Decide what to move Super Mario Galaxy 2 worlds to
don't rename 1-0-1-8
The worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2 have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (Super Mario Galaxy 2)" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:
Option 1
Create the {{suffixed title}}, {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} templates (the {{suffixed title}} template works like {{prefixed title}}, with the small text being placed after the first parameter, while the {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} work like {{classic}}, {{classic-link}}, and {{classic title}} respectively, with the skeleton being "World <#>: <small><name></small> and the example being World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins) and move the following pages to the world number and name:
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) These names are only displayed on the save file and are not shown while playing the game itself. Even if you go to a different world and save the game, the name on the save file doesn't change and is still the name of the world you should be on. Then there's the fact that when doing the green stars, the save file name is "the green star challenge is on" and when the game is completed 100% the name is "master of galaxies".
YoYo (talk) the names you've assigned to each world are actually the names for the "chapters" in the game's progression, not the names for the worlds themselves. it would be like naming each kingdom from Super Mario Odyssey's page after their first moon.
Nintendo101 (talk) These are not the names of the worlds. They are subtitles provided to the player for narrative context.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nightwicked Bowser and Yoyo. These don't seem to be the worlds' actual names, just a status on the save menu. There's definitely a better way to convey this information about the save menu descriptions than to clumsily bake them into the world pages' names!
Comments
Create a {{visible anchor}} template
canceled by proposer
I've come up with an idea for a sub-template for the {{anchor}} template. A {{visible anchor}} retains its behavior like {{anchor}}, with the only difference being that the first parameter will be visible text on the page. You can go here to read the documentation on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts that there's a possibility create the {{visible anchor}} template?
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: March 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: March 17, 2024, 01:45 GMT
PnnyCrygr (talk) Redundant and unnecessary for a fan wiki which tries not to be like Wikipedia. If that so-called visible anchored is templated onto any link, that should create any visual mess. Enough said...
Camwoodstock (talk) This is redundant for our purposes. Per PennyCrygr. This is redundant for our purposes.
Hewer (talk) Per all, the proposal makes absolutely no argument as to why we should have this feature and how it would help us beyond "Wikipedia has it".
Comments
Stop referring to Bowser as "King Koopa" in Japanese media
Refer to as Bowser in Japanese media 8-0
In articles about Japanese Mario media, we typically refer to Bowser as "King Koopa" for some reason.
I think that this naming convention is pointless and we should call Bowser by his actual English name.
One may argue that "King Koopa" is Bowser's Japanese name and therefore he should be named as such.
Actually, Bowser's Japanese name is Kuppa (officially romanized as "Koopa") or Daimaō Kuppa (literally "Great Demon King Koopa"), but he is seldom called "King Koopa" verbatim in Japanese media.
Most importantly, when referring to characters or species in articles about Japanese-only media, we typically use the usual English name instead of the Japanese name: "Goomba" instead of Kuribō, "Koopa Troopa" instead of Nokonoko, "Toad" instead of Kinopio, and so on.
There is no reason why Bowser should be an exception.
One may also argue that the names "Koopa" and "King Koopa" have been used in some English-language Mario media (notably the DIC series).
However, the name "Bowser" is overwhelmingly more widespread and was already attested in the original Super Mario Bros. instruction booklet.
I hope we can agree that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show is not the highest-priority naming source.
Lastly, this "King Koopa" naming convention is not even consistent on the Wiki because many articles about Japanese-only mangas refer to Bowser as "Bowser" rather than "King Koopa".
If this proposal passes, mentions of Bowser as "King Koopa" or simply "Koopa" will be replaced with "Bowser" in articles about Japanese media, including:
OmegaRuby (talk) Consistency is a priority. Per all.
Scrooge200 (talk) Always found this a bit confusing because it just perpetuates an old name nobody uses anymore. Per all.
Oppose
Comments
What about referring to Princess Peach by that name in early Japanese media? If this passes, it would seem more consistent to change those to "Princess Toadstool" since that was her English name at the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:43, March 20, 2024 (EDT)
We could still refer to Princess Peach by that name considering that it is her usual name in English nowadays. I don't think it is that relevant to be faithful to the English names that were used at the time in the USA considering those names do not appear in the actual Japanese media; and if that is actually relevant, that could always be the subject of a later proposal. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:42, March 20, 2024 (EDT)
Broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template
canceled by proposer
Like everyone in the Super Mario Wiki said, "We are not Wikipedia." I humbly ask if there's a possibility to broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template.
The template currently reads as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. 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]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</div>
However, once the proposal passes, the template will read as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
It has been requested that at least one '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|citation from a reliable source]]''' be added to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}.<br><small>This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should not cite any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for more information.</small>
</div>
It has been requested that at least one citation from a reliable source be added to this article. This article should not cite any unsourced material. See the citation policy for more information.
That way, the {{unreferenced}} template will read differently from Wikipedia's {{unreferenced}} template.
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: April 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: March 31, 2024, 03:49 GMT
Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--we probably don't need a template that's simultaneously more and less specific when we can simply use ref needed to clearly and concisely convey exactly what needs a citation.
Nintendo101 (talk) I appreciate that you reached out to me specifically, but unless I am missing something, I do not really see why this would be an improvement.
Comments
this might just be one of the most difficult to read proposals i have seen on this site, its a real struggle to look at. is there a chance of tidying it up dramatically - YoYo (Talk) 13:54, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
I cleaned it up, just so you know. Once the proposal passes, I'd recommend removing the <!-- and --> tags. GuntherBayBeee 19:53, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
Never mind. I had to clean the proposal up again by adding the <pre> tags. You should take a look at what the template will look like from above. The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBB (talk). 20:06, March 29, 2024
This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. Sparks (talk) 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
Forbid the use of images without captioning them
Do not ban captionless images 0-20
This proposal aims to ban the use of images without captions, both in text and galleries. It's for a similar reason as why one should add a reason when adding a maintenance template, and without it, unfamiliar readers may ask themselves, "What's the subject? What does it do? What's it trying to illustrate?"
I looked around for an example, and I'll use the Icicle page. Quite a few sections add sprites without captioning them. While the section heading alone would be enough to suggest that it's a sprite from the game, additional context could be at risk of being left out. Mario Bros. has been re-released many times, so when I see the icicle sprite, I may ask myself, "What version is it from? The arcade? The NES? The Game Boy Advance?" While it's true that sprites can't easily display captions, due to being small images, there could be a way to make it easier to caption them.
This problem also applies to infoboxes. On the Itsunomanika Heihō page, what's going on in the infobox image? There's so many things in it, and it doesn't make clear who Itsunomanika Heihō is, which is the Shy Guy.
On a bit of a side note, too many articles have images that feel added in the text just for the sake of adding images, and captionless images seem among them. Why does the Lubba page have three images in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 section? Are they essential enough to be included or could they just be addendums to a gallery? Two of the images are just Lubba saying a quote, something that's hardly as much of interest as, let's say, Mario's first meeting with Lubba. Should this proposal pass, perhaps a separate proposal, or a precedent, could be set for tightening the use of images in article sections unless they are plot-essential, show a major difference between games, or for historical context, such as when something first appeared.
Tails777 (talk) Forbidding is a strong conclusion if you ask me. Simply adding a caption or moving images to a gallery is enough rather than just outright forbidding a captionless image.
JanMisali (talk) Per Tails777. This would be a pretty big policy change, and it would be better to handle it on a case-by-case basis.
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) It's really not a big deal at all if there are a few images without captions. If you think one is necessary, then there's nothing stopping you from adding one but making this a strict policy is going too far.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; we really ought to take these on a case-by-case basis, as while some of these instances are not clear like the Mario Bros. Icicle image... Other captionless images on that very same article, like the Mario Clash Icicle are very much clear enough as-is since Clash only ever had one platform it released on. And the Itsunomanika Heihō infobox really just needs a new image outright if you ask us; if the image used cropped out the Bandit and Baby Mario and giant in-game arrow pointing at them, leaving the Shy Guy on Yoshi's back as the focal point, you'd fix the vast majority of the clarity issues. (of course, don't go updating the image itself, as it's used on other articles, instead this'd have to be a new image.)
PnnyCrygr (talk) Best add a caption to the image sans caption, or just move it to a gallery page. Per all.
Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, a blanket ban on uncaptioned images would do more harm than good. It'd be better to just fix the cases that are unclear.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Abso-huckin'-lutely not. The amount of times I've had to remove a caption from a tiny, tiny image that can't even support a caption I can't even count.
YoYo (talk) oh please. i dont think i need to explain - but the comment below does perfectly.
Hewer (talk) Per all, some images needing captions doesn't mean they all do.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Also see the comments; trying to add a caption to a tiny game sprite says it all.
Arend (talk) Yeah no, per all. Some images are just too tiny to add a caption to (tiny images being something this Icicle article that's being brought up is chock full of), but also too essential for a section to be outright removed. Doc perfectly demonstrates that in the comment section.
Mario (talk) The ideal way to proceed with this is either make caption interesting or remove the caption and let the image do the talking.
MegaBowser64 (talk) We should be working on captioning images that need it, not putting an umbrella ban over every image! This idea is more destructive that constructive, images are always good for context, even if they don't have written context themselves.
FanOfYoshi (talk) As Don Lino from Shark Tale said it best... "Are you kidding me, are you outta your MIND?!". Per all.
Nintendo101 (talk) Image captions are generally helpful, but one would find that published textbooks do not even do this consistently, and for good reason. An image can sometimes be confidently contextualized just by the text it is next to. To impose a rule like this can potentially worsen some articles. Additionally, I think a rule like this is too heavy-handed and weakens our editorial discretion.
Mister Wu (talk) As noted by Doc, our current modus operandi with the sprites directly collides with this policy, and redoing all the sprites at double or triple the resolution in every axis just to make the caption readable is time consuming and arguably not even that correct in terms of presenting what the sprite originally looked like.
SeanWheeler (talk) If an image needs a caption, add the caption yourself. Don't remove good images just because they were captionless. Especially not small sprites. Per all.
Comments
In what universe is this even remotely acceptable? You can't even read it!
Please tell me how the image to the left is ideal. Because that's what this proposal's trying for. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:52, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
In my argument in the proposal, I was talking about like a template or something that could use captions in such cases. Multiframe now comes to mind. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:08, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Which adds a lot of dead space in the image space itself. I'm fine with using that when they'd blend with the default background (see: Spray Fish), but using them for captions is superfluous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:36, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, padded whitespace makes the page look relatively bigger when actually there is no content. It sucks for an article to have superfluous space created by overly long captions in floated tiny images. When creating an article, an article should look nice. PnnyCrygr 18:39, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
I want to revisit this proposal to ask about the Icicle example... you say that a lack of caption would result in additional context being left out, to which I ask.... what additional context is there to a sprite of an icicle? Adding captions would simply make it extremely repetitive. "An icicle in Super Mario Bros 3" ... "An icicle in Super Mario World" ... "An icicle in..." and so on. - YoYo (Talk) 10:27, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
TBF the game Mario Bros. has a slew of versions across different systems, so in that particular icicle example it'd be beneficial to state which version it comes from. Not even the sprite's file page states the exact source. If it's a small sprite, surely there's some parameter that widens its frame to fit a caption, right? I could be wrong. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:41, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
In that case, alt text would probably be preferable. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
For the Mario Bros. section in specific, I think it would be beneficial to apply a Multiframe in order to include Icicle sprites across all applicable versions of Mario Bros. (similar to what's done with the Super Mario Maker section). We'd probably have to scour through many spritesheets for that, since this wiki seemingly only has the icicle sprite from the arcade version. As for the other sections that only include a sprite, I agree that including a caption to those might also be too repetitive, on top of the image being too small. rend(talk)(edits) 07:04, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
Trim Super Smash Bros. navigational templates
Remove all redirect links and delete "move" templates 1-9-0
Over time, this wiki has, with good reason, significantly reduced its coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series. However, as has been the subject of multiple other proposals, there are a lot of vestigial remnants left over from when Smash still received full coverage.
Each of these templates contains links to subjects that no longer have dedicated articles, and take the reader to a subsection of a list article instead. The "move" templates are especially rough, since the majority of Smash Bros. moves are no longer even covered on the articles that these links redirect to. I propose that these navigational templates should be significantly trimmed down, much like the ongoing efforts to clean up the various "series" categories.
Furthermore, without the unnecessary links to subjects that no longer are within this wiki's scope, having moves in a separate template from the main navigational template for those games may no longer be necessary, so it might also make sense to remove the "move" templates entirely, moving the links to Super Mario-related Smash Bros. moves to the main Smash navigational templates.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Remove all redirect links from Super Smash Bros. navigational templates
Super Mario RPG (talk) Please do. The excessive amounts of Super Smash Bros. coverage is a huge pet peeve of mine, since it hinders accessibility for Super Mario content.
SeanWheeler (talk) A navbox full of redirects to the same page would be pointless.
OmegaRuby (talk) Shocked that this hasn't been done yet, thought it would've been done alongside Super Smash Bros. content being trimmed in general. Per all.
Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Preserve April Fools' Proposals in BJAODN
Give April Fools' proposals their own subpage per year 17-1-0
First of all, no, this isn't a delayed April Fool's joke--we are being 100% sincere about this proposal! You know it because we waited until after we had squared away the April Fool's proposals to actually bring this up formally.
Secondly, this has been discussed before, not once but twice, and the consensus at the time was basically "it's pointless and not that funny, so why bother?" ...As you can imagine, we're not a fan of either of these stances, so we have a brief overview of our counter-arguments to these statements.
On pointlessness: Yes, archiving these in BJAODN is pointless! ...But so is the rest of BJAODN, and, paradoxically, that's kind of the point of it--that it's basically useless and for amusement only. The only "practical" thing it has are archives for the big April Fool's pages we create. The one and only time it was ever gearing up to have a "point" was to store Wario's Warehouse back when people still didn't believe it existed--then the author stepped up and said "yep, that's my work", and that entire thing was rendered moot, and BJAODN remains a mere archive for April Fool's things and, well, other deleted nonsense.
On the humor: On the "not that funny once April Fool's is done" thing--we feel like it's kinda weird to dismiss a proposal on something that is inherently, a subjective take. Humor is notoriously fickle between different people; one person's complete snorefest is another person's knee-slapper. Sure, not all April Fool's proposals are these complete gut-busters, but neither is everything else in BJAODN. And heck, even if they aren't that funny, it's kind of in the name; it's not "Deleted Nonsense", it's "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".
Especially in the wake of the effective renaissance of April Fool's proposals we had this year (no doubt due in part to a rather-timely proposal about April Fool's proposals, albeit moreso about denoting them as such pre-emptively), we feel it pertinent to possibly figure something out for this sooner, rather than later, while the concept's still fresh in everyone's mind. To this end, we've come up with three ideas:
Give it its own subpage per year: Whenever there's an arbitrary amount of April Fool's proposals for that year (let's say "3" for the time being, if this number needs to be adjusted we can do so later), we create a subpage alongside our main April Fool's archive page for proposals. If there aren't enough, they just go in the standard Proposals subpage for BJAODN--if memory serves, this means that 2021 and 2024 will get a subpage so far, though we may be wrong.
All of them go to the Proposals subpage: Roughly the same as above, but in every case we send them to the standard Proposals subpage with no potential for splits. We do worry about this year in particular clogging the heck out of the page, but whatever works.
Do nothing: We simply don't formally track these whatsoever in BJAODN, simple-as.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support, with additional subpages
Camwoodstock (talk) Our preferred option--keep the silliness alive, and keep it nice and tidy for the future.
Sparks (talk) Having tidiness makes for easier navigation.
Tails777 (talk) It's completely understandable that humor is subjective, but let's remember to look at it from another angle; it's not always about if the joke proposal is funny, it's also about how we as users interact with each other and the jokes that adds to the humor. That was my initial support reason back during back during this proposal (which, I do realize, wasn't exactly the point of the proposal, but let's not worry about that). My main point is, I one hundred percent support archiving our April Fool's joke proposals for the sake of celebrating our fun interactions with each other as people! Per proposal!
Power Flotzo (talk) This is an excellent option and probably why we haven't archived as many of these joke proposals in the past. Per everyone else.
BMfan08 (talk) There's no fooling about this one. Per all.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Yoshi Yoshi! (Per all. Also, i always wanted this to happen)
Arend (talk) We preserve April Fool's Day archives, we preserve funnily bad proposals, why not April Fool's Day proposals? It's a lot better than scouring through countless pages of the Proposal page's revision history (and that's with 500 revisions per page in mind too).
OmegaRuby (talk) We haven't done this already? Per all.
Waddle D33 (talk) I just spent the last half hour or so reading and appreciating the articles in the BJAODN section. Anyway, I agree that BJAODN would be a good home for those types of jokes.
SeanWheeler (talk) Might as well archive these April Fools' proposals for someone who is interested.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Oh, yes please!! I liked the last ones! Even though it took me a minute to figure out that they were joke proposals, I still like them! (I still want my Super Smash Bros. Ultimate cheeseburger....)
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option--we do worry about the page growing too long for this, but it'd make sense for the time being.
Do nothing
Comments
Is there any chance that the April Fools' proposals be merged with the April Fools' prank of that year? For example, all of the 2024 April Fools' proposals can be merged with MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024. Sparks (talk) 19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
Okay. That makes sense. Subpages could work for the proposals then. Sparks (talk) 19:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
For reference, after looking at page history, the years that had at least three joke proposals were 2018 with exactly three (or four?), 2019 with five, 2020 with nine, 2021 with five (including one that already got archived which we'd have to move), and 2024 with ten, so they'd all get their own subpages, and there was also one April Fools' proposal each in 2010 and 2023 (the former got immediately deleted though). Three of the four pie proposals in the main archive were technically April Fools' as well, unsure whether those should count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:07, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
You are the unsung hero of this proposal. We'd say if this passes in its current state, the Pie proposals that weren't tied to the aforementioned years should probably remain on the standard BJAODN Proposals section. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts
Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate 7-0-0-1-12-0-0-1-5
Currently, several articles exist for characters from Super Mario Bros. (1993) that share names with and are to some extent based on corresponding characters from the source material. While from a certain perspective this makes sense (these characters are substantially different from the characters they're based on), no other non-game-compliant Mario adaptation is given this treatment. SMW:CANON suggests that all official sources should be treated equally, including in cases when these sources contradict each other. I believe that the 1993 film is a very clear case when this applies, and I propose that some if not all of these articles should be merged with their corresponding game characters.
Now, to this one might suggest: "But the characters from the 1993 film really are canonically not the same in-universe people as their game counterparts! Doesn't that mean they should be covered separately?" The thing is, that's not how this wiki treats different versions of the same character in any other instance. The article Donkey Kong covers the character Donkey Kong, including in games where that character is "canonically" Cranky Kong. Paper Mario (character) is only considered a separate character from Mario in the very specific case where the two characters coexist alongside each other. Two works of media portraying different iterations of the same character is seemingly always treated as being the same character, and the coverage of Super Mario Bros. (1993) is a strange exception to this.
The relevant articles are:
Film characters very directly based on specific characters from the source material:
Mario (talk) Echoing my sentiments in my 2016 proposal[1] a bit (tho I promise to be less grouchy :O}D). Even with the filmmmaker's contrived notion that live action movie Mario is supposed to be a separate entity from Mario from the Mario Kart series, if you work with that logic backward, they're still variants of each other, basically two different takes of the Mario the Super Brother. This can extend for the other characters. That being said, some of the target pages articles are big enough as they are already but I s'pose that's a different problem irrelevant to the logic of these pages.
Super Mario RPG (talk) Keeping the coverage on the same article reflects how they're the same thing. Different entity doesn't necessarily mean different subject. If anything, separate articles on the film characters would set an unwelcome precedent for scattering information of like, let's say, Super Mario-kun or Super Mario Bros. Movie counterparts of Mario into separate articles, which we'd want to avoid.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) I think it's best to not be arbitrary with who gets merged or not based on how different they are from their "main" counterpart. Per all.
Ahemtoday (talk) Maybe I could work with this kind of continuity-based differentiation in a series with, like, any sense of continuity, but I don't really think the Mario series has that.
Camwoodstock (talk) We think this makes the most sense, and in the name of consistency, what we do to one, we should probably do to all. Besides, it's not like the 1993 movie is even the first time that a different entity has used the name of a pre-existing entity--though unlike things like G(al)oombas, the 1993 movie incarnations stand alone, with only things like gags in mangas deciding that the movie incarnations are different from the original characters (such as what happened to Yoshi)--and even in those cases, it's pretty clearly not part of some deep lore for the film itself. We hope this rationale makes sense, anyways? As we write this we're a tad tired, so if you need clarification, just ask politely.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I forgot I hadn't voted. I prefer this option. I'd be fine with the other popular option (for now), aside from questioning why Toad is part of the exclusions.
Merge most of these, but keep Spike and Big Bertha separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Goomba and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Spike, Big Bertha, Goomba, and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Hewer (talk) I agree with merging the more obviously game-inspired characters like Mario and Luigi where the split feels more like a vestige of the wiki's former obsession with its made-up idea of canon, but merging characters like Iggy and Spike where pretty much the only thing in common is the name with (to my knowledge) little indication they're even based on the game characters doesn't feel right. EDIT: I agree with DrippingYellow's comment about how the King and Mushroom King shouldn't be merged though, since their only similarity is that they're both kings, but that can be dealt with in another proposal.
Arend (talk) I'm most hesitant about merging Daisy. As you know, Daisy is pretty much the movie's equivalent of Princess Toadstool, and in a previous concept, was even named Hildy/Heidi/whichever of the two it was. Had that name not been changed to Daisy, many would obviously argue to merge it with Princess Peach instead. I would also say that it's pretty bizarre to have one of the two bumbling henchmen be based on a Koopaling while the other is based on a random enemy, instead of both being based on a Koopaling (we got seven of those guys; they couldn't have called the other henchman "Larry"?); not to mention that this version of Toad was once called Lemmy (another Koopaling).
Tails777 (talk) Leaning more on this idea. There are the obvious ones, but I think the ones holding me back from an all out merge are Spike and Big Bertha, as they seem way different compared to what they are supposedly based off of (also the Iggy one feels a bit off to merge with the Koopaling).
Archivist Toadette (talk) I think I'd rather go with this option, since those particular subjects have too little overlap with their game "counterparts". Besides, how would a carnivorous freshwater fish share clear commonality with an...uncomfortably attractive humanoid being?
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, Archivist Toadette especially.
DrippingYellow (talk) Say what you will about trying not to separate variations of characters, even in media with notable differences from the "main canon" (i.e. Super Show and Peach-hime Kyūshutsu Dai Sakusen), these characters still have recognizable attributes. Mario, Luigi, and Yoshi certainly fit the bill of mere variations, but others I'm a little more icky on, with this lining up most easily with my opinions. With the film being designed to be a deliberate departure from other Mario material, it makes sense not to merge film characters unless they have significantly overlapping roles with their game counterparts. (e.g. Goombas are still the front-line weaklings, Yoshi is still held captive by Koopa and has a long tongue...) The only merges I entirely disagree with here are the Snifits (who don't shoot bullets at all, and, if I had to guess, had their name chosen just because they "sniff 'it' (the garbage)"). As well as the King because... umm... he's not the king of the mushroom kingdom, nor Peach's father? I don't even get this connection to be honest. Nevertheless, I'm willing to wait it out to change those if this passes, because something something two-party system...
Jdtendo (talk) Mario and Luigi have some similarities with their video game counterparts, but Toad, Iggy and Spike have nothing in common with their namesake, Big Bertha is way too different to the fish she is based on, and Daisy seems more like "Princess Toadstool but we called her Daisy because "Toadstool" is not a given name".
Biggestman (talk) I agree with all above points, however if there was an option to also keep President Koopa split I would vote for that, he's literally just not the same guy in the movie in any way whatsoever.
Only merge Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, President Koopa/Bowser, and King; keep the rest separate
Merge Goomba and Snifit, but keep the characters separate
Other
LinkTheLefty (talk) Considering all of the "History of X" articles that have been written, why don't we keep the separate articles, but rebrand them as "History of X in Super Mario Bros. (1993)"? Maybe down the road, if Illumination gets enough content, we'll think about if we want to do "History of X in film" or "History of X in cartoons/television" or something. This'll satisfy the proposal's condition while lightening the load. Plus, this'll save the headache of merging the character infoboxes (unless the idea was to keep them intact in film sections).
Do nothing
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) While I completely understand and agree with MarioWiki:Canonicity and the points stated above, I just don't want these to be merged at all. All of the characters mentioned are very different from their game counterparts, and many characters that are non-human in the video games are at least partially human in the movie (like Bowser (video game character) and King Koopa (movie "counterpart"). This is enough for me to not want to merge any of the pages.
SeanWheeler (talk) The 1993 movie was an awful adaptation that changed too much. I would want Bob Hoskins' Mario to remain separate from the the games' Mario. President Koopa is clearly very different from Bowser.
LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm still okay with this, too. I know we don't make canonical judgments, but when creatives do on the rare occasion, that's where I think we should stand. After all, "This Ain't No Game." Per myself in the old proposal.
It's interesting to read through this old discussion, especially how much the focus at the time seems to have been on specifically Daisy. Nobody in this whole proposal or the "Peach/Daisy in Film" proposal before it ever suggests the idea of giving specifically Mario (film character) a separate article! I wonder how that happened. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
Did this need to be one huge proposal? The fact that there are seven options as well as an "Other" option (which, how would that even work if it got the most votes?) suggests to me that the Mario Bros. movie live-action subjects have far too much range in how close they are to their OG counterparts for this to be resolved in one seven-day proposal. For instance, I mostly agree with the fifth option, except for the inclusion of the King among the merged characters (considering that unlike the Mushroom King, he is neither the king of the Mushroom Kingdom nor Peach's father (he's Daisy's father)). If we were to add options for every little disagreement with the proposal author's reasoning in this particular instance, it would become a nightmare to try and find an appropriate option to vote on. I'd suggest splitting the proposal based on character roles (e.g. one for main characters, one for minor characters like Yoshi, one for creatures like Goombas, and one for references-in-name-only like Toad, Big Bertha, etc.) DrippingYellow (talk) 13:36, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would argue that range from source material isn't much of a factor in so much as they're variants of a source character and my understanding is that we do sometimes merge whack variants of the same entity, such as Skeeters. I'd go for the straightforward option because I don't see much merit debating within gradience of who gets a separate article or not. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I'd still argue that there's a point where it's not so much a variant as it is an entirely new character that only uses an existing character name as a callback. The film's plot provides a framework for this, considering it is loosely based off of the Mario games' story: Princess Daisy is the damsel-in-distress, Koopa is the antagonist who kidnaps her, Goombas are his lackeys, Yoshi is a dinosaur with a long tongue who is also held captive by Koopa, and Mario and Luigi are the heroes. Those are definitely a variation of standard Mario features. However, then there are characters like Big Bertha who shares no similarities with her namesake other than being... well, big. Not to mention she should probably stay split anyway considering normal Big Bertha is an enemy species, while this Big Bertha is a unique character. Spike at the very least should also be split for similar reasons. Big Bertha's connection to her original inspiration would at least be more plausible if, for example, she was a marine biologist or had a scene where she saved Mario from drowning or something. I'm a little more inclined to merge Toad, since he gives exposition about the fungus (which would line up with the original character's appearance), but then again, he was originally named Lemmy, so the connection there may not have been intentional. And as for the King vs. the Mushroom King, the Mushroom King article is a catch-all for anytime the king of the Mushroom Kingdom. To include a King in that article who exists in a continuity where there is no Mushroom Kingdom seems a little odd. DrippingYellow (talk) 14:43, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
To be fair, we can't think of how else to showcase the granularity of the options than the deluge of choices; short of something like a checkbox-esque "vote for this one if you think it should be split!" proposal, which is entirely unprecedented and we have no real way of handling. Is it clunky? Yes. But it's either this, a bunch of standalone proposals (which could get even more messy), or some entirely new form of proposal gets invented just to handle this. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really see how the standalone option would make things messier. Is it that hard to keep track of multiple proposals? The choice would be between that or a list of options that is either unreadably long or doesn't have an option that aligns with your opinion due to something like an assumption by the author. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:29, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
By the by, what's this version of Spike called in the Japanese localization of the film? I think that's important to ask because we do in fact have another Spike in this franchise, one who is decidedly NOT called "Gabon" in Japanese, ever. rend(talk)(edits) 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
On the contrary, the thought has crossed my mind to go in the other direction and have something done with the Paper Mario universe and characters, but it'd probably be controversial. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:21, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would oppose covering all Paper Mario appearances in the Paper character articles and I would also oppose merging them all with their regular counterparts. Nightwicked Bowser 17:25, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
You see, while the 1993 Mario movie characters are drastically different from their mainline game counterparts (or namesakes), the same cannot be said about the Paper Mario characters, which stay relatively close to the source material in comparison. Sure, the first three games gave most enemies a couple of design quirks that stand out from the mainline games, but they are still recognizable as those enemies. Same deal with the 2023 Mario movie counterparts; they have some differences, but are still clear and recognizable as the same characters. rend(talk)(edits) 17:41, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I never really nailed down how it would work, but wouldn't be as full splits. Maybe something along the lines of how we now have "History" articles split from their sections. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding Iggy, unused scripts on the SMBMovieArchive website show that originally, there were other Koopaling-named characters (like Morton and Wendy as announcers), showing Iggy was an intentional reference. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:31, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
But still, being named after another character doesn't necessarily make them the same character given how otherwise completely different they are, especially considering what's already been brought up about how characters like Toad were originally named differently. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:13, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
This needs looked into some more as I can't remember for certain, but I seem to recall the script referring to the generic Dinohattan police officers as Koopa Troopas (a variation of that name was given to Goombas in earlier development). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:59, April 9, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. Also, he was called "Toad" first, with "Lemmy" being used for a single draft in mid-production. In the first "Wizard of Oz"-style draft, he had basically the same role Toad would be given in the more recent movie, but drifted slowly from that as rewrites occured. He is still, therefore, primarily derived from the games' Toad. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: Considering the "History of <x character> in <the cartoons they appear in>" articles are still waiting for their cigarette and tinder box before their execution via categorization as much as we deeply, deeply regret that proposal, we don't exactly see a "History of <x character> in Just The 1993 Movie" turning out well, unfortunately. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:46, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
“I believe rule 9 calls for an extension if I'm not mistaken.”
Well, before you extended the proposal, there were 19 voting users in total, if I'm not mistaken, and according to rule 9, more than half of the total amount of voters (in this case, more than 9.5 voters) must show up in a single voting option. If I get that right, that means at least 1 voting option must have more than 9.5 votes... and uh, the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section has 10 votes, meaning that must have won. However, you decided to vote too while extending the proposal, meaning that there's now 20 voting users, and the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section now requires more than 10 votes... thus, 11. Since you decided to cast in votes alongside extending the proposal, when it should have enough results to not require an extension, I'm honestly not sure if we should end the proposal now and remove subsequent votes and comments from prior the extension, or keep the extension for another week. rend(talk)(edits) 18:00, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
