MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, December 23rd, 19:07 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  2. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  3. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  5. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  6. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  7. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  8. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  9. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  12. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  13. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  14. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  15. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  16. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  17. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  18. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  19. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  20. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Below is an example of what your proposal must look like. If you are unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. When updating the bracketed variables with actual information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

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

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)
Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)
Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)
Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)
Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)
Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)
^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Expand and rename List of characters by game to List of characters by first appearance, Hewer (ended November 20, 2024)
Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), Technetium (ended November 30, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Families

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

Create articles

  1. Weegie baby 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.

Create templates

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 subsection 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.

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. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (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)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

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

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on December 8 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

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>

[citation needed]

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>

[reference needed]

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

Option 1

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) First choice

Option 2

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.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 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. --Penguin Luigi's map icon from Mario Kart Tour 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.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 13:36, December 4, 2024 (EST)

A reconsidering of "derived names"

This proposal acts as a counter to the proposal Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages. In short, to a casual reader like myself, subjects being named Disaster Neko, Comet Tico, Wonder Haiden, and Kodeka Kakibō are extremely unhelpful when English names for them seem trivial. Many subjects in the Mario franchise use a very consistent naming scheme: [A descriptor for this specific subject, usually an adjective] [very standardized name]. If something is officially called Wonder Packun, and is a Packun(or Piranha Plant) which have variants consistently named "X Packun" in Japanese and "X Piranha Plant" in English, then it feels pedantic to not call it a Wonder Piranha Plant.

The proposed change here would be to allow derived names to take precedent over internal and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation, on a case-by-case basis. Derivations should be based on actual official English localizations or already use English words to begin with. If there isn't precedent for each aspect of the name, then it should remain in its source language. Examples:

  • Fire Gabon: "Fire X" is a well established format, see Fire Bro (Faia Burosu) and Fire Piranha Plant (Faia Pakkun). "X Spike" is also well established, see Paper Spike (Pēpā Gabon) and Stone Spike (Rokku Gabon). Therefore, Faia Gabon would be interpreted as Fire Spike.
  • Comet Tico: "Comet" is already an English term used frequently in Super Mario Galaxy, and Prankster Comets are directly connected to the Comet Tico. "X Luma" is a very consistent formatting of names in SMG, see Hungry Luma (TicoFat internally) and Co-Star Luma (SupportTico intermally). TicoComet can therefore be interpreted as Comet Luma.
  • Yarikuri Obake: "Yarikuri" is officially localized as Pirate Goom, however it is never given any descriptors in English and "Obake" does not have a standardized localization, especially not one for Wario Land 3. This name would remain in Japanese.
  • Hanabihei (assuming its official English name was never revealed): "Hanabihei" is derived from "Bombhei", but is a portmanteau and not a trivial descriptive name. It would remain as-is.

The positives of this proposal if it were to pass would be that related subjects would be intuitive as to how they relate. Just by reading the names, you would be able to tell that Hoppycat, Wonder Hoppycat, and Big Hoppycat are related, and what that relationship is.

Edit: Several users have expressed the sentiment that our current names are already somewhat derivative. Fire Gabon is not the name of the subject in Japanese, but rather Faia Gabon. Similarly, Informant Mūcho is derived from the filename B4_Informant_MUC. Thusly, a new option is provided to propose to stop this form of derived names as well. Names like Comet Tico would be moved to "TicoComet", and Informant Mūcho moved to "Informant_MUC" or "Informant".

Edit 2: LinkTheLefty has very reasonably pointed out that the wiki has existing, consistent guidelines on how to write Japanese names with English loanwords, meaning Fire Gabon should not be written as Faia Gabon. I have altered the second option in accordance. If it passes, Japanese names will not have their spellings changed, but names derived from development data will still be made more direct. In hindsight, it probably wasn't a good idea, articles called Sūpābо̄rū Mario or Sūpā Mario Kāto Doki Doki Rēsu would probably be rather obtrusive.

Proposer: PopitTart (talk)
Deadline: December 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Allow fully derived names (Fire Spike, Informant Snifit)

  1. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Fun With Despair (talk) Per proposal. Since I started browsing this wiki as a kid, I had always thought the use of foreign language names were nonsensical when it was obvious what they should be - especially in cases like those cited in the proposal. "Neko" just means literally "Cat" in Japanese. It is likewise reasonable, as stated, to amend enemy names to their English counterpart in cases like "Fire Gabon", etc. In the previous vote to repeal this, Koopa con Carne (talk) stated that you shouldn't ignore an official name to make up a "wacky" name instead. I don't believe this to be a good faith argument in this case. Nobody is making anything up. If Gabon in English is Spike, then there is absolutely no conjecture with regards to applying that moniker to Fire Gabon - nor is there conjecture with regards to what replacing Disaster Neko with Disaster Cat in an instance where the normal version of these entities is just called "Kitten" in English, a direct translation from the respective Japanese name.
  6. Ninelevendo (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Shoey (talk) Per proposal.
  8. Turboo (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Meta Knight (talk) It just makes more sense.
  10. Lakituthequick (talk) Per all.
  11. Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per proposal.
  12. Cheat-master30 (talk) Per all.
  13. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  14. winstein (talk) I think this is a good idea, so I agree with it.
  15. Roserade (talk) I have been keeping with this proposal and reading the arguments of the opposition, and while I understand where they're founded, I remain fairly unconvinced by them. I believe that this proposal is pointing towards reputable translation as the source of these names, with names like "Fire Spike" being based upon a) well-established patterns in translation and b) clear visual indication of what the thing is. To argue that translating directly like this is "making stuff up" feels to me like a bad-faith argument. I feel like we can reasonably deduce what a translation should be if we have the valid evidencing for it - which PopitTart indicates as the aim in this proposal. And if a localization eventually rolls around, and it's a different name than what we're using? We change it, which is already what we'd do in the case of a Japanese article name anyway. Updating information is not hard, if it becomes necessary. Ultimately, our aim as a fan wiki should be accessibility of its userbase, and straightforward translation work is one of the ways to make these articles more accessible. Also, I'm sure it's more of an aside than a fully-fledged argument, but "regret the next encyclopedia event" is a silly argument. It's not our responsibility to ensure that nobody in a formal publishing house opts to plagiarize the wiki again.
  16. MCD (talk) Per all, especially Roserade & FWD.
  17. Ninja Squid (talk) Per all.
  18. Tails777 (talk) The Disaster Neko and Fire Gabon examples are the ones that are ALWAYS on my mind when I think of this. Per Fun with Despair and Roserade especially.
  19. Reese Rivers (talk) Per all.
  20. Pseudo (talk) Though I'm somewhat hesitant because I do perceive the opposition's stated disadvantages of doing this (particularly those mentioned by Nintendo101), I'm inclined to support this especially because of the argument raised by Lady Sophie and Exiled.Serenity's comments — that the wiki already does do this sort of name-deriving with examples like Comet Tico, Dark Nokonoko, and Fire Gabon, none of which exactly match the form seen in the game files. If we're comfortable adopting slightly derived names—and they are derived names—in order to make the wiki more readable, which I personally am, then I see little reason not to translate well-established names like Tico, Nokonoko, and Gabon, which have already been localized to English time after time. Perhaps the enemy's name will not turn out to be "Fire Spike" when it reappears with an officially-localized name, but we can simply acknowledge that as a wiki when the time comes. Frankly, acknowledging partially derived names like these three with a notice template arguably provides greater clarity than what the wiki is currently doing, claiming that the enemy's datamined name is Dark Nokonoko, rather than NokonokoDark, the only official "English" name that actually exists.
  21. Cadrega86 (talk) Per proposal and Pseudo.
  22. Exiled.Serenity (talk) Per my comments below, and Pseudo. This is my preferred option— I think it is only "making stuff up" in the strictest possible sense. A far cry from calling him "Sizzle-Spikey!" or whatever. I also appreciate the proposal's restraint in this regard, choosing to only allow this when there's so much evidence for a given name that we'd just as easily be giving an inaccurate impression by not using it.
  23. Dainn (talk) Per all. Wonder Haiden bothered me deeply when I first saw it.

Stop derived development data names (Fire Gabon, Informant_MUC)

  1. MCD (talk) Not my first choice but per my comment below. What we have now is essentially a mish-mash of different sources of derivation, this is better than that at least.
  2. Sparks (talk) Agreed.
  3. PopitTart (talk) Second choice, Per MCD. If we can't do fully derived names, then we shouldn't do arbitrary partial ones.
  4. Hewer (talk) Second choice, I'll take this over the first option.
  5. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per... Hewer, I guess? Voting mostly to the detriment of the first option.
  6. Ahemtoday (talk) Honestly, I'm not even sure this is my second choice or not — I'm willing to go a long way in the name of consistency.
  7. Tails777 (talk) Secondary choice. I'd rather lean one way or the other than have a messy in between. At least with this, it makes more sense than allowing the word "Fire" to be translated from "Fire Gabon" and not "Gabon".
  8. Pseudo (talk) Secondary choice per Tails777, and per the sentiment expressed in my vote for the option 1. The current situation is a bad middle ground. This might become my primary vote in the future, but I need to think about it more.
  9. Exiled.Serenity (talk) My second choice. It's at least consistent.
  10. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This I can agree with, the guessing of word order for file names always bugged me. Granted, it'd look odd in the prose, but there are ways around it (for instance, "Informant_MUC is the internal designation of a Snifit in Paper Mario: Color Splash. The Snifit is found...")
  11. FanOfYoshi (talk) As counterproductive/problematic as the proposal itself is, i suppose this could be an alternative (even if this option might get counterproductive in certain areas too)
  12. TPG (talk) After careful consideration and reading the comments of this proposal, I think this is the most acceptable option. Ultimately it is not the wiki's responsibility to localise names on Nintendo's behalf, and even though it IS common sense to call it 'Fire Spike', or 'Wonder Hoppycat', no official source has used that name yet. Perhaps down the line this more strict position on deriving names will lead to a more acceptable naming guideline that allows us to state the obvious, but it isn't on us to make up names. I don't think this is the best way to deal with conjecture, but I'll leave that thought in the comments.

Do nothing (Fire Gabon, Informant Mūcho)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This remains speculative. They could just as easily call it Flame Spike (Flame Chomp exists, after all, having been renamed from Fire Chomp) or Fireball Spike.
  2. Hewer (talk) Per the previous proposal that got rid of these names. It's still conjecture no matter how much we pretend it's not, and I'd rather stick to what's official. In response to the argument that Japanese names confuse or are unhelpful to readers, I'd argue that using fan names over official ones is misleading readers, which is much worse. We're here to report what the facts are, not what we want them to be. Also, variant relationships don't always have to be obvious from the name (you'd never guess from the name alone that Bandit is a Shy Guy variant, for example).
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) No. Making up a name for a thing that has an official name is not what the wiki is about, and if you think the official name is less intuitive than the alternative, there's this nifty feature called "redirects" that doesn't tamper with official concepts. If you think that argument is in bad faith, then you misunderstood the mission of this site.
  4. Nintendo101 (talk) I think Popitart created a solid proposal, and I understand why it has garnered support. However, I believe the burden on having these names revised to something more suitable and consistent with the English localization is on the publisher. Not us. One of the things that has made Super Mario Wiki stronger reference material than many other wikis is our naming policy. I view it as a concentrated effort to avoid citogenesis, descriptivism, and manufactured consensus, which is especially important considering Nintendo themselves clearly consult this site on occasion and sometimes incorporate our interpretations of the text, including incorrect interpretations. It is clear we are the primary reference for in-depth Super Mario information on the internet and for the general public, and likely will remain so for years to come. I would like us to remain reliable and neutral for them. Does "Comet Tico" look silly next to "Hungry Luma?" Yes, it does. Does it not mean "Comet Luma?" Yes. But I do not think that is something for us to solve, and I suspect most readers will intuitively understand this means the subject has not been given an English name yet. I don't think that is a big deal. I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the Super Mario Galaxy article and assume that is its name. In my view, that is not really true, but presenting it as such can lead to misinformation being spread. I understand and respect those who feel differently, but that is generally how I feel at this time.
  5. LinkTheLefty (talk) How about we not do this again and regret it when the next encyclopedia event happens? We've never been one of those sites that gets a dopamine rush over "canonizing" stuff. On the contrary, we have a responsibility to step back and give the translators breathing room to do their thing when they get their chance without fears of stifling their freedom and being compared to the fans all the time. Per all the opposition, past and current.
  6. Axii (talk) ^
  7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Doc and Nintendo101.
  8. Sparks (talk) While it is tempting to just replace the Japanese name with its English equivalent, we don't know for sure if that is what the English translation actually is (or will be). While Fire Spike and Wonder Hoppycat seem to be obvious names for the enemies, what if they're not their official names? We have concrete evidence right now; it's just not English, but having an official name in Japanese is better than making up an English one.
  9. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all; no comment needed, since you may already know where i stand.
  10. Super Mario RPG (talk) I see no reason to change this that doesn't involve appealing to the fact that this is an English wiki.
  11. Camwoodstock (talk) We're gonna be honest here, neither of the other options really appeal to us. We understand the concerns with citogenesis that caused the previous proposal to fail, so we won't really go over that. But the "we should use derived names exactly as they are written in the source" is... Well, to put it bluntly here, more than a little asinine. Where exactly are we drawing the line, here? The provided examples in the proposal keep the camelcase in TicoComet and that B4_Informant_MUC would be moved to Informant_MUC; who's calling what's the "unnecessary" parts we omit here? Do we just include them all? If it's the latter, be honest with yourself; would the wiki be better off if we had an article called cg_data-character-p0242_peach_doll? If it's the former, how do we plan to trim down a sentence on the Watering hole article like "They consistently spew water into a small basin, allowing Mario to swallow some and turn into STRM_SE_PUMP_MARIO_KUSUGURI."? We have so, so many questions, and unfortunately, next to no answers here. Above all else, we don't really feel comfortable going forward with a proposal that, as others have pointed out, has felt rather wishy-washy for something as drastic as a change to our article naming guidelines.
  12. DryBonesBandit (talk) Well, just because something can be translated as something else, doesn't mean it has been by Nintendo. Per all.

Comments

@Doc von Schmeltwick: the decision to go with Fire Spike over Flame Spike or others is based on both its behavior as well as how the "fire" prefix is translated from Japanese; Faia Gabon is a Spike that attacks with fireballs, as opposed to being made of fire or such. This is in-line with the given examples, as well as Fire Nipper Plant and Fire Mario, which all have the same "faia X" naming in Japanese. Flame Chomp however is named "Keronpa" in Japanese, and thus isn't suitable as a point of comparison. --PopitTart (talk) 02:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I have found better examples: Fire Heihō is known as Pyro Guy in English (not as "Fire Shy Guy") and Fire Mūcho is known as Scorchit (not as "Fire Snifit"). Jdtendo(T|C) 07:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I don't see the point debating Fire Spike anyway when the internal name specifically uses the word "Fire". --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:02, December 5, 2024 (EST)
But it does not specifically use the word "Spike". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:06, December 5, 2024 (EST)
The specific point being addressed here is Doc's vote, which was questioning using "Fire". --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:12, December 5, 2024 (EST)
As Jdtendo demonstrated, the Japanese name being "Fire [enemy]" doesn't mean the English name will be "Fire [enemy]". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
There are indeed cases where "faia" is translated as something other than "fire", but these appear to be used for enemies which use fire in a way distinct from the classic fireball projectile. In combination with the Fire Gabon's behavior matching the subjects which are translated that way, I believe "fire" to be the best option. --PopitTart (talk) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)
And that's just your subjective assessment. We have no idea if the official translators would agree, and for all we know, they could have completely different criteria to determine what gets called "Fire" and what doesn't. (For what it's worth, "Fire Spike"'s fireballs fly in a straight line through the air, so they are actually quite functionally different from those of Fire Mario or Fire Bro, which bounce along the ground, and Spike's other variants, Snow Spike and Stone Spike, do not follow any pre-established enemy variant naming patterns as far as I know.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I have not decided if I'd like to support this proposal yet but I feel like, as it is an English website, if the Mario Wiki shouldn't effectively create nicknames for subjects without official English names, it should not be arbitrarily applying names in other languages to those same subjects. The English name for the Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon and I think it is erroneous to refer to it as such in English text. if citogenesis is an issue, then using foreign and internal names runs the exact same risk as using a conjectural name. Just look at Lumacomète in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 08:18, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Additionally, according to the Wiki's rules on Japanese, "words that originated in English should be written as the original English word for simplicity", which means technically we're already not accurately representing the subject's Japanese name. The Fire variant of a Spike is not called Fire Gabon in English, and it's not called Fire Gabon in Japanese. if the jump from Faia to Fire is allowed, then why not from Gabon to Spike? We're already isolating and translating Japanese words in a vaccuum.— Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 08:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I concur with this standpoint. I will keep supporting this proposal in its current state, but I would support changing all adjectives back to Japanese if it fails. It's really a case of all-or-nothing to me, currently it is quite half-baked. (It could be considered to add that as a separate option if more people feel this way.) Lakituthequick.png Lakituthequick 14:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Should I add this as a third option, then? It has only been 1 day, well within the editing timeframe. --PopitTart (talk) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I think the difference is that the word "fire" is a loanword or gairaigo, so it is not really being translated. "Gabon" is not. — Nintendo101 (talk) 09:58, December 5, 2024 (EST)
How is the wiki's usage of foreign names "arbitrary"? They are used when no official English name is known to exist. This wiki may be written in English, but it's about a primarily Japanese franchise and covers subjects that never officially existed in English at all, so it's no surprise that not everything has an English name to use. What would be arbitrary is deciding not to use the subject's only official name because we think we can make up a better one. Also, this proposal isn't suggesting to stop using foreign names entirely, so we would still be using non-English names in our English text regardless. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:48, December 5, 2024 (EST)

@Nintendo101 First, I want to acknowledge that you've put together a very articulate, well-considered case for your opposition. Though we disagree, I understand well your point of view, and I find your concerns over citogenesis in particular to be a very worthwhile consideration. There is one point in your position on which I would like to seek clarification, though. You say, "I think a bigger deal would be to, say, see it named "Comet Luma" on the Super Mario Galaxy article and assume that is its name." Would that not be adequately addressed by use of the conjectural name template, which includes an argument specifically for derived names? I am earnestly curious as to why the template, as a clear and difficult-to-miss disclaimer that the name is derived and not an official localization, does not adequately address this point in your view. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 08:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Howdy! For starters, I do think a template header would be mitigating and I am glad it is incorporated into this proposal. That was good foresight. However, the systemic effectiveness of these templates is dependent on readers going to the articles for Fire Gabon or Comet Tico specifically, and I am not sure how often they would feel compelled to do that if these names "look" like official localizations. Someone visiting the site to read articles on the games themselves or levels may not feel compelled to check, and precisely because of their similarly to proper localizations, may just assume "Comet Luma" is its true localized name. Anecdotally, I feel like I have heard conjectural names justifiably adopted by our wiki for lack of better alternatives uncritically presented as the names off of the site and I think that is partially why. They look like properly localized English names, so why would one assume they are not? I have not seen that as often for subjects with Romanized Japanese titles, and I suspect that is because they also look the part. Maybe if there was some sort of in-text template similar to "conjectural" to embed directly into game or level articles that would help, but that also sounds a bit cumbersome. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:44, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Thank you so much for your response! Knowing this is coming from a position of concerns that readers will pass over the disclaimer by not actually visiting the page in question and will instead assume these names are official at a glance certainly does clarify that point. I do think you have the right of it that it would be cumbersome to mitigate this concern with the tools available to us. My first thought is perhaps we could use the tooltip text to address this by putting "derived name" in the tooltip text for these names on game pages and such, and if the proposal does pass, I think it would be worthwhile to consider using it. That said, as far as I know, you can't see that text on mobile, so I recognize this wouldn't be a perfect solution. Hooded Pitohui (talk) 08:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Honestly, I'd rather not make a distinction between "conjectural" names and "derived" names at all. They're both names made up by the wiki in an attempt to be as straightforward as possible, the only difference being that "derived" names could be taking priority over official names, yet templates for "derived" names give the misleading impression that they are more official than "conjectural" names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Or we can cut out the ten middlemen altogether and use much more efficient redirect system. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:11, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I feel like at a certain point, we can only do so much. We put templates on all the pages that are plain to see. If an Encyclopedia writer ignores it, how is that our fault? And like LadySophie17 said above, they used a French name for an English book - I don't see why using a name from another language, albeit official, eliminates the issue. It's their responsibility to appropriately localize names, not ours. And in this case, I think reader understandability comes first - after all, we are a site for the fans. Those writers shouldn't be looking at a wiki for research to begin with. If another Encyclopedia is written, I can only hope they learned from their mistakes with the original, and not use the wiki as a source. Technetium (talk) 09:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I am also aware I did that proposal to rename X-Ship to X-Naut ship, as the former felt too official of a name despite being marked as conjectural. This just feels like a different situation altogether for me, given that these conjectural English names for enemies aren't all fancy or anything, but very straight to the point. I agree with Hooded Pitohui's comment above that we could also mark these as being derived names on other pages they appear, not just the main articles on them. Technetium (talk) 09:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I understand your perspective, but part of the reason why we have maintained so many name-specific article templates in the first place was as a response to that encyclopedia and there has been a general reduction in conjectural names that was also in response to it. Besides, it is not just third-party editors I am thinking of — I am thinking of fans. Our general userbase. I do not want us to passively misinform them or imply names have some sort of community consensus when they do not. I know that is something I would have appreciated before I became more involved with editing the site, because I want to be informed and learn before anything else. - Nintendo101 (talk) 10:13, December 5, 2024 (EST)
You make good points. I'm not fully sure what to think myself honestly - as I said in my first edit summary for this today, those were simply my thoughts at the moment. I'll continue thinking about this as more comments are made and change my vote if my mind changes. Technetium (talk) 10:17, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Let's not pretend that Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia was an isolated case. It was only notable for its sheer sloppiness and scale. In actuality, we've seen similar things happen time and time again. Prima. Piranha Plant guidance. Dates. Don't get me started on Art & Artifacts and Zelda Encyclopedia. This is a new constant of our interconnected reality, for better or worse, and it's something that both pros and fans have to thread carefully. Sure, no doubt coincidences happen. If that makes us feel better, we can chalk things up to coincidences. But sometimes, you can't help but smell something fishy, and in the aftermath, you wonder how preventable it was if the leash was held just a little tighter...like Croaka-Cola. That mysterious leftover hyphen made me do a massive double-take because I have a distinct suspicion on its origin (no, I will not elaborate here, but if you know, you know). Considering Nintendo/Localsoft drama was reported sometime after the Super Mario RPG remake, and other strangeness like this top-left retranslated text-bubble and all the other in-game languages looking an awful lot like varying degrees of a master Japanese/English merged script, I've had this bad feeling that the scope of the official translators' fantastic work was extremely fragile, and that tears me up. But I digress; even if I find out I'm correct, I don't think the wiki's to blame. But it does show that we have the power to take a higher road less traveled, and for that, I strongly believe that the current restrictive system must be the lesser evil. Sorry if that sounds dramatic, but my honest fear is that the alternative would not be good in the long run, well-intentioned or not. If more fan-content cross-contamination controversies arise, don't tell me I didn't warn you. LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:45, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Oh, and also - what about dev data names like Informant Mūcho? Would those be affected by this proposal? I remember a discussion on this informant guy specifically on Discord leading into the discussion that lead to this proposal. Technetium (talk) 10:03, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Yes, the proposal states that it would "allow derived names to take precedent over internal and foreign names when those derived names are built upon a strong enough foundation". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:25, December 5, 2024 (EST)

This should also affect Fire Robota and Beam Robota, right? Their counterpart Yari Robota is the only one with a confirmed English name (Spear-bot) thanks to the Wario Land 3 manual. So in this case they would've been "Fire-bot" and "Beam-bot" respectively. Winstein (talk) 12:32, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I'd say that's too much of a stretch, isn't the point to only use these names when every part of them can be "derived" from other official names? "Fire" variants would usually (not always) be "Fire Enemy", not "Fire-enemy", and I don't know of any precedent for the naming of "Beam" variants. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)
As Hewer says, the elements making up those names and how they are localized into English do not have much data backing them up, as well as "Spear-bot" being somewhat of a portmantau rather than the standard "descriptor proper-name", and wouldn't make a clear consensus. --PopitTart (talk) 13:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)

@Roserade: The point isn't that the translation is bad, but that we shouldn't be the ones translating it, we should be providing the official names as they are. "Reasonably deducing what a translation should be" is not what the wiki is for (and "should" is also unavoidably subjective). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Also,
"Ultimately, our aim as a fan wiki should be accessibility of its userbase"
No, our ultimate aim is to provide information about the subject matter that is as close to truth as possible. Or in the absence of something that can be deemed "truth", a consensus from the ones who handle the franchise. I'm kinda over this whole idea that accessibility comes at the cost of veracity and accuracy. Supper Mario Broth would be disappointed in us. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:20, December 5, 2024 (EST), edited 13:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Mostly towards KCC: I firmly hold that our ultimate aim should be accessibility. This is why we adjust literally anything on the wiki - table layouts, redirects, etc. If our purpose was just glossary, we'd be doing nothing but creating bulleted lists. Explicit or not, we are always aiming to create a space that best facilitates the accessing of information - and I feel that some of our delineations of what is a "valid" name or not stands in contrast to this aim. I'm noticing that you're using the language of is instead of should, and I just want to say that I'm sorry my vision of this website varies in some ways from yours, but I think other interpretations of what this site is aiming to do are just as valid as this "purely objective" one, especially when changes are community-headed. I feel like I'm arguing into a theoretical circle that isn't leading me anywhere as I type, but I hope my feelings are clear. I don't think using the mountain of evidence to determine why "Fire Spike" is an acceptable name is doing anything to damage the reputability or informational identity of the wiki, and it would allow our information to be more accessible at a glance. Roserade (talk) 15:51, December 5, 2024 (EST)
We are indeed aiming to create a space that best facilitates the accessing of information - official information, not fan names or information we think should be official. There's a big difference between changing the way we present information for accessibility and changing the information that we are presenting. The point of the wiki is only to present official information. I agree that Fire Spike would be a fine name for the character, but it's simply not official, so us wishing that it was does not constitute a "mountain of evidence". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:15, December 5, 2024 (EST)
You are overlapping two extremely heterogenous aspects of the wiki: the presentation of information (including but not limited to, wording, layout, aesthetics), and the information itself. Yes, it's good to have information laid out in a pretty and accessible way, not so much when that bleeds into the information itself. So much for the accusation of bad faith when you're trying to liken the opposition's perspective to "we should only have bulleted lists!!!11"
Nintendo gives us a name for a subject, we use that. It's super clear-cut and avoids Hefty Goombrat-isms as well as eluding the need of a hundred disclaimers pointing to how the name is conjectural. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:54, December 5, 2024 (EST) edited 16:56, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Not directed at Koopa con Carne or Roserade or Hewer but in general: Just stepping in here to please keep things civil, please don't construct strawmen out of the oppositions' points. Thanks. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 17:04, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I saw that "Hefty Goombrat" was mentioned derisively in the previous proposal, and I'm curious as to why that is, beyond the compromises of any derived name? Kodeka Kakibō is extremely similar in both behavior and name to Kodeka Kuribō, so it appears simple from the outside. Is it because Hefty Goomba is the only point of official localization for "Kodeka"? --PopitTart (talk) 17:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
It's a flowery name. "Wacky", if you will. It reeks of Fantendo. If you really want to give this enemy a conjectural name at the expense of the official one, just use "Big Goombrat"; not only do even bigger variants of this enemy not exist, but policy states that "When deciding on a name, the [conjectural] name must be simple yet accurate." -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:05, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I'm not sure I agree with it being "flowery". It behaves just like and is particularly named just like the Kodeka Kuribō, so it follows that it would use the same naming scheme. Most enemies which are called "big" in English use simply "deka" in Japanese. I can understand being hesitant about using just the Hefty Goomba as reference, given this proposal hinges on the Mario franchise's tendency for consistent naming schemes. If this proposal passes, Kodeka Kakibō would probably warrant some discussion on its own. --PopitTart (talk) 18:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
That just shows how subjective the entire basis of this proposal is. You think naming it as such is logical, but that is plain and simply an opinion, and not one that will necessarily be shared. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:31, December 5, 2024 (EST)
The point I brought up here was that Kodeka Kakibō is analogous to Big Goomba in Super Mario Maker 2, Hefty Goomba in Super Mario Bros. Wonder (per the new name), and indeterminate in Super Mario Run. There is no one-size-fits-all solution in such a loony scenario. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:37, December 5, 2024 (EST)
That's starting off the assumption that the enemy in Super Mario Maker 2 is a "Kodeka Kakibō" to begin with, which, considering the equivalent Goomba enemy is officially referred to in Japanese as "Deka Kuribō", doesn't seem like a very reasonable assumption. Sure, they have the same role, but so do Maker's Big Goomba and New's Hefty Goomba. Blinker (talk) 07:35, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Exactly. The current merged article is trying to make the best out of a suboptimal situation. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I think that it's still very key that the enemy is particularly named Kodeka Kakibō in Wonder, literally translating as "mini big Goombrat". Wonder continues to use the name Kodeka Kuribō for the Double-Sized-Goomba-That-Splits-Into-Regular-Goombas like the New Super Mario Bros. games before it, likely because of the presence of of actual Deka Kuribō that split into them. There is no such Deka Kakibō however, meaning they could have very well called the Double-Sized-Goombrat-That-Splits-Into-Regular-Goombrats a Deka Kakibō instead. Nintendo had it in mind that these two enemies were directly comparable, going so far as to give the Goombrat a name with a level of specificity (kodeka rather than just deka) it didn't need. As for how this plays into Super Mario Maker, I think it's fine to call the Double-Sized-Goombrat there a Kodeka Kuribō with a lack of evidence otherwise. It's not unheard of for enemies in Super Mario Maker to not just become "Big" when given a mushroom. --PopitTart (talk) 05:23, December 7, 2024 (EST)
Again, the problem with this is that it's all just your subjective interpretation. The fact there's even an argument to be had here about how to translate the name goes to show that it is not one of the "obvious" translations this proposal is going for. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:54, December 7, 2024 (EST)

Not gonna try to throw shade but while I agree with the proposal on derived names it does look odd that a large contigent of users that don't otherwise directly participate in the wiki voted, and voted in a quite short time span. Mario (Santa)'s map icon from Mario Kart Tour Mario-HOHO! (Talk / Stalk) 15:48, December 5, 2024 (EST)

People talk, especially in the wiki forum and the communities surrounding it, and sometimes a proposal can attract attention from veteran editors (especially when it is as interesting as this). Rare as it is, I think it's good that users with a long history of wiki contribution can still lend their opinion, even if they aren't currently active. UserPyroGuy.png (T · C) 16:19, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Wasn't there a hard rule against proposal soliciting? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Discussing a proposal before posting it doesn't necessarily involve solicitation, as long as no one is asked to vote. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 16:31, December 5, 2024 (EST)
There is a key difference between soliciting votes and simply bringing up a proposal to discuss it (the latter is what happened, of course). Everyone here is voting independently based on the subject matter, even if opinions align in this case. UserPyroGuy.png (T · C) 16:35, December 5, 2024 (EST)
What does make this different than outright meatpuppeting is that community members who voted here still at least had prior history editing even if they are active no longer, as opposed to in this case where oppose voters showed up only to vote in a single proposal and never contributed anywhere else. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 16:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Also I do disagree that merely discussing a proposal isn't a form of solicitation, even if there is no directly asking a user to vote. There will always be biases in play depending on who approaches you and why you approach particular people: I'm more inclined to vote in support of my sister's proposal because of such inherent biases at play, and more in favor of supporting other people's proposals because I'm more aligned with their judgement or I have personally more trust in them than others, even if the same points are made, we all do. However, I do think a rule against vote solicitation is unenforceable because at what parameters do people suddenly break the rule? There's always going to be some bias towards one side regardless if there was direct solicitation involved or if it's implicated (and the latter is much tougher to analyze but honestly it's not worth dissecting intentions, we're supposed to assume good faith in all users). BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 16:50, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I do hear that, but bringing up a proposal in a public space (such as the Discord server) surely would not be a form of solicitation in any case, and is a pretty straightforward and honest way of handling something like this. Just trying to look out for a newer user such as PopitTart in this case particularly since this is their first proposal, and I wouldn't want to accuse them of impropriety without some kind of evidence. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 16:54, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Oh no, I understand your side. I'm just commenting that you can't completely avoid solicitation because of a lot of inherent biases that'll always be in play. Even writing a proposal practically is a sophisticated solicitation to get people to support you. In this case, I'd honestly have a proposal get votes from solicitation than proposals that end dead with a no quorum or extended dates. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 16:57, December 5, 2024 (EST)
This makes sense to me — I really mean that it's not an improper or untoward form of solicitation that the wiki ought to discourage in my opinion; I do definitely see what you mean about basic proposal-writing being some form of solicitation, lol. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 17:01, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I discussed the subject at length on the Discord server prior to starting the proposal, as I'd never done one before and wanted to make sure I accounted for all the nuances of the topic and got all the bureaucratic details right. Several of the votes are from users who were in that discussion and presumably wanted to get their opinion in officially as soon as they could. --PopitTart (talk) 16:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
@Mario Whether or not the votes have been solicited, I don't know. I'd not want that to be the case. But I think users should be allowed to voice their opinions on a wiki-relevant matter regardless of how much "credit" they have to their name as a user of the wiki, and regardless of whether they are a user at all or not. Otherwise the site just becomes a clique of stuffy nerds who monopolize the work done here and pretend it's justifiable just because they're more involved. This isn't a shade to the opposition (especially since I'm part of it), it just seems like a natural course of things in the given scenario. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:51, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Problem I have is less the idea of what is and isn't solicitation and more that something organized in such a way will of course have more users who have already made up their mind compared to the active users who generally pay conscientious attention to proposal discussions. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:05, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I still don't see an ethical problem in this. Indeed, there are a few users whose entire activity in the past years has been to vote for the prevailing sentiment in a discussion, refuse to elaborate, promptly leave. I understand your concern, as you're dedicated to the project and your intentions have been nothing but good--full disclosure, hopefully I don't offend by being honest, but I don't personally like the practice so described either--however, everyone here has a given freedom to vote. If they're not carrying out a concerted effort to sway a consensus, I'm not one to stop them, and I wouldn't be above them were I more conscientious. Most importantly, they're still part of the community even if they're not as active in the space designated the "wiki". -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:25, December 5, 2024 (EST), edited 19:27, December 5, 2024 (EST)
No offense taken whatsoever, though I do think it's curious that right after you say you don't see a problem, you then voted "mostly to the detriment of the first option." And, fine, if that's what it comes down to, but I think that adds fuel to my distrust of setting proposals up in Discord servers or however this happened. LinkTheLefty (talk) 20:40, December 5, 2024 (EST)
When I said I dislike the practice "so described", I wasn't referring to your behavior, so I apologize if it came off that way. Also, I'm not part of the Discord server. If the other option was added following a discussion over there, I don't know. I don't think I'm being disingenuous with my statements if I then choose to vote mostly against another option--as I said, everyone's got certain freedoms in these activities. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:56, December 5, 2024 (EST)
The decision to add the third option was based on comments here, (see Lady Sophie's above and Exiled.Serenity's below) and discussed briefly on the Discord server to, again, make sure I'm doing all the formatting and such correctly for my first time.--PopitTart (talk) 21:15, December 5, 2024 (EST)
To explain the ire against inactive users coming out of the woodwork to vote on something and do nothing else, the fact that they do nothing else means they won't have to deal with the consequences of a disastrous idea they're supporting. And in many cases, the wiki was a different place when they were active. My mind keeps going to this edit, which was performed in 2014 by a user who hadn't been active since 2006, and was so out-of-tune with how the wiki was by then that it is preserved in the BJaODN now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:48, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I disagree that votes cast with relative detachment from the Mario Wiki project are inherently discourteous or damaging. Sure, concerning the proposal itself, it technically erodes the site's stated promise of accuracy, and I'm firmly against it... but a descriptor like "disastrous" kind of overstates the scale of a problem whose greatest possible impact on society is influencing a couple of names in a media franchise (as with Super Mario Encyclopedia). People voting for that to happen is a big nothing burger in the grand scheme of things, however much we scrape the paint off our keyboards arguing, and if you disagree with the consensus, you're not forced to make the proposed changes yourself. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:31, December 6, 2024 (EST), edited 16:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)
"Disastrous" was not referring to this proposal specifically, more the issue in general. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:37, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Hey, when you happen to be on many peoples' lists of best-maintained wikis, there naturally comes a certain pressure not to upend the teatable, as it were. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:58, December 6, 2024 (EST)

Still undecided on this, but to build on Lady Sophie's point above, it feels like we're drawing kind of an arbitrary line here. For example: The internal name we have for what the wiki calls "Comet Tico" is "TicoComet.arc", so we're already making the assumption that this is a Comet Tico and not a Tico Comet, that these are actually intended as two words at all, that the file extension is not intended as part of the name, and that the name of the file even describes what's in the file. Which is all reasonable, of course, since the surrounding context of other entities' official names heavily implies that all that is supposed to be the case. However, if we're worried about maintaining strict adherence to the text, I'd argue none of that is valid. The only appropriate page name would be "TicoComet.arc", which I don't like personally, but at least it'd be consistent. Or, of course, we could take the final step of also assuming that the word "Tiko" is just the Japanese term for Luma, and treating it as such. Sarah Exiled.Serenity talk 17:39, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I'm pretty sure "Comet Tico" was also the name from the Japanese version of the SMB Encyclopedia. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
The Comet Tico page uses the dev data template, so that's probably not true. This has also been done with several other articles that have titles derived from internal data - Dark Nokonoko and Disaster Neko, to name a couple. Adding to this, we also have Peddler Kinopio, which is only labeled "PeddlerKNP" in the files. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:49, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I mean, there is Bone Run Run Packun named as such, despite the existence of a proper Japanese name, Ran Ran Hone Pakkun. I would've tried to get it moved when I noticed, but I think it would be best to wait for this proposal to end so we don't have to potentially move it twice.--PopitTart (talk) 17:58, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Looks like someone beat me to it, but here's my response anyway: "Looking at the Comet Tico page, it has the disclaimer that the name comes from development data. Not sure if that's accurate or not, but the only other name cited (コメットチコ) is from the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and is in untransliterated Japanese. Either way, I don't think it changes my point much." Sarah Exiled.Serenity talk 17:57, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Would those other pages be affected by this proposal? I don't know of other "Disaster" variants to use as precedent for Disaster Neko, and both it and Dark Nokonoko have another Japanese name listed on their articles that doesn't seem to be from internal data, so how do we know which one an official translation would use? (I feel like these kinds of disagreements that require subjective decisions are another point against this proposal.) As for Peddler KNP, I'd be fine using that name. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:03, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I agree we should not be manipulating in-game file name data just to procure something that makes more linguistic sense to us, but I view names like "Comet Tico" or most of the unlocalized subjects from Super Mario Bros. Wonder to just be Romanizations of their Japanese names, which is something I support. I know from firsthand experience in other fields that this is not an uncommon practice for English texts directed at Japanese audiences, and I do not agree it hurts accessibility or readability. It is just a sincere reflection of what we have, and I would rather not give the impression otherwise. Good reference material make efforts to mitigate the spread of misinformation. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:09, December 5, 2024 (EST)
This is basically the equivalent of transliterating loanwords in foreign names, which is a minimum for language legibility. The way files are typically written is for the base version to be the first word, and then variant characteristics appended afterwards. That's just a consequence of organization, keeping alike things alphabetically arranged for ease of reference. Not all the time, but usually, and CamelCase also denotes where there would normally be a space. Cross-referencing also indicates how the names were likely intended to be read. Maybe the template wording can be revised a little bit. (Comet Tico is, by the way, a proposal suggestion to override Lumacomète.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:20, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Why are foreign names being compared so much to internal names anyway? I've yet to encounter a foreign name that doesn't make sense syntactically, even in English (in "Fire Gabon are enemies in Super Mario Bros. Wonder", you immediately understand the subject to be a fiery variant of a thing called "Gabon"; "Kodeka Kakibo" can be read by someone who doesn't know Japanese as simply the subject's name). There is more often than not some creative intent behind them, and using them in no way hurts accessibility as feared. In stark contrast, internal names are supposed to be utilitarian and may not translate well into prose ("Nokonoko Darks are enemies in Super Mario Bros. Wonder has the flow of a ball of wet wipes in a drain). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:30, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I will say this: if it's considered too speculative to say that Mario logically shouldn't get a sunstroke in the basement, then outright making something up for quote-unquote "accessibility" at the expense of accuracy, the latter of which is our express goal, is definitely too speculative. You might think "Fire Spike" is an educated guess or something to that effect, but really, it's just a guess. It is not our prerogative to make up names or localize the games, which is why we only do the former when we have literally no viable alternative. This system we have is not arbitrary, this is the only way to do it while keeping accuracy as the main focus. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:59, December 5, 2024 (EST)

I want to offer this insight, shared by CM30 in the Discord server (with permission to repost), that I believe articulates part of my argument better than I was able to:
"My opinion on this matter is that user readability should come first on an English speaking wiki. A reader shouldn't need an image or description to understand what a page is referring to, and that's a huge problem with relying too heavily on untranslated or foreign names.
And while you could argue that names should be official where possible, if they're literally just descriptions I see no harm in using a translation"
This is mostly what I mean about accessibility. Getting a first click of engagement is the most important step to getting someone what they're looking for on the wiki, and article titles that don't give clear communication of what a player has seen hinders this process and can cause confusion instead. Again, it's not true for every article that can be interpreted - only ones that have sufficient indication of what their derived name should be. Roserade (talk) 18:24, December 5, 2024 (EST)

Beyond my usual disagreements that being an English wiki means that English material is to be treated as The One and Only Source of Truth...
"A reader shouldn't need an image or description to understand what a page is referring to"
This makes zero sense. I'm sorry. I mean no offense to CM30, but if an encyclopedia wouldn't employ descriptions and demonstrative attachments, it wouldn't be an encyclopedia at all. It would be something closer to a... glossary.
A reader who's never had so much contact with the Mario franchise wouldn't immediately think of a brown anthropomorphic mushroom upon seeing the word "Goomba". That's where the wiki aids them with descriptions and images. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:41, December 5, 2024 (EST)
It's still presenting conjecture over official names. Which is not how we operate, nor should it be. Just because something's "easier to understand" doesn't make it better. Opening Fire Gabon's page with "Fire Spikes are enemies from Super Mario Bros. Wonder" rubs me too much the wrong way because it's deliberately demoting the only official name we have for it in favor of something that is entirely based on guesswork. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:43, December 5, 2024 (EST)
But the "only official name" is itself not official. The Japanese name is "Faia Gabon" so the "Fire" part is derived, the internal name is "EnemyFireGabon" so if that counts as official (which I personally disagree with, seeing as it's internal data the developer never would have intended to be seen publicly, if we had no official confirmed name for an enemy in a game and it was internally labelled as "Enemy1.pack.zs" would we call the page "Enemy 1"?) then "Fire Gabon" is still a derived name from that. If you think we should be prescriptivist about this, fine, but don't pick and choose what you apply these rules to and what you don't. FakeIco MCD.png MrConcreteDonkey 19:10, December 5, 2024 (EST)
"Faia" is the English word "fire" written for a syllabic language. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:28, December 5, 2024 (EST)
It's literally just the word "fire" uttered using Japanese characters. It's a matter of linguistic stricture. Deriving the word "fire" from the word "fire" is neither conjecture or prescriptivist LMAO. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 19:37, December 5, 2024 (EST)
Why is this starting to sound like that "tsk, it's not Mamu, it's Mamū" joke I made a while ago? Okay, several things. Firstly, everything in a game, including the parts that make it tick, is official. By definition. This is no personal agreement or disagreement to be made here. The word you seem to be looking for is "canon", which is not an argument this wiki is interested in. If a development name is too utilitarian to use, simple: we don't use it (for example, Kongā being one of the numbered "waru" DK-bots). In the case that there is no foreign name, we'd probably use a conjectural name than that hypothetical example. The remaining Fire/Faia argument displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how language and databasing work (as already gone over), and the proposer mixed in both under one new option, seemingly redefining our longstanding common-sense rules under the "derived" umbrella (frankly, slipping in perceived Japanese word quibbles is an overreach of this name proposal). And utilizing different sources effectively makes encyclopedias encyclopedic. Becoming the Sūpā Mario Burazāzu Wiki will, in my opinion, put a damper on our reliability. There is nothing broken to fix here. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:28, December 5, 2024 (EST)
I didn't catch that the second option apparently violates the wiki's guidelines, I'm not a frequent editor and I simply went off what discussion in here suggested. I would be okay with the option being reworded to allow loan words to remain as their English spelling if necessary.--PopitTart (talk) 22:18, December 5, 2024 (EST)
It’s worth noting that MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese specifically mentions that names such as “Yoshi” and “Koopa” should use their official English names in article titles that don’t have an official English name. Granted, it doesn’t specify every context that this should be used in or which other names this would apply to, however I feel that it would be logical to extend this existing rule to enemy names that already have an offical English translation, like Spike or Luma. - Ninelevendo's Sig Image 01:08, December 6, 2024 (EST)
The difference is between transcription of names and translation of names. It's saying to write Kuppa as Koopa, not to replace it with Bowser. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:55, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Not entirely sure if transcription is the right term to use here or if transliteration would be more accurate, however your point is valid that this seems to be a slightly different topic from the one at hand, so I’ll admit that my previous comment might not be relevant to this discussion. - Ninelevendo's Sig Image
Yes, that's the use case. Personally, when I see Japanese names being swapped out for English ones, I'm not going to be thinking, "ah, finally, Bauzā no Hikōsen da yo," I'll be thinking, "oh, is this one of those times the Western name made it to Japanese media?" Anyway, let me get the second option straight. If it passes, I'm taking it that the changes will look something like this?

Just wanted to make sure the rest of you who didn't dip out yet are all on the same page lol LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)

This proposal shouldn't have touched development data names. This is a completely separate topic that needs a discussion of its own. Axii (talk) 10:14, December 6, 2024 (EST)

You're right. There certainly was a switcharoo here, wasn't there? After coordinated 20 voted for an option that's technically no longer there. What is going on? We should at least have a rule that proposals initially written with group input can't be revised afterwards, or a voting cap before revisions are unallowed... LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:30, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Was there an actual executional difference added to the basic "Support" option? I don't think I'm catching one. Ahemtoday (talk) 10:54, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I believe the distinction being made is that "Informant" is not an established adjective for enemies, so in grouping Informant Mucho into option 1, the premise has been ever so slightly changed from "if the parts of the name have been translated separately we are allowed to put the translations together" to "grant increased permission to extrapolate a 'normal' name from development data" (EDIT:slight misreading)Salmancer (talk) 10:58, December 6, 2024 (EST)
This is not really different from the "Comet" in Comet Tico though, and "Informant" is literally written in English in the game files in that case (not translated by wiki users). Only "Mūcho" would be translated to Snifit in that case, much as it always has been, which is definitely the sort of thing that the first 20 supporters voted for. I don't think that the wool is being pulled over anyone's eyes. (edit: and, as someone who voted shortly before option 2 was added, I knew that this is what I was voting for.) -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 11:25, December 6, 2024 (EST)
So what's the article title of this informant character going to be? If it's anything other than "B4_Informant_MUC", wouldn't it be classified as a "derived" name? See the problem? LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Informant Snifit, presumably, if the proposal passes—I'm not sure I'm understanding the confusion? This is the type of derived/translated name that the proposal is seeking to allow. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 11:36, December 6, 2024 (EST)
...I just made a list of what the second option would do if it passes, right above. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:40, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Apologies, I misunderstood and thought we were discussing the results of option 1... In that case I agree that the informant should be moved to B4_Informant_MUC if option 2 passes, yeah. I don't see how this is misleading anyone or making previous votes invalid, though? -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 11:44, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Sorry, I misspoke a little bit since I had the first and second updates mixed up in my head in this roller-coaster of a proposal. To recap, there were a total of :30: votes at the time the proposal was first updated, and the odd timing of in/semi-active editors had already been brought up at that point. At the time of the second update, the second option was dialed back - as it should have been since that would have to be the focus of a writing guideline proposal - but nearly :10: users had already voted for the earlier version of that option. Make sense? LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
If the proposal's Ship-of-Theseus'd itself into a different thing entirely after so many votes, it should probably be canceled and never restarted. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:30, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I'll take Nintendo101's word below, but I still don't think option updates should've happened with something that grew so large already. That just brought needless confusion, especially when eyebrows were already raised. If we're going to be super-technical, isn't the act of transliteration itself not a derivative form? I'll say it again: templates could probably just be rephrased. Also, if community-made proposals are technically not breaking any rules now, I believe we'll definitely be thinking about making some rules later. Speaking for myself, I've always made sure my proposals stood on their own in all my time here; if I ever talked about my proposal plans, I'm pretty sure I've never given a time frame or 'advertised' (for lack of better word) when it was ready, and if I've ever talked about an active one, I'm pretty sure it was nearly always to give courtesy when proposal options have changed or when new information comes to light. That method has worked out for most wiki proposals fairly well. I've never once paid attention to or noticed anything involving Discord discussions, and this may be the first time I've come across a Discord-community-developed proposal. Why not go all out and let Super Mario Wiki's social media followers in on this proposal's existence too? As long as we don't tell them how to vote, of course. Now that'd be interesting. Or is that too far? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:22, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I don't know how much the owners of the Twitter account (where the bulk of the site's social media presence lies) are willing to lay a spotlight on the wiki's dramas, even if you loosely describe the Twitter as an extension of the wiki community. There's something ironic in saying that these discussions may be too heated for a Twitter user, however, I always thought the Mario Wiki account tries to maintain an attitude of good humor towards its followers, and the vibe of a discussion like the one here feels kind of contrary to that. The most I've seen of the account actively promoting inner-wiki endeavours were things related to The 'Shroom or requesting volunteers to provide some source material.
The people at the Discord server and Mario Boards are more readily available to vote because a lot of them are signed up wiki users, with at least some history here, and who are more used to these discussions. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:13, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Could always make a sub-account. I call it... Super Mario Wiki: Proposal Patrol. Alerts followers of new proposals and developments. I'm half-joking, of course. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:58, December 6, 2024 (EST)
This is not a "Discord-community-developed proposal" and it is very disappointing that this is your impression from the details I provided. I find it incredibly bad faith. The advice given to PopitTart entailed suggesting she give examples of what this proposal would look like if enacted and making sure it was formatted correctly in terms of date and voting options. That is literally it. She did not even tell anyone when she published it. That is extremely innocuous and common practice, and has always been available to you or any user on this site, via reach out on talk pages, Mario Boards, or Discord. It is not at all uncouth. - Nintendo101 (talk) 18:30, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Don't get me wrong. I trust your assessment of the situation. It's just that the Discord side of things is, to the old-fashioned like me, a mystery box. I don't see, I'm not involved. It was Admin Mario who pointed out the obvious irregularity, and that part of the discussion rolled from there. I'm just making it clear that I'm one of the ones who wouldn't like it to become a new regular. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:12, December 6, 2024 (EST)
For full disclosure, I am a regular participant in the Super Mario Wiki Discord and I actively gave PopitTart pointers on how to write this very proposal, including the inclusion of that second voting option. I disagree with the proposed changes and still do, but that is less important to me than helping a less experienced user do the best job they can. But the point is that I was privy to the surrounding discourse.
From my perspective, I saw an inexperienced user from a NIWA wiki with different naming policies (and one who has also been more active on the Discord over the past year or so just because it is friendly space, so it is not like they mysteriously rose out of the woodwork just to make this proposal) passively share that they thought it was silly to not translate some of these straight-forward Japanese names, and other users through their own volition and agency openly agreed with them, some of which quite strongly. I did not personally see anyone encourage them to write this proposal with the aims of taking down a policy they dislike, ask others to vote, to vote in any particular way, or coordinate a plan to vote together as a group. (I did see encouragement from the perspective that it is nice to see an inexperienced contributor want to develop a main page proposal, as staff and senior editors generally support people taking initiatives and participating in community-driven spaces like proposals, but that is not the same thing, at least in my view.) Again, maybe this still feels uncomfortable, but I did not see anything I would consider to be "solicitation." I saw a user share a view that others agreed with, and they decided to make a proposal. Maybe proposals should be written with that as a disclaimer, but I do not think it is the same as solicitation. I do not think anyone here, be it supporter or opposition, is here in bad faith, and only want the wiki to be the best it can be, and I hope folks remember this even if the proposal is not going in the direction they would like.
For me, at the end of the day, I want to give readers good, accurate, and reliably attested information, even if about silly Nintendo games. I do not feel comfortable asserting "there is an enemy called Fire Spike in Super Mario Bros. Wonder", because that is not true. It is not called that in any Mario media. The impression I have is that I am calling it that because I want to call it that. Saying there is an enemy called Fire Gabon or even rendering that name as Faia Gabon, to me, is accurate and is just the information we have at the moment. The fact that this name looks silly next to related enemies like Stone Spike is a lot less substantive to me. I do not discount accessibility and readability as important - they absolutely are. I want people to come here, learn, and appreciate the work we do. However, I also believe readers are entitled to accurate information and I want the wiki to be trusted source. I do think the proposed changes weaken that a bit. There have been many good-faith arguments from the supporters - especially from Roserade and Hooded Pitohui - but none have addressed this impression of mine. My feelings are not as strong for in-game file names because the subjects I personally work with on the wiki typically have official names or are at least mentioned informally in officially-licensed literature, but I at least have found your remarks on this persuasive, LinkTheLefty. I think I realize from this discussion that I would support the Romanization of official Japanese names to take priority over internal file designations for games developed by Japanese speakers, but that is not what that this proposal is about. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:00, December 6, 2024 (EST)
While I won't accuse the support to have been coordinated, especially coming off of your message, I will criticize the Discord folk for their tendency to come here with their mind made and refuse to take any of the counterarguments in consideration. "You want to make this wiki less accessible", "Encyclopedias should not rely on descriptions", and "ファイア is definitely not the same thing as the English word 'fire' in a different writing system" are not arguments made in good faith. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 13:32, December 6, 2024 (EST)
I don't want this to turn into full discourse unrelated to the proposal, but I also think it's entirely unfair to assume attitudes like this, and to misconstrue arguments to put words in people's mouths. Everyone I've seen discuss this on Discord has fully acknowledged that counterarguments have merits, including myself. I read every single comment on this proposal before I ever placed my own vote or comment. And I never once said that I think your aim is to make things less accessible for the entire wiki - I stated why I feel like this change would improve accessibility, which is a different argument altogether. Also feels just a hair hypocritical to say that we're appearing while refusing to take in counterarguments, while you began this proposal process with a bolded statement on what our website's intention is, which felt like you staunchly claiming that your position would not change. I'm not going to engage with this any further than that, just, worth acknowledging. Roserade (talk) 13:53, December 6, 2024 (EST)
Your impression seems to be that my bolded statement was an opinion--if I'm wrong, correct me--but I was merely highlighting a truth: the express mission statement and, until some time ago, prevailing sentiment in the site was that it should present information as accurately to the source material as possible. Speculation has always been frowned upon and removed on sight here. If there is ever going to be a global consenus that it's a better direction for the wiki to consistently let users make up their own constructs and pass them off as fact, I can accept it. Until then, I will try to uphold the above principle and bring attention to any developments that undermine the current explicit direction. This is not hypocrisy. The provision of facts in a medium with educational purpose is not negotiable, and I'm certain you are sensible enough to understand that. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 14:34, December 6, 2024 (EST), edited 14:39, December 6, 2024 (EST)
On supporting official Japanese names over internal file designations - there are also a lot of names that are perfectly good, near-1:1 translations of Japanese equivalents. From my list: Banana Squid, barbell, Black Fairy /Attack, Electricity Block, Fairy Board & Trampoline, Ice Snake Block, Rolling Frog, Snow Mole, Spring & Surprised Flowers, and Assembly Blocks, to name a few; surely these would be preferable to Banana Ika, Tetsu Arei, Kuro Yōsei /Attacker, Hōden Block, Yōsei Ban & Trampoline, Kōri Snake Block, Koro Gaeru, Yuki Mogura, Bane & Bikkuri Hana, and Gattai Block, respectively. I was actually thinking of making my own proposal that would virtually be a controlled version of this one, which would formalize dev transliterations to go alongside these exceptions (for example, what we currently do with Bakky and Big Run Run Packun over Bakkī and Deka Run Run Pakkun, but extended as an additional reference point for "officialness" over fan-names). This proposal made me realize that...internal name handling was never formally codified in writing guidelines somewhere, was it? Rather, it's always been buried in discussions, even though I could've sworn otherwise. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:05, December 7, 2024 (EST)

I understand that at this point whether or not I vote is kinda irrelevant, but still, I'm curious, would Jewel Rausuto be moved to Jewel Goob or stay as is? I'd rather have it stay as is, personally. After all, "Summon Rausuto" and "Kill Rausuto" are officially translated as "Diffusing Goob" and "Lethal Goob" respectively. Blinker (talk) 17:42, December 6, 2024 (EST)

Hey, there's still 13 whole days left in this proposal, anything can happen. If you feel strongly about it, you should certainly make your voice heard. As for the Jewel Rausuto, I'm unsure, which means it probably should not be translated. You are correct that Diffusing Goob and Lethal Goob are not direct translations despite using English words, however Bomb Goob, Mini Goob, Regen Goob, and Speed Goob are. With that though, the "Jewel" part of the name is questionable. It drops gems when attacked, not jewels, so it's harder to make the same argument as Comet Luma here. This may be another case of individual subject discussion. --PopitTart (talk) 18:07, December 6, 2024 (EST)

To be honest, I'm not a huge fan of either of the proposed changes, though I do agree the current guidelines need to be changed somehow. For example, Disaster Neko isn't the name in any language, it's not something that readers could intuitively search for, is barely comprehensible to most readers, and isn't even the actual filename. That's no good. Obviously there's no perfect solution (beyond Nintendo taking the time to properly localise everything we could write an article about, which realistically isn't going to happen), but might there be merit in pausing this proposal somehow? Given that there's now precedent for additional voting options being added in response to feedback, I think it would be worth letting the discussion play out without there being 'stakes' i.e. the voting deadline and the recognition that this will affect many, many pages.

I'm not an active editor and certainly not knowledgeable on the exact procedures of wiki proposals, but if there was an option to reset, re-discuss, and restart the proposal with voting options that properly reflected the outcome of the discussion, I would go for that. UserPyroGuy.png (T · C) 18:14, December 6, 2024 (EST)

I'm not certain about the logistics about pausing a proposal or anything of that sort (nor would I have any stake in such a decision), but I will say, I do think the idea of letting the discussion play out without "stakes", as you say, has merit. Something here on which I agree with KCC on is that this is ultimately related to the mission of the site, and perceptions and sentiments around how to achieve that mission. What this proposal is adressing is a matter of organizing, categorizing, and especially presenting information, and that tends to invoke considerations of high-level, philosophical approaches. Unlike, say, a hypothetical proposal to merge two varieties of Goombas, the discussion doesn't hinge on demonstrating some detail is true or false; instead, we're explorting as a community a major aspect of how we fulfill our mission of collecting and presenting the Mario franchise to an audience of Internet users. Whenever a discussion veers into philosophies around categorizing and presenting information, you often get a surprising diversity of views, and those views tend to be strongly held - if you've ever waded into taxonomy, you'll see it!
In light of that, I think firm guidance is beneficial on a high-level, philosophical matter like this, and that the wiki staff are in the best position to offer those kinds of firm guidelines. That's not to say that there's no room for community input! On the contrary, I think discussions like this are highly beneficial, both to the community at large so that editors can guage one another's opinions and as a way for wiki staff to see that this is an issue under consideration of the wiki, but I do wonder if there could be a more accessible or active public arena for them (like the forum) outside of formal proposals. Proposals necessarily have a time limit, and necessarily are limited to one outcome or the other (though certainly measures can be taken to address the concerns of voters on the opposite side or sides), both of which put pressure on the discussion.
All of this is to say, I think TPG has a good point. A discussion like this might benefit from playing out without the constraints of a proposal. And as a personal thought, unrelated to TPG's, seeing as this speaks to those philosophies or organizing and presenting information, I would personally have no objection if the wiki staff were to sit on the points raised in the discussion and to issue a policy ruling based on the outcome of their deliberations. I'm not advocating for that. The staff know better than I do if that's a wise course of action or not, after all! Rather, I only mean that I would personally find that an acceptable resolution as well as resolution by proposal, whatever their decision.
All of that said, I do still want to commend PopitTart for bringing the proposal up in the first place. I've said before and I'll say again, I think it was a good effort from an earnest contributor, and the vigorous discussion is has produced is ultimately a positive for putting the wiki's editors on the same page even if there are disagreements. I hope you will continue to contribute to the wiki and that you feel comfortable here! Hooded Pitohui (talk)
I would be open to this idea, if it is indeed a viable option allowed by the rules. The addition of Option 2 was made in response to feedback, but with less thought than it might have needed compared to the original proposal. Doing this could also help quell the worries of solicitation and Discord interference by some, since much more discussion would nessesarily be on-wiki.--PopitTart (talk) 19:33, December 6, 2024 (EST)

All this discussion about the veracity of the proposal itself, and we honestly still don't know what the plan is for if the second option passes. Like, what, do we actually rename Pump Mario to "STRM_SE_PUMP_MARIO_KUSUGURI"? The proposal suggests that some names would be trimmed, but the only example trims just a number; there are no numbers in that mouthful. Where exactly are we intending to draw the line? Do we go as far as to just trim it to "PUMP_MARIO"? Is it really more accurate to just make the name all-caps and include an underscore? How exactly do we intend to make these longer internal names make sense grammaticaly, within the actual article text? ~Camwoodstock (talk) 19:13, December 6, 2024 (EST)

I belive internal names could be trimmed down, but it would be up to more disccussion. It was suggested earlier that things could be formatted as "STRM_SE_PUMP_MARIO_KUSUGURI is the internal name for a form taken on by Mario in the Mario & Luigi series". --PopitTart (talk) 19:33, December 6, 2024 (EST)
We are not going to "pause" a proposal. If a proposal cannot proceed because it needs to be ironed out more, it should be canceled and go back to a drawing board on a sandbox page pending more discussion. BabyLuigiFire.pngRay Trace(T|C) 20:26, December 6, 2024 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4454164"