there's also just the fact that some of these areas, such as the crusher room in Frantic Factory, are very small and only house a single Golden Banana. Others may also prove challenging to come up with good conjectural names for. It does, however, avoid the arbitrariness of "whichever ones we can cite a name for" dictating which ones get articles and which don't.
• Don't split any sub-areas: We'd just cover them on the main level articles. Llama's Temple and Temple with Five Doors will be merged with Angry Aztec. This avoids both the arbitrariness and the nameless sub-area precedent. Of course, many of these sub-areas are fairly large and even have different music tracks, so it could be seen as losing something. However, not having articles for DK64 sub-areas isn't that illogical to me. DK64 doesn't have much lore or world-building like Sunshine or Odyssey do, and this is reflected in how the game doesn't really name its sub-areas much, with a lot of the names coming from low-effort guides. Therefore, it's easier to justify not having an article for the Llama's Temple than it would be for Hotel Delfino.
• Keep the status quo: Is there a valid argument for only having the specific two articles we have now? I really don't see how there could be one.

A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap".

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: October 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Only split named sub-areas

1. Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, personally. If they bothered to get an official name, we might as well give them articles--or at the very least redirects, but, well, see our secondary option. This honestly wouldn't even be that much effort, as we don't believe there are too many named sub-areas as-is.
2. MegaBowser64 (talk) It's not like consistency is a universal quality of life, we don't need all the sub-areas in the same format, if we can split an area into its own article, why not??
3. Pseudo (talk) Seems like the most straightforward solution to me. Per Camwoodstock.
4. ToxicOJ (talk) Per Camwoodstock. If they got an official name, I think we should give them an article.

Don't split any sub-areas

1. 7feetunder (talk) To be honest, this is what I'm leaning towards, for the reasons I've given above and the flaws of both split options. I don't think this would result in bloated level articles either, since the two sub-area articles we do have aren't that long to begin with and many of these areas aren't as big as them.
2. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) If that doesn't work out, we'd like to vote this with the caveat that we should retain redirects for named subareas, instead of a full-on deletion. We should also probably mention the official names for these sub-areas in the merged articles when it's appropriate to do so.
4. Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice.
5. Ahemtoday (talk) In general, I don't think a guide should be our sole determinant for whether to split or merge an article, at least not in these sorts of situations. And any size-based criterion would be fuzzy and subjective, which is also something I think we should avoid.

Comments

Regarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

It's not just the size and scope oddities that would arise from this, it's the fact that the guide that would largely be dictating what sub-areas get articles and which don't is, naming-wise, a complete mess. For example, the short, one-way tunnel in Angry Aztec (which is not even a sub-area) containing a Stealthy Snoop barrel is given a proper name by the guide (Quicksand Tunnel) even though there's no reason for it to have one, many names are very generic (with capitalization being the only reason they can be considered names at all), and several more expansive areas are not named.

Regarding your other points: while areas with official names do usually warrant articles, not all of them do. The Super Mario Odyssey proposal I mentioned above is a perfect example of such, since the game's unprecedented "name every Checkpoint Flag" policy is the only reason it was an issue to begin with. Another example would be Windswept Valley, a specific section of a Mario 64 level I have never seen anyone vouch for splitting. About making exceptions for sufficiently large areas: we could do that, but then how "large" does an area have to be to warrant a conjecturally-named sub-area article? And that just leads us back to the slippery slope flaw of the "split everything" option. 16:36, October 10, 2023 (EDT)

Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"

Template:ProposalOutcome This is rather self-explanatory. Regarding the {{character infobox}} template, instead of simply listing one voice actor/actress in the infobox, I believe that the section should instead list others. Not all of them though, only actors who have portrayed the character enough times to become a recognizable name for the character in whatever OFFICIAL media they portayed them in, alongside their latest ones of course. In fact, the wiki kind of already does this with characters like Mario having Charles Martinet and Chris Pratt listed together (now with Kevin Afghani too). So I propose that we rename the section to "Notable portrayals" to make the section not quite as confusing/misnamed. of course the other option would be to enforce the "latest" part, and drop Chris and Charles from the section (on Mario's page at least) entirely, leaving only Kevin Afghani, since he would be the "latest" portrayal.

So to summarise:

• Option 1: Rename it to "Notable portrayals" and include multiple VAs. For example; list Charles Martinet, Chris Pratt, and Kevin Afghani for Mario... maybe even Lou Albano and Bob Hoskins since they fit the hypothetical definition I gave earlier.
• Option 2: Enforce the "Latest portrayal" part. For example, only list Kevin Afghani as Mario's VA.
• Option 3: Do nothing.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: October 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT

Rename the section

1. YoYo (talk) Other wikis handle it this way too, like Wikipedia.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. If we're treating this section like a "notable protrayals" section in the first place (e.g. listing both Charles and Kevin in Mario's infobox), we should probably actually label it as such so people don't get confused in the future.
3. Pseudo (talk) Seems sensible to me especially since this section is already being used in this way, and it should help with wiki navigation more generally.
4. SeanWheeler (talk) Do we have to list only one voice actor? What if someone was curious about all the voice actors who voiced Mario? Charles Martinet had voiced Mario for thirty years, and now he's getting taken off the page because Nintendo just hired Kevin Afgani? That's only going to confuse readers into thinking Kevin voiced Mario for all these appearances when he only just started in Super Mario Wonder. We should list all the voice actors for readers who are curious.
5. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all, especially SeanWheeler.
6. Super Game Gear (talk) Martinet deserves to be recognized for his long-time role of voicing Mario, Luigi, and others, even post-retirement.
7. OmegaRuby (talk) Especially with the sudden, new change in voice actor for the two main characters in the entire franchise, I feel that changing 'latest portrayals' to 'notable portrayals' would be extremely beneficial and informative for newer fans of the series. There are readers, such as myself as a small child, who generally just look at the infobox or the first section of the article for information they need, and it would probably be overall beneficial for new Mario fans browsing the wiki to know about Charles, who portrayed Mario the most, as well as being the man who has the most roles as the same character in video game history without scrolling all the way down to his Portrayals section.

Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part

1. Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Just doing the latest performance will make help to make sure the page is objective.

Leave it as it is

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this is fixing anything that was too broken. The second option is ideal for streamlining the infobox, but there are probably going to be more times when the latest voice actor is uncredited or when it's a one-off or substitute. And what if we have another situation where there are multiple in-game voice actors concurrently playing the role anyway? Disclosure: I owe Charles a little favor so this may or may not be my extremely petty way of returning it.
2. 7feetunder (talk) If even the proposer isn't sure what qualifies as "notable," it's probably not a good idea. It may be blatantly obvious to include Charles Martinet for Mario, but what about Princess Peach? Which of her numerous voice actresses are "notable?" How many times does a VA have to voice a character to be "notable?" Does appearing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie alone qualify you for "notable" status? Do VAs from the old cartoons count? I had previously voted for the second option as well, but LTL's vote and comments by Waluigi Time and especially ToxicOJ have led me to retract it. There are simply too many potential gray areas regarding the latest portrayal for me to support a strict enforcement of latest only. I vastly prefer LTL's below suggestion of simply listing all game portrayals in a collapsible section, which avoids the arbitrary qualifier of "notable" entirely.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Thinking on it, we think we'd be alright with this as well--plus, as we've since gone over in comments, we do have an idea that we'd prefer over simply enforcing the "latest" part.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) What's considered a notable portrayal is going to be very subjective (there's already uncertainty about what could qualify in this proposal). Leaving only the latest portrayal keeps the infobox simple and streamlined, and the rest of the portrayals can be covered in a dedicated section. Also, having three VAs in Mario's infobox was the decision of one editor and as I'm writing this that list has already been narrowed down to just Kevin, so it's not really accurate to say we already do this. The movie was a special case since those were the latest portrayal, but obviously not intended to be replacements for the entire franchise going forward. (I originally voted for option 2, but the only difference between these is probably a misunderstanding by the proposer. Let's not needlessly split the vote.)
5. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.
6. ToxicOJ (talk) There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. I understand arguments for both other options, but I am voting to leave it as it is because I think there are significant issues with both alternatives. Regarding option 1, I sympathize with the view that Charles should be recognized for his contributions, but changing the criteria to "notable portrayals" makes things much more subjective and leaves tons of room for gray area. Additionally, per 7feetunder, this may be an easy solution for Mario, but this proposal will impact ALL character pages, and the standard for "notable" VAs will be very difficult to determine for some characters. Regarding option 2, I agree with most of the arguments for this option, but per my comment I think a very strict interpretation of "latest portrayal" could lead to issues surrounding reused voice clips and game re-releases. Further, I think it is too early in Kevin's career as Mario to know how often Charles' voice will be reused, and we should be wary of making decisions surrounding this issue until this until the dust settles and this dynamic becomes clearer down the road. All of these reasons are why I think we should just leave things the way they are now. I also think that LTL's suggestion to list all portrayals is a great idea.
7. Tails777 (talk) Per all
8. Whitey (talk) Per all.
9. Swallow (talk) Per all zura
10. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all. If we have one VA recording new voice lines and another getting their previous ones used, then switching would be annoying and pointless. On the other hand, if no switching occurs, we use the latest one. Option 2 seems unnecessary to me.

Comments

We feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?)

...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one.

* doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

What if we just limited the infobox to collapsible in-game portrayals, and made portrayals in other media its own optional section? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:25, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

I wouldn't be opposed to including the latest actors from each distinct form of media in the "Latest portrayals" section, ie. Kevin Afghani (video games, 2023-), Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie). User:Whitey (talk / edits) 14:48, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

That also works, though you do still definitely run into edge-cases when a media hasn't been represented in awhile. For example, do the DiC cartoons not count as the most recent animated series, so do we include Lou Albano? ...What do we do about Pat McBride, considering how much an outlier Donkey Kong Goes Home already is? This definitely runs the risk of cycling back to the "what does everyone else consider notable enough?", so we'd be fine with just keeping it to most recent overall portrayal, personally... ;P ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 14:57, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

"something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one" - There doesn't need to be anything else to do this because that's what the latest portrayal field is for already. In cases where a character has only ever been portrayed by one person, the portrayed by field is supposed to be used instead (though latest portrayal is frequently misused for this). -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Come to think of it, this proposal might need to be restructured a bit. As I've already pointed out, the situation where Mario had three actors listed at the time this proposal was written was not based on any existing wiki standards and is no longer the case. I assume the leave as-is option was based on the assumption that this actually was standard. Otherwise, there's not much difference between the latter two options. Even though I voted for "enforcing" this, I'd be okay with having multiple actors listed at the same time if we get another TSMBM situation where what's technically the most recent portrayal clearly isn't meant to be across the entire franchise. Unless anyone is strongly opposed to that, it's unnecessarily splitting the vote when this could probably work fine as a standard support/oppose proposal.

As an aside, I have to wonder if we should be listing Kevin at all since Wonder hasn't released just yet. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

How would it be handled if a future game only uses old voice clips from Charles Martinet, such as a re-release like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, or the remastered Mario & Luigi games? I feel like it would be strange to keep swapping back and forth between Charles and Kevin if we exclusively list the voice actor from the most recently released game. On a related note, how would the years active be listed if Charles' voice is reused in a future game? ToxicOJ (talk) 07:57, October 17, 2023 (EDT)

In a situation like that, it's probably better to keep the person who's actively doing the role listed than to keep switching it out over recycled clips. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)

@SeanWheeler: The information will still be there, there's a portrayals section further down the page that does list every person who has ever portrayed Mario for anyone who wants to see that. This proposal affects the listings in the character infobox and nothing else. That field also specifically says "latest portrayal" and lists the years, in this case 2023-present, so no one should be confused about it. -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)

A section for portrayals right in the middle of the page? I hadn't even noticed it before. But considering how many voice actors are on that list, I agree that the infobox should only have the notable portrayals such as Charles Martinet. The way he was listed in that section looks like he's been in only four games. Not many people would understand the dash between game titles as they would with years. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:45, October 20, 2023 (EDT)

Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Page

Template:ProposalOutcome The top of Princess Daisy's page currently serves to point users in the correct direction in regard to content that may also contain the name Daisy. Linking to the film variant's page and the baby counterpart's page makes sense to me. Linking to a variant version of a Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon enemy that by definition is, "as the name implies, a Gobber with daisy flower designs all over him," doesn't seem justified. This character is hardly its own entity to begin with hence it being in a subcategory of the one it branches off from, and its relevance to anything beyond that seems extremely minor compared to a character like Princess Daisy. Unlike the other info it isn't even related to Daisy, and it is an extension of the Creeper Launcher, and a shallow one at that. Wario is a featured article, and it doesn't contain any such info clogging up the top of its page, even though it could arguably include anything from Baby Wario to Bwario and plenty more. At what point is there a line drawn in how much clutter and to what degree of relevancy content like this is defined? Hopefully this can serve as such a mark in the sand.

Proposer: TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk)
Deadline: October 21, 2023, at 12:57 GMT

Support

1. TimonLeslieBerkowitz (talk) Per the reasons above, I support my proposal.

Oppose

1. Arend (talk) The {{redirect}} template, which the Creeper Launcher page is being included to on Daisy's page, is there to link any possible page a visitor might be looking for when searching for a specific term, when said term is already a redirect to the page this template is applied to. It's very similar to the {{about}} template, in that both are meant to disambiguate in regards to similar terms, like a lot of disambiguation pages. This means that sometimes, pages that may have nothing to do with the subject that the template is applied to would have to be included because they share the exact same name. That's the point of the template. The Gobber with the daisy pattern is named "Daisy", and there might be someone that may be looking for such a thing, though it would be very unwise to made the page "Daisy" a redirect to a section on Creeper Launcher when the much more well-known Princess Daisy, also referred to as "Daisy" exists. Hence why the Creeper Launcher page is on the Princess Daisy page; it's for disambiguation purposes.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, there doesn't feel like there's anything inherently wrong with this due to just how generic the word "Daisy" is. Though, it also doesn't help that, like it feels like a lot of things lately, Nintendo seems keen to throw us a curveball with the upcoming Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon 2 remake coming to Switch... Which seems to be once again not using the NoA names as a basis. Not that it'd seemingly matter much in this case, as it as originally named Daisy in Japanese as well, but then with the retranslations happening for the SMRPG characters... Yeah, this feels like a largely pointless removal that'd only serve to confuse things. We, admittedly, couldn't find the full policy on "See also"s on the start of the article, but from what we could gleam it's generally accepted to try to retain more links than it is to remove them unless it is well and truly silly to do so (such as the infamous Flat Zone, see also Flab Zone--literally only existing to seemingly catch typos.)
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. How come Wario's article only has one redirect though?
4. Koopa con Carne (talk) Reader searches "Daisy" on Mario Wiki in hopes of finding more about the Luigi's Mansion enemy, but gets redirected to Princess Daisy's page instead because she's the more popular character. The link at the top of the page is handy because it leads this particular reader to their intended goal.
5. Pseudo (talk) Per all, particularly the scenario cited by Koopa con Carne. Even if this is an obscure boss variation, it's still legitimately called "Daisy" and should be navigable to by the usual methods, regardless of how much more prominent Princess Daisy is.
6. Hewer (talk) Per all.
7. SeanWheeler (talk) Until we have a Daisy (disambiguation) page, might as well link to the other "Daisy" pages on top of her page.

Comments

This should be a talk page proposal in Daisy's talk page. Nightwicked Bowser 16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Yes, this should be moved to Talk:Princess Daisy; Proposals on the MarioWiki:Proposals page should only feature proposals that affect multiple articles, yet this proposal only affects one article. rend (talk) (edits) 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)

Ehh, we've seen a few proposals that would otherwise only impact one page end up here just because they would hold a precedent for future articles. It's not that too big a deal, admittedly. ~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 18:10, October 14, 2023 (EDT)