Do not change 4-7
It's been two years since the {{ref quote}} was deleted. This time, I was wondering if there's a possibility to rewrite the cited quotes into a new style to match the Wikipedia citation templates {{Cite video game}}, {{Cite episode}}, and {{AV media}}. Here are some examples:
<ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref>
Super Mario RPG (talk) Per both, especially if this allows us to have citation templates.
Camwoodstock (talk) Y'know? Now that it's been brought up, it is kinda weird we just lack a template for stock citations... at all. We have a template for consistent inter-wiki links, a template for consistent ways to depict controller buttons, a template for consistent ways to put dividing dots into navboxes, but a template for consistent citations is just Not A Thing. This would certainly make it easier to create new citations for people not as involved in the process if nothing else, and so long as the template follows our citation guidelines (which, it looks like they do), there isn't really any harm in having a bespoke template for these.
#Hewer (talk) As long as it stays optional, per all.
DrippingYellow (talk) I had to think about it, but I'll have to oppose. I'm OK with books, magazines, and external websites getting sufficient citations, but going this in-depth for quoting a Mario game just seems redundant. And yes, I'm aware this isn't a requirement, but why would I support the addition of a template for an extravagant style of references I don't think are necessary most of the time?
Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in an awkward situation here, because I do support having a more solid guideline for citations, but I feel like these specific guidelines are awkward for our purposes, especially the video game one. This level of depth makes sense for a generalist wiki that will usually be citing research papers and occasionally cites media, but we're a media-focused wiki. Half the time, the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me.
Hewer (talk) On second thought, per DrippingYellow and Ahemtoday.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Normally, I'd be all for standardization, but implementing guidelines for citations is a delicate balance between the level of detail of the citation and the ease at which a user can add such a citation to an article. These citation formats are simply too complex for the narrower context of this wiki, and they include an unnecessary amount of arbitrary information beyond the quote itself, which is by far the most important part of the citation.
Mario (talk) Proposal hasn't clearly outlined the issue nor does it explain how the effected changes will be an improvement. See comment.
Comments
Will this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)
Last time a template was proposed for citations (by some bloke named Bye Guy, I wonder how he's doing today), people were strongly (and I mean, strongly) against it for a reason I can't, to this day, grasp. It might have to do with the fact that people somehow misinterpreted that proposal as "let's make *this* layout a policy" when it was more so "let's make a template that could aid in making citations more consistent and allow for quick mass modifications if the used format is ever codified or changed". Someone even accused me of wanting to "enforce policy" because of personal convenience, even though the very point of templates is to make editing more convenient, but I digress--my points weren't too articulate either, so I have my share of blame. Problem was, I couldn't have proposed a template without a given format, so I guess my mistake was the misplaced priority: some standard formats should have been discussed first, perhaps leading to a proposal specific to that topic, and only when an agreement was reached between users would I have followed up with a template proposal. -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:10, January 20, 2024 (EST)
There is a frightening amount of times when random users try to co-opt a template convenience into a requirement. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:15, January 20, 2024 (EST)
Looking at the revision history of MarioWiki:Citations, it seems a format had already been imposed by the time of that proposal. I still don't see how a template would've been such a bad idea. -- KOOPACONCARNE 05:08, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I don't even think it is a bad idea on its own, it's just that the templates being proposed here are copy-pasted from Wikipedia, rather than being based on the sufficient citation standards we already have. To be fair, we don't yet have a standard (in the rules) for in-game and film quotes, but if there was ever going to be one, this is certainly not it. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:43, January 21, 2024 (EST)
The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST)
So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters.
If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video.
If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Create two specific citation templates
Create one template for all types of citations 3-5-1
This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal.
I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki.
I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:
{{cite web}} - for anything that links to someplace else on the web, including PDF and digital documents.
{{cite book}} - for any books, including magazines and manga.
{{cite document}} - for any digital documents, such as PDFs, should there ever be a need to cite from those. (Edit: merged option into cite web)
I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly.
Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately.
#Hewer (talk) Although I don't see how optional templates that aren't strictly enforced are meant to make references more consistent (feels like they'd do the opposite if anything), I don't care much about consistency of reference formatting so I don't mind this being an option to potentially make it easier.
Create one citation template for all types of citations
ThePowerPlayer (talk) After dwelling upon this for a while, I've realized that citations for books and web pages ultimately share so many of the same parameters that different citation templates would be redundant. The easiest way to create a single template for both citation types is to include optional parameters, which I am confident that MediaWiki can support. On my sandbox, I've created an idea of what the template should look like in the editor, as well as explanations of each field. If either this option or the above option passes, I will make a proposal of my own with further details.
Jdtendo (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Besides, I think one singular template would be easier to deal with.
Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like this is probably simplest; besides, as people have pointed out, there aren't really that many differences between web and print citations as-is.
Oppose
LadySophie17 (talk) Even if I would agree with the idea, I can't approve the creation of a template when I don't know what it will look like. I'm open to changing my vote if that changes.
Comments
One template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPACONCARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)
Wikipedia has them separate. I'm not sure how one template would work conveniently for all instances of citations. Super Mario RPG (talk) 06:56, January 21, 2024 (EST)
Okay, well I added a separate option for those who prefer a single citation template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie(T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)
Yeah i think cite web can cover for digital documents, come to think of it. I'll strike it out. These templates would probably be the same as what we have, only in template form. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)
As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)
No, it's going to be the same way we already cite links, just in template format. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:17, January 22, 2024 (EST)
What will the contents of {{cite}} look like? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, January 22, 2024 (EST)
It would somehow integrate the functionality of the two templates. I made that option because Koopa con Carne said that only a single citation template should suffice. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:46, January 22, 2024 (EST)
My question was not answered. What will you write in the template page to integrate this functionality? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:51, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Truth be told, I don't know. I originally intended the proposal to have only separate templates as an option or opposition, but since a user said there could be one that suits all, i added as an option. i wouldn't know how to design a template for all types of citations, as the coding, switch, and if expressions for that could be too complex, so if that option passes, I'll probably need someone to help. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:04, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Though I do know that consistent parameters would be like |last= (for author last name), |first= (first name), |title= (the work being cited). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, January 22, 2024 (EST)
I agree with Sophie and Mario. At this point, it looks like the "Create both" option will pass, and two citation templates will be created; however, these templates will only be used if they're formatted in an easily accessible way, and the proposal currently provides almost no details about what the templates would actually look like if they were implemented. For this proposal to actually take effect, there needs to be consensus on how the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are implemented and used, not just the existence of the templates themselves. That means that this proposal either needs to be updated with specific formatting guidelines for the templates, or it must be followed up by another proposal detailing such guidelines. If you don't know exactly what the templates would look like, I'm willing to make a follow-up proposal of my own to settle that issue. ThePowerPlayer 10:45, January 23, 2024 (EST)
The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
That's exactly what I'm planning on doing the minute this proposal ends, but before that, I want consensus to be reached on making a template at all (and how many templates to make). ThePowerPlayer 17:27, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link
Add 11-0
This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing.
Mario (talk) Considering that interwiki links are generally uncontroversial and I assume most of us hate that x-factorized spillway of an ad-infested radioactive dumpsite, I don't think a proposal is entirely necessary but it's still a valid way to request an added feature like that.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This makes a lot of sense to me, as it would let the wiki remain consistent when dealing with subjects that are not Super Mario-related. Per proposal.
If this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. rend(talk)(edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Yes, I agree with this. Why not make the proposal now or do you want me to do it? Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I agree as well. We should definitely make a proposal for adding RayWiki interwiki links. It would serve the same purpose as the Minecraft wiki links, so why not? -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 14:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:
In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion.
This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged.
People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special.
Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):
MarioWiki:Administrators: "While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit."
Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it."
Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it." ⬇️changed to⬇️ "If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly."
Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do? A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible.
Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes.
Proposer: Mario (talk) Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule.
Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editing rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final.
Drago (talk) Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) How has this not been done already??? Per all, sometimes people get misjudged and sometimes people change, so it's probably for the best we account for that rather than allow one warning to just stick around forever.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yes, we absolutely need to do this! Just because a warning is issued by a staff member and not a regular user, it shouldn't mean that you can't appeal said warning. It wouldn't be fair at all! Per all.
Hewer (talk) Per all (this rule is probably a reason why the appeal system doesn't get used much).
Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)
Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST)
You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). rend(talk)(edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Honestly their powers are more limited than you think. Warnings and reminders set a kind of record and then block is the final step. It would be easier for all of us if normal users can help advise others what rules they're breaking. I have noticed a few times normal users given out reminders and warnings, but I suppose some staff members are active really often and are keeping more dibs on other users so probably they're on the scene sooner and more frequently. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Create interwiki link for RayWiki
create 11-0
This is similar to, and inspired by the Minecraft.wiki interwiki link proposal above, but with the RayWiki instead. The Rayman series has gotten relevance in the Super Mario franchise thanks to the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC campaign for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. The DLC campaign harbors a multitude of Rayman cameos and references, and currently, we can only link to articles of the most relevant wiki for Rayman using external weblinks, which... doesn't look all too great on an article, IMO.
Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to Super Mario in general (e.g. Kovopedia, a Magical Vacation wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that are relevant to Super Mario in some way.
As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like [[raymanpc:]] (from the URL domain, since the RayWiki is hosted by the Rayman Pirate Community), simply [[raywiki:]] (from the wiki name itself), or both.
Proposer: Arend (talk) Deadline: February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Sparks (talk) Per Arend. There are plenty of Rayman references throughout the DLC. What better way than to link to RayWiki for more information?
Super Mario RPG (talk) Thank you for making this. I strongly agree to RayWiki being added.
Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom. again Per proposal--we should be acknowledging these independent wikis whenever possible, and Rayman has a notable enough presence for this template to make sense.
Mario (talk) I like this idea (also again I don't think we absolutely need proposals to effect this but just in case)
Hewer (talk) Per all, and also, RayWiki seems to fully cover the Rabbids series, so this could be useful for other Mario + Rabbids content beyond just that DLC.
OmegaRuby (talk) Very well written wiki that deserves to be linked from here. Hell, I even found a link to us in their Sparks of Hope article! Per proposal.
Oppose
Comments
Make a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) page
Create YouTube category 1-8-0
Pictured: How we feel after trying to make a half-comprehensive list of YouTube videos by Nintendo.
Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here.
YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does not deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds zero relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept.
No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for Starfy. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a massive rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments.
We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just some of the YouTube videos with articles:
The Cat Mario Show - While some of these were on the eShop, with that closed they only are present on YouTube.
List of Play Nintendo Shorts - A reasonable companion to it, just videos that were on the Youtube channel's shorts section. Has anyone actually cared about YouTube Shorts? Whatever the case, this is pretty unambigously related to YouTube.
Virus Vid - WAS on YouTube. After Dr. Mario World went kaput, these went private. We don't know exactly why this would prevent it from being on the disambiguation, but we figured we'd at least acknowledge it.
(Currently, the Nintendo Switch Parental Controls - Nintendo Switch Presentation 2017 Trailer video lacks an article as of writing--if it had one, it would be fit for here.)
...Look, you get the idea. There's a lot of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like Wario Land: Shake It! or Super Mario Galaxy 2; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made for YouTube, by Nintendo, about Mario.
We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after Dr. Mario World went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've already missed out on that's lost to time.
Addendum: As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: February 4th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)
Camwoodstock (talk) - You saw that list. We wouldn't have compiled this if we didn't feel as though there was potential for this to be a disambiguation page.
Support (make a YouTube category)
Camwoodstock (talk) - We think this is also fine as well, especially since as people have pointed out, there are a lot of videos that already have articles.
Waluigi Time (talk) If the idea is to just have all of this easily accessible from one place, a category makes more sense than a disambig that's not really a disambig.
Hewer (talk) Per Waluigi Time, "disambiguation" feels like a bit of a misnomer here.
Tails777 (talk) This is the truest example of the phrase "Let em cook" I've ever seen. Most of those streaming services kinda felt iffy, but a category for YouTube series feels like a better idea stemming from it all. Per all.
How would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that Category:Videos cannot? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)
...Admittedly, we didn't think much of a category, which we realize sounds very unlike us considering recent events--we promise, we had this written before a lot of the category conundrums happened! We could potentially add an option to create a category over a disambiguation page if that'd be appreciated. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:06, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'd be pro-category. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 22:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Seconding this. If we were to make a disambiguation page, and then proceed to have every noteworthy Mario-related YouTube video in said page, it would be too big to not be just a category. --OmegaRuby (talk) 09:23, January 29, 2024 (EST)
I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
We're a little less keen on a List article, if for no other reason than a lot of the videos have unique articles; we feel like it'd be a little silly to make a full "List of" article if almost every entry would have a "Main article:" tab at the start of it, y'know? We'd understand it more if these videos didn't already have pre-established articles, but as it stands, we feel a disambiguation just works better for a page. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I see the new option. How will Category:Videos be affected? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)
...That's a category??? And we thought we had seen everything. We think there could be potential to rework "video" as a category seeing as that's such a generic term, but also considering the current state of the category as well as the state for other non-web video categories (namely film and television series), we're not sure what the best course of action is. We could maybe convert Video into something like our baseline Games category is at the moment, but we feel like that might start leaving the scope of this proposal... ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:09, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Broaden the scope of the {{promo-photo}} template
Broaden the scope 7-0
Currently, the licensing template used for photographs uploaded to the wiki is Template:Promo-photo, henceforth referred to as {{promo-photo}}. All photographs uploaded to the wiki are listed under the template's corresponding category, Category:Promotional photos. This template is supposedly only meant to be used for publicity photos "known to have come from a press kit"; however, a lot of the photos in this category, most commonly images of merchandise, were taken by ordinary people who have no relation to a formal organization for news or media distribution; to put it simply, many images with this template don't come from a press kit.
I'm convinced that {{promo-photo}} is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's Template:Non-free promotional, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is far more strict on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that {{promo-photo}}'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it.
This is what the {{promo-photo}} template currently looks like:
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to:
{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
This work is a copyrighted photograph of a person, product, or event that either originates from a press kit or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise illustrates a copyrighted work. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.
This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as this statue of Mario (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template.
Don't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Those types of official stock photos do fall under the current description from the template, and in my opinion, they should be used whenever possible; however, take a look at Category:Merchandise images. There's a distinction between promotional photos displayed on online storefronts that have the license to sell the product displayed (such as this photo of a Mario plush), versus a photo of no official capacity taken in someone's house (such as this photo). Sometimes the latter is necessary to use because the former doesn't exist, which is why the aim of the proposal is to broaden the template so it can cover both official and unofficial merchandise photos. ThePowerPlayer 21:41, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Is there a possibility to rename the template from {{promo-photo}} to simply {{photo}}, if this proposal passes? I'm all for broadening the scope of this licensing template, but if it's going to be about photos in general of a work or product, and not specifically about promotional photos, when what's the point of keeping the promo in the template title? It would only be misleading. rend(talk)(edits) 08:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
That did cross my mind, but I wasn't sure whether it was right to advocate for it. Given the unanimous support for this proposal, though, it should be straightforward for you to make a proposal to rename the template itself. ThePowerPlayer 20:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Wouldn't renaming the template affect every page the template is used in (which is specifically something the proposal tried to avoid)? If not, then I would imagine it's a no-brainer to just rename the template once the proposal passes, it's a natural extension of it. — Lady Sophie(T|C) 16:51, February 1, 2024 (EST)
The proposal was trying to avoid the need to manually go through every file with the template and decide whether to change it or not. Renaming the template avoids that issue since it would be doable with a bot, so I don't think there should be any problems there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:29, February 2, 2024 (EST)
Decide how to format the {{cite}} template and update citation guidelines accordingly
Update citation guidelines 7-0
Now that this proposal has instated the creation of a single {{cite}} template for citations, it's time to decide how this template should be formatted.
In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the MarioWiki:Citations page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:
The first reason is to avoid misguided claims of the template including excessive amounts of detail, leading to a feeling that an overly complicated format is being forced onto users.
The second reason is so that currently existing citations can remain as they are, without the templates needing to be retroactively applied to them.
Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the Super Mario Sunshine manual) is completely different from the later citation of a Super Mario RPG guidebook:
"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ..." ~ Super Mario Sunshine manual, page 9.
Miller, K. 1996. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide, pg 13.
I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the {{cite}} template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake.
Here's exactly what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters:
Parameters for all citations: These parameters should always be included whenever possible.
Author: The full name in (Lastname, Firstname) format or the username of whoever wrote the content of the source. Separate fields for the author's first name and last name are too confusing, since users could easily fill out the template as (Firstname, Lastname) by accident, not to mention the exceptions of a username or if the author is a collective (e.g. the author of an article is listed only as "Nintendo").
Date: The date the book or page was published, e.g. "January 1, 2000".
If the format "YYYY-MM-DD" is entered, it should be automatically converted to the preceding format, but typing plain text should also work.
Title: The title of the source. If citing a web page, this field should also be a link to the page itself.
Publisher: The publisher of the book, or the website on which the web page was found.
Parameters for a specific citation type:
ISBN: For physical books only, the ISBN of the book.
Page: For physical books only, the page number on which the citation was found.
Formatted as a number in code, but should be displayed in plain English, i.e. "Page 12.", for simplicity.
Access date: For web pages only, the date at which the source was accessed, e.g. "January 1, 2000". This is to preserve the state of the web page at that time, since unlike physical media, web pages can change at any point.
Optional parameters: These parameters should only be included if relevant to the citation.
Quote: A brief excerpt from the book or web page providing more context to the citation. Using quotes should be encouraged because it allows readers to see evidence behind a claim quickly and directly on the wiki itself, rather than needing to seek out the evidence in question in order to prove that it has not been fabricated.
I chose to use "–" to separate the quote and the rest of the citation, since I have never seen any quote citation on the wiki use the tilde (~), as is supposedly recommended by guidelines. If there is evidence to support using a different symbol, please let me know in the comments.
Also, I was originally under the impression that the excerpted text in the quote should be italicized, but that is seemingly not the case in e.g. the MLA style guide, so currently, the quoted text remains un-italicized. Again, please comment if you disagree.
Archive: A link to a web archive of an online source. Must also include the "archive date" field if used.
The beginning of the URL should be automatically analyzed to determine which web archive was used (Wayback Machine or archive.today), and accordingly append the archived link with either "via Wayback Machine" or "via archive.today", respectively.
Archive date: The date at which the URL was archived.
If given in the same format as a Wayback Machine URL (e.g. "20210309100159") or the string of text in the top right corner of an archive.today page (e.g. "13 Aug 2022 13:51:45 UTC"), it should automatically be converted to the correct format, and it should stay that way in wiki code after the page is saved, like the timestamp template ("~~~~").
Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order):
{{cite
|date=August 26, 2002
|title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet
|publisher=Nintendo
|page=7
|quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}
"It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites." – (August 26, 2002). Super Mario Sunshine North American instruction booklet. Nintendo. Page 7.
(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.)
{{cite
|author=Campbell, Evan
|date=July 17, 2014
|title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]
|publisher=IGN
|accessdate=July 22, 2014}}
{{cite
|author=Miller, Kent
|date=1996
|title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''
|page=13}}
Miller, Kent (1996). Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide. Page 13.
Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book:
{{cite
|author=Wessel, Craig
|title=''Warioland 4''
|publisher=Scholastic
|isbn=0-439-36711-5
|page=63
|quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}
"I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!" – Wessel, Craig. Warioland 4. Scholastic. ISBN 0-439-36711-5. Page 63.
I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing Twitter / X posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here.
When actually using this template in an article, it should be included within the <ref></ref> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines.
Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a required template; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the {{cite}} template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <ref> tags is completely okay.
Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own.
EDIT: Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter.
LadySophie17 (talk) That looks very complicated but sure, I could work with that.
Oppose
Comments
I know it may seem unnecessary, but can an ISBN be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)
As an optional parameter, it sounds perfectly applicable - I've added it to the proposal. ThePowerPlayer 08:34, January 29, 2024 (EST)
Just realized that perhaps this template also state the language of the source if, let's say, we're citing Japanese websites. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, February 5, 2024 (EST)
Consistent formatting for the Other Languages section
Second option 0-5
Alright, so since this is starting to get really annoying, I'm going to put this proposal here. Here are two inconsistent ways that the meaning of names in the "Names In Other Languages" section are listed on the wiki:
1. "name" (meaning)
2. name ("meaning")
Now, almost all the pages on the wiki already have Option 1 for their formatting, but for some reason some other users think that they should all be changed to look like Option 2, even though Option 1 already works just fine and there's no point in putting asterisks between one single word if it's already in between paragraphs. But, what do you guys think, which way of displaying the Other Names section do you think would be better?
Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk) (banned) Deadline: February 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Keep the formatting of Option 1
Change all Other Languages sections to Option 2
Super Mario RPG (talk) I prefer this option so that this way, both languages are formatted and appropriately in a distinct manner from one another.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per my vote in this proposal and my general distaste for the “we’ve always done it this way, which automatically makes it the right way” argument.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Per All. I think, this second option is a more academic style than the first. I like the fact that the foreign name is italicized to make sense that it is foreign.
Yook Bab-imba (talk) How I've always formatted it, and my preferred style.
So, for clarification, what vote is the oppose part of the proposal? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:07, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm just writing here because I'm stuck in the middle about this. Keeping the first option would mean that we don't have to go and change the formatting of most "Names in other languages" sections (which would obviously take an incredibly long time), but on the other hand, option 2's formatting style is clearer to read. I will vote later once I decide. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 22:10, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm more of a "who cares?". It's like hand wringing over if a date in a citation should have parentheses or not. I don't see the point in adopting italics or not. Either way works in this case. Just keep it consistent in one table. But across the wiki? Meh. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:16, January 30, 2024 (EST)
I'm in the exact same camp. I don't see a problem with either option, so I'm hesitant about having to choose which one we should use. If the proposer won't include a "Do nothing" option here for whatever reason, I would rather abstain from voting. rend(talk)(edits) 08:37, January 31, 2024 (EST)
There is, however, a conventional and consistent way to format these things. Doing nothing would just give way to pointless edit wars with users who refuse to acknowledge that. -- KOOPACONCARNE 08:41, January 31, 2024 (EST)
I'm also far less motivated to vote given that this proposal about a naming style was made way too soon after the creator's block expired, which the block was from edit warring and general hostility to other users on the Wow Bud (history) page over naming style. That this proposal includes taking swipes at users that disputed the edits on that page does not help convince me that this proposal was made in good faith. Please maintain your conduct. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 22:26, January 30, 2024 (EST)
Oh, I didn't know that. I'll still consider this, but I may leave it up to everyone else. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 23:31, January 30, 2024 (EST)
...honestly, the fact that this proposal is a follow-up from an edit war that the proposer was responsible for and got blocked for, and being made directly after the block had ended and being made just because they disagreed on a certain thing that made them edit war (and also seems to be a response to a previous proposal they disagreed with and didn't know about until the edit war was escalating)... makes me want to choose a side even less than I already do now (and I didn't want to choose a side to begin with). Where's the "I'm fine with either way" option? rend(talk)(edits) 08:48, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Aren't proposals with multiple/either-or answers required to have a "do nothing" option, anyways? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 11:25, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Yep, rule 18 says "Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy." There definitely has to be a "do nothing" option here. MegaBowser64 (talk) 13:34, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Okay, what should we do about this then? If the proposal setup breaks the rules, then I'm not voting until it's fixed (and honestly, I might not vote anyway, as I never edit the "Names in other languages" sections). A proposal that is set up simply because someone's upset about not getting what they want through an edit war is not something I want to get involved in. -- FanOfRosalina2007 (talk · edits) 20:02, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Isn't settling disputes like that the whole point of a proposal? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:24, February 1, 2024 (EST)
Yeah, no harm really in them creating a proposal about the matter. However, they're basically asking "should we carry out my idea in x form or y form" without even giving an option for anyone that disagrees with the idea. Would it be acceptable for a user other than the proposer to create a "do nothing" option, on the grounds that the proposal in its current form goes against the rules? MegaBowser64 (talk) 13:33, February 1, 2024 (EST)
Proposals are intended to settle disputes but in good faith like "we disagree on this, let's hash out with the community to see which one of us has a stronger stance". The timing of this proposal from the user's history and rhetoric in the proposal don't work in the user's favor, and I really don't want proposals to be a kind of combative medium where you fight "enemies" to "win". Sure, discussions get heated and anxiety inducing and super frustrating. But you really shouldn't be trying to attack users while writing a proposal on heels of a disagreement, it casts perception of good faith in doubt imo. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:28, February 1, 2024 (EST)
So...couldn't anyone just add the status quo option in for the proposer? I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before. Sometimes, you know, it slips your mind, or you have other things going on where proposal developments don't have your attention. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
I still feel like assuming bad faith in this case is a bit of a stretch when they didn't really "attack" anyone in the proposal, just pointed out the disagreement (and also didn't even vote in the proposal anyway). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:22, February 2, 2024 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty yeah, I think it would be fine to add the status quo option, stuff like that has been done before. I'd be all for voting for that option when it gets added. MegaBowser64 (talk) 14:30, February 2, 2024 (EST)
I'm just gonna say it again: a "Do Nothing" option would just give way to more pointless edit wars. That concern is also what guided much of the opposition in a previous proposal that sought to loosen restrictions for British English spellings in wiki text. Regarding the subject of the current proposal, there is a conventional, widespread way to format words depending on their nature and purpose: foreign words should be in italics to make it clear they're foreign, and words that are being separated from the rest of the others for an explanatory purpose should be in quotation marks. Regardless of that, the idea that articles can be consistent only within themselves and not across the entire wiki is a questionable point of view to have; having an ambiguous outlook for a medium that's supposed to be encyclopedic is anything but encyclopedic. In the words of 7feetunder (concerning the aforementioned proposal on British English spelling): "how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is 'first come, first serve', the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks". Let's settle on one formatting option or another. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:06, February 2, 2024 (EST)
Provide more context as to Mario entities' roles in Minecraft
do nothing 7-13
In Minecraft's Super Mario Mashup, which gets (relatively) full coverage here, many familiar Mario entities get appearances replacing traditional Minecraft mobs and items, and their respective pages reflect that. The problem is, they are relegated to what amounts to a footnote of a section and do not provide any further context as to what they replace, which is unhelpful if you do not know what the original thing does in vanilla Minecraft. For example,
“In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance.”
—current Scuttlebug page
Tells us nothing about how they actually act. What this proposal aims to do is, for example, make this one say
“In the Super Mario Mash-up in Minecraft, Spiders are replaced by Scuttlebugs, using their New Super Mario Bros. 2 appearance. As such, they appear primarily in overworld areas, becoming hostile in darkness. When defeated, they may drop strings or Tarantox's eyes.”
—my intended Scuttlebug page
This should clear up any confusion readers may have on the subject.
Ray Trace (talk) I've played zero Minecraft and I'm not interested in clicking external wiki links to get information. Context like this should be filled in; you don't need to get into too much detail but a general overview is nice. I've also went out of my way to detail what stats are in playable character pages in the wiki (eg Paratroopa is classified as a technique character, which means that her shots are accurate).
Waluigi Time (talk) It feels very incomplete to say something appears in a game and then not elaborate any further on its actual role. Sure, it's just a cosmetic change, but I don't think it's horribly out of scope to expand these a little. Regardless of the outcome we at least need to get Minecraft Wiki links in all those sections, though.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per all. More context is needed in these sections, especially because not everyone who either browses the wiki or is a user on the wiki plays Minecraft (I don't play Minecraft at all). Those people would need more detail as to what the characters do in Minecraft. Besides, this is a Super Mario wiki; we need to cover everything that's Super Mario related in order to keep the wiki up to date.
Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Waluigi Time. A brief overview of what the role of these Mario-skinned enemies and objects serve in the game is nice to have. I do think the point Camwoodstock has brought up regarding the versatility of Minecraft's elements is a good point and worth considering, but I feel it's entirely possible to keep these descriptions brief. For, say, Spider Eyes, we simply describe them as an item used in various crafting recipes that are dropped by Spiders. That's enough to know, broadly, where they appear and what they do; more in-depth coverage and explanation of mechanics can be saved for another site to cover. Likewise, for blocks with a Mario skin, we simply leave it at something like "Wood planks can be obtained in the overworld or by crafting, and may be placed in the world as a building material or decoration or be used in crafting."
Ninja Squid (talk) Not adding at least an overview of how they work feels incomplete and ridiculous honestly. Per all.
#Swallow (talk) Per all. It's not like we'd be giving Minecraft full coverage.
Oppose
Super Mario RPG (talk) - While it's true that the first option does not talk of much, there is little relevance to Super Mario other than what the skins and contents are replaced with. This was one of the main reasons why I wanted to direct people to minecraft.wiki, so that they can read more than just what the Super Mario content replaces. What's described in the second example are not attributes exclusive to the Super Mario Mash-up Pack, except for Tarantox's eyes.
Koopa con Carne (talk) If you want info on how each NPC in Minecraft works, you go to a website that has it. If you're leery to go there, c'est la vie, not our business. A sentence-long overview of what the game itself is about is fine on Mario Wiki's Minecraft article, but further details don't belong here. Those Mario-themed skins don't affect gameplay in any way, so there's nothing worth noting here in that particular regard either; best one can do is link to the relevant NPC's Minecraft Wiki page from the character that inspired its appearance in the Mario texture pack.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC in particular--we feel like it's probably just more conductive to link to, say, the Minecraft Wiki article for Spider Eyes when mentioning Tantrox's Eyes replace them, than to try and give a brief overview, for one key reason--Minecraft blocks, items, and to a lesser extent even mobs are (usually) incredibly versatile and variable in their use-cases. What we mean by that is that a lot of things in Minecraft are multi-purpose and can be used for a wide variety of different things, especially the older ones. Bringing it back to Tantrox's eyes, Spider Eyes are used in no fewer than 3 crafting recipes themselves and technically count as a food item (and apparently can be used to breed the upcoming Armadillos??? were we just meant to find this out because of this proposal??? what is mojang game design nowadays), and one of those items it crafts is... The Fermented Spider Eye, which gets used in 4 more potion recipes. That's about 4 distinct uses for this one item and 4 uses for an item we'd likely have no other place to mention--even if we forcibly limited the sections to be one sentence per relevant (e.g. all the uses for Spider Eyes are one sentence and all the uses for Fermented Spider Eyes are another sentence), this has the potential to kill a section's pacing stone-cold dead. (Case in point, look at how long this vote is... Oops. ;P) In comparison, a quick link is all the reader needs to learn more if they're just that curious or otherwise aren't familiar with Minecraft; for those who are, then they just need the thing's name, which is presumably provided by the link itself.
DrippingYellow (talk) Per all, the Mario series content in Minecraft is just limited to the texture pack, skins, and add-on map. There's really no point in going into any further detail for mobs or items. I would even go as far as to say that claiming that Minecraft objects are "replaced" by Mario objects is misleading, as again, the only thing that changes for them is the texture. They're still named "Spider", "Spider Eyes", "Zombie", etc., and they still make their original Minecraft sounds.
Cadrega86 (talk) per Koopa con Carne and DrippingYellow.
PnnyCrygr (talk) A something like "Minecraft Wiki article: (link)" right below the section header would fit better than a paragraph that literally and redundantly recaps the behavior of a Minecraft mob.
Hewer (talk) Per all, but in particular, DrippingYellow brings up a good point - these aren't appearances of the Mario entities so much as design cameos.
Shy Guy on Wheels (talk) Per all. We'll essentially just be covering how Minecraft works but in Mario terminology, and I don't believe that has a place on this wiki.
In addition, this is not the level of coverage I was thinking about anyway. I want something a little bit more than "Scuttlebugs replace Spiders" but not to the extent that "spiders can be used as crafting items to spawn a bullshit item or this other bullshit item and they can drop legs that you can make a weapon out of". My sentence here also demonstrates my utter lack of Minecraft knowledge and I have zero desire to hop across external websites just to look up very generic information that can easily be corrected with a little bit more context. Ray Trace(T|C) 17:34, February 4, 2024 (EST)
Yes, in some articles, like Shiverians, there is a Minecraft section... But that that's kind of the exception, not the norm. In fact, it currently looks like there is no norm or standard whatsoever. The closest we have is the list on the Minecraft article itself, but not only is that list incomplete, but just a few examples we saw from articles linked on that: In the example we gave for Tarantox (in which we'll likely have to go over the 8 uses for his eyes alone--we didn't even touch on the minutia of the mob itself), Tarantox doesn't have a Minecraft section; it's just in his article opener. Also, because Tarantox is the Cave Spider, we'd likely have to mirror a good portion of that information to Scuttlebug as well, since they replace ordinary spiders and those also drop Spider Eyes--and Minecraft is only mentioned in an "Other appearances" section for Scuttlebugs and shares this section with other games, not a bespoke header of its own; either that needs to get split, or else it will indeed clog that section with the minutia of Minecraft Spider Information. What about Spider Jockeys, just at all--do they go on the article for Scuttlebugs or Dry Bones, and what do we discuss on those articles about Spider Jockeys? What about Nabbit, who lacks any mention of Minecraft on his article because he replaces the Killer Bunny (an otherwise-removed mob only summonable via commands)? Buzzy Beetles lack a section, but replace Endermites, which are used. What about blocks and items? Do we explain how to acquire froglights in the Snake Block article? Do we discuss the Trident in Fauster's article? And then there's the Totem of Undying replacement, which we genuinely aren't even sure where you'd put that short of the Minecraft article itself. We think what it boils down to is that, since our coverage of Minecraft as it is is already rather dodgy and inconsistent, whole-sale inserting these descriptions without any consideration of where to actually put them is a very poorly thought-out idea (at least in our opinion, natch.) This is the Mario Wiki--we need to consider what information pertaining to Minecraft is actually relevant to the Mario franchise and what is best suited for another wiki, because otherwise, this could get out of hand very fast, and lead to plenty of confusion down the road; and in our humble opinion, a simple acknowledgement of what's what is all that's relevant, as any details about Minecraft's gameplay are better suited for a different wiki. We guess what we've been trying to say is that we would like to see some clear limit of where the coverage ends be defined, because Minecraft is big, and if unchecked, you get the aforementioned issue with Spider eyes where suddenly what's supposed to be just a sentence could reasonably become much, much larger. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:50, February 4, 2024 (EST)
For the record, each subject should have a dedicated Minecraft section in their history based on current organization. The inconsistency is mostly due to changes in policy and Minecraft's coverage status over time that haven't really been kept up with. While it's unfortunate and something that should be fixed ASAP, it's not really relevant to this proposal. (Also, I'm fairly certain the aim of this proposal isn't to cover literally everything in Minecraft, but to be more descriptive when we say "this appears in the game". The Trident and Totem examples are moot.) --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 18:59, February 4, 2024 (EST)
We had a feeling at least some of what we were seeing was just kind of the consequence of coverage priority shifting about, so it's good to know we're not going completely nuts more than we usually are on that regard. Still, it does kind of leave us with a lot of questions seeing as, even after that gets resolved, we're not quite sure where exactly the line is drawn for descriptiveness; as we mentioned, that count range from anywhere to simply listing what a Mario thing is replacing to literally just a full description of the Minecraft mob, and we're honestly a little hesitant to support when there doesn't really seem to be a cleanly defined line for how descriptive we should be aside from kinda "feeling" it based on the provided example--which works fine for mobs, but doesn't quite work good for items or blocks. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 19:06, February 4, 2024 (EST)
This certainly is an interesting proposal. On the one hand, a little more context on how the (Mariofied) mobs act would be nice, so expanding the info a little bit with a short, one-sentence summary would be appreciated... but on the other hand, since the mobs aren't necessarily Mario-related and don't have additional behavioral differences in the Mario Mash-Up pack, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to talk more about regular Minecraft mobs on a Mario wiki, and simply linking to the Minecraft wiki would also solve the issue. I do get Ray Trace's concern though, and since it would make sense to link to the Minecraft wiki anyway, regardless of the proposal's outcome; really, it's boiling down to whether we should add a bit more context on what the Minecraft mobs do on each of our pages, or if it's too irrelevant for this wiki. rend(talk)(edits) 17:07, February 4, 2024 (EST)
Maybe a "if it can be neatly summarized" should've been a key qualifying part. Linking to the wiki shouldn't be a crutch to being opaque about information. If something like a Scuttlebug can be like "Replaces spiders. They make webs and scare Steve." go for it. I kind of doubt ALL replaced assets in Minecraft are so incredibly complex affairs that we have to link to a wiki to satisfactorily cover all bases. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:27, February 7, 2024 (EST)
The point isn't that Minecraft assets are too complex to explain, it's the principle of the matter that information peculiar to a non-Mario subject, in a non-Mario game, is best left in the hands of a website dedicated to that game. The Mario textures applied to existing assets are in the same realm as cameos and don't affect gameplay per se, i.e. the "Scuttlebug-skin" spider doesn't do anything different from the default-skin spider. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Rename 13-1
This proposal is simple. Twitter has been renamed to "X" several months back, and people have become increasingly adjusted to the change over time. On Wikipedia, it even says that "Twitter" is both the former and the colloquial name.
Somethingone (talk) I don't see why not. Most recent name, becomes current page name.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Prefer the old name, but this is really inevitable when websites now use the new name
Swallow (talk) Per Twitter's Organization XIII treatment (though it was dumb as hell)
Arend (talk) Reluctantly supporting this (since I prefer the old name and still call it Twitter to this day), but it would only be fair because of a similar proposal of renaming the Wikia template to Fandom, which I also supported.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) I'm also reluctant to support this, but it sounds like the right change.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) I'm used to the name Twitter as well, but times change, and so must we. Per all.
ExoRosalina (talk) Ok so prior to re-run of Halloween 2022, it says Twitter but now it's X. So I can support the change because Twitter changed the name for no reason.
BMfan08 (talk) I as well am reluctant, but on top of the aforementioned Fandom proposal, our own main page has "Follow us on X" now, so it would only stand to reason that this template should follow.
MegaBowser64 (talk) FINALLY now we can actually call it by its actual name. idk why everybody is still holding on to Twitter smh
Oppose
SeanWheeler (talk) X is such a generic name. There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter. Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter.
Comments
Would it be outrageous if we gave this the wiki's "name at the time" treatment and established a cutoff date where we can still refer to "X" as "Twitter" for historical purposes? LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:35, February 9, 2024 (EST)
That would be a little out of the scope for this proposal--this is about renaming the templates themselves--but we think you could possibly make a proposal to do that. It'd probably help a lot especially since, as mentioned, a few of these articles do already link to or mention Twitter/X. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I would only use "Twitter" if it's used WITHIN Super Mario media itself. For example, if it talks about someone adding an "X" post at a time before the rebrand (like Gregg Mayles), I'd say for the first mention "X" (then known as Twitter), because this wouldn't count as appearing in Super Mario media itself. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I agree to do so in an article's body, but IMO in citations, the name of the site should depend on the date a link to a tweet was retrieved: if the link was retrieved before the fateful day of July 23, 2023, then the site is called "Twitter"; if the link was retrieved after that day, the site is called "X". -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:46, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@SeanWheeler
"X is such a generic name." - That's not up to us to decide. And no other platforms have a name similar to that.
"There's a good reason why Wikipedia still calls it Twitter." - Because Wikipedia uses a policy that prioritizes the most commonly used name by English speakers as the page name. We don't do that, we use the most recent official name.
"Many news sites still have to clarify that X was formerly Twitter." - Isn't that an inside joke? And it's been almost a year, I think most people know that X = Twitter.
- S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 21:43, February 14, 2024 (EST)
Rename 7-0
Now that this proposal has passed, which broadens the scope of Template:Promo-photo to cover more than just promotional photographs, the name of the template and its corresponding category should be updated accordingly.
EDIT: Just to make sure this proposal covers all its bases, when configuring the file description on the Special:Upload page, the name on the "Licensing:" list should also be changed from "Promotional photo" to "Photo".
Hewer (talk) Kinda thought this would be an obvious enough choice to not need a proposal but per proposal.
PnnyCrygr (talk) "Photos" is much a more general term than "promotional photos" which suggests that only photos that pertain to press releases should be featured in this wiki, e.g. Fils-Aime looking at a 3DS in the reveal trailer of said console. Just "photos" the name alone will suggest that - any - photo can be included in this wiki, like soft toy and obscure merches photos. I repeat now: per all.
Arend (talk) Per all – it was a concern I had from the previous proposal about the promo-photo template, after all.
do not standardize 1-4
Following in the footsteps of this proposal, I'm creating another to standardize a "Cameo appearances" subsection of a History section of instances when something ONLY cameos or is referenced within Super Mario media. If there's an existing "Other appearances" subsection, the "Cameo appearances" one would precede it, as this is a Super Mario wiki.
I feel that when reading a History section, one would mainly expect to read about games or media where something has a physical role, including if it's a minor one. And a cameo doesn't really constitute equally as much as contributing to a subject's history so much as it merely being a footnote. Besides, when the cameos are all together in a single section (or subsections if there's enough to say, but usually cameos don't have more than one or two sentences), then it's easier to refer to every time a subject made a cameo throughout the course of its appearances.
For example, in Mario Golf: World Tour, the only form of an appearance that Reznor has is their name is sometimes shown on the scoreboard. This is a recurring instance for several other characters and species throughout the Mario Golf series, such as Phantamanta in Toadstool Tour and Advance Tour.
Koopa con Carne (talk) "History" suggests just that: a history of the subject across Mario media. Any cameos and mentions are obligately part of that history and should be treated on the same level as the physical appearances. The extent of an appearance is not relevant to how a subject's coverage is organized; if Toad makes a cameo in game X, that's still a given role which deserves a section of its own among Toad's other roles instead of being lumped together with other perceived minor roles which may lead to textual bloat. (The following string of sentences isn't extraordinarily readable: "Toad makes a cameo in game X, where he is seen in A level. He also appears briefly in game Y. Toad is also mentioned in game Z on the scoreboard. He also makes a cameo on game board B of game XY.")
Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne, and I'd also rather avoid basing organisation on subjective classifications like cameos where possible.
Swallow (talk) If it's a game that's fully within our coverage, then it should still be in the main history section. What does and doesn't count as a cameo to go into another section could get subjective too.
So this proposal is meant to get the cameo appearances of something to their own section rather than having them spread out over the article? If that's the case, it can help provide the main information while listing the minor information at the very bottom or something. Sparks (talk) 18:14, February 9, 2024 (EST)
No, this proposal is only for media where something only cameos and has no further role. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:16, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Okay. Thanks for the clarification! Sparks (talk) 18:19, February 9, 2024 (EST)
I also made a proposal to include non-Smash appearance more than a year ago, but failed. Windy (talk) 17:22, February 16, 2024 (EST)
Wasn't that one about the "latest appearance" in infoboxes? Because I'm pretty sure this one is about organisation of history sections. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:55, February 17, 2024 (EST)
Standardize the "Other appearances" scope to include anything that's not a Super Mario game
do not standardize 1-4
This proposal adds on to my "Cameo appearances" proposal. This proposal aims to standardize an increased scope of the "Other appearances" subsection to include anything that isn't a Super Mario game. It helps affirm the idea that this is a Super Mario wiki and helps the non-Super Mario appearances stand out to readers more easily.
For example, if this proposal passes, any Super Smash Bros. series section, along with possible subsections, will be a sub-section of "Other appearances." Also, I've seen already five equal sign headings for Classic Mode route for Ultimate fighters and sometimes Subspace Emissary. I don't think MediaWiki supports six equal signs, but those could be summarized and included in the section for the game itself, if a decision has to be made.
Sidenote, but if the subject in question makes only trophy, sticker, spirit cameos, the standard would still be to keep them under "Other appearances," because, as stated in my preceding proposal, the "Cameo appearances" subsection would be for Super Mario media only.
Hewer (talk) The other appearances section is currently used for games that aren't given their own articles on the wiki, and I think it should stay that way - the whole reason we have pages for some non-Mario games is because they feature significant Mario content. "This is a Super Mario Wiki" as an argument is getting old - we're only covering this stuff in the first place because it's relevant to Super Mario, so the implication it falls out of the wiki's scope in some way feels incorrect. No matter where you stand on the Smash Bros. coverage debate, I don't think there's much room to argue that the appearances of Mario characters in the games aren't major (and your description of how big the Smash sections already are isn't really helping your argument that we should shove them under another subsection).
Sorry for more questions, but games like the Super Smash Bros. series, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land would count as "other appearances"? Would spin-offs like the Mario & Sonic and Mario + Rabbids series count in this proposal? I feel the latter two I mentioned focus on Mario characters, but I agree that the former three I mentioned are "other appearances" for them. I'm leaning on the "support" option, but I want to think about this first. Sparks (talk) 18:34, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Well, Mario's in the title of the latter two you mentioned, so it's clearly a part of the Super Mario franchise (whether partial or entirely is up for debate). As for SSB, Fortune Street, and Nintendo Land, those would definitely count as "other appearances." Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:36, February 9, 2024 (EST)
That's what I was thinking, but Hewer makes a good point. I now feel conflicted to vote and I think it would be better off if I didn't vote at all. In the past I have supported proposals because I thought my reasoning was good but then others had information of their own, which convinced me to change sides or remove my vote entirely. I don't want this to be another instance of that. Sparks (talk) 18:40, February 9, 2024 (EST)
@Hewer: They definitely are major, no doubt, but they're not Super Mario. There's already an issue where people think SSB is a Super Mario spinoff, and seeing it under "Other appearances" would better show that it's not part of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:43, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Would it, though? "Other appearances" sections had Super Mario games in them for years before that 2021 proposal finally established a consistent usage for them, so it's clearly not immediately obvious to a reader what they're for. And the wiki doesn't call SSB a Mario spinoff anywhere to my knowledge, so it seems to already be doing its part in helping this "issue". I don't see much of a reason to get so hung up about whether they're Super Mario or not when they're still major appearances in the history of the character. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:51, February 9, 2024 (EST)
Decide how to incorporate Wonder Effects in Super Mario Bros. Wonder course articles
Implement Wonder Effects into "layout" section of articles 8-1-0
With more and more course articles being created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder (hooray!), there’s a consistency issue going on - how the Wonder Effects are incorporated into the articles. Some articles have them in the "layout" section of the article, while others have their own section dedicated to the Wonder Effect of the course.
Compare these two courses with each other to see what I mean:
Gnawsher Lair (has the Wonder Effect described in the layout section)
What this proposal is meant to accomplish is to keep consistency throughout the course articles for Super Mario Bros. Wonder. That’s why I have three options to vote on:
1. Have the Wonder Effect be described in the "layout" section of the course articles
2. Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the course articles
3. Do nothing (leave everything as is)
Having a section dedicated to the Wonder Effect will make it easier to find, so that's something.
Proposer: Sparks (talk) Deadline: February 19, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Have the Wonder Effect described in the "layout" section of the course articles
Sparks (talk) Personally I think including the Wonder Effect in the "layout" section is better because it’s part of the course and usually changes the layout of the course. The articles I have created for Super Mario Bros. Wonder have this feature.
Swallow (talk) Primary choice because there are a few levels (particularly the Special World levels) where the Wonder Effect lasts pretty much the whole level; the Wonder Flower is collected near the start and Wonder Seed is collected near the end. I'm not sure the second option would work too well for these kind of levels.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Articles will be easier to read this way.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. We're admittedly not that familiar with Mario Wonder--we've yet to play it--but this definitely makes the most sense seeing as Wonder Effects are all done on a stage-by-stage basis as far as we can tell.
Give the Wonder Effect its own section in the articles
Tails777 (talk) Personally speaking, given how just about every level has a Wonder Effect and how the Wonder Effects are basically the main gimmick of the game, I see no problem with giving them their own section. Whether it be a sub-section of the layout or a section overall, anything providing proper info on what the Wonder Effect is will do. Honestly, I could go either way on this, but the importance and notability of the Wonder Effects make me lean more to giving them their own sections.
Do nothing
Comments
Decide how to handle the toy enemies from across the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
merge all applicable articles 11-0-0-1
The remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong redesigned a number of enemies from the original release, namely Thwomps, Thwimps, and Boos, to have a toy-like appearance, while giving the Bird enemy an organic appearance in contrast to its clockwork incarnations from the series. The wiki is currently set up such that the series' toy enemies are split from their original counterparts, though, seemingly, this is less due to gameplay and identification reasons and more to have a consistency with how the playable Mini toys are handled in relation to their base characters. While there have been proposals here and there on handling particular Mario vs. DK toys in certain ways, the consensus on their general set-up seems to be pieced together from these smaller discussions rather than something formal. It would therefore be consistent with the current status quo to give the remake's redesigns their own pages solely on the basis that they're now toys rather than the real deal.
This would be a bit silly, though. Enemy redesigns happen all the time, often they alternate between games, and may even fulfil their own gameplay role; yet, none of these was enough to have Thwomp's page split between its spiked and non-spiked variants. The spinning-drum Thwomps in the Mario vs. DK remake are simply an interpretation of the base Thwomp that plays into the game's theme; mechanically, they're the exact same as the Thwomps in the original release. That said, one particular enemy, Boo (toy), has significant enough differences from its base enemy to perhaps warrant a separate article; details on that, shortly.
What this proposal aims to do is decide upon a more strict guideline for the coverage of these toy enemies opposite of their originals. Please note: the toy variants regarded by this proposal are those who have minimal to zero mechanical differences from their base counterparts and are (mostly) identified the same way. Toy enemies who are derivative of a Super Mario species, but have their own special mechanics and are clearly identified as though they are a separate thing, are excluded from this proposal. There's a list of excluded enemies at the end of the proposal.
For this proposal, I came up with these options:
Merge all the toy enemies with their base counterparts, where applicable.
Merge most toy enemies, but keep Boo (toy) and any future similar cases split, according to the explanations in the "Enemies included by the proposal" list below.
Split all the toy enemies from their base counterparts, including mere redesigns.
Do nothing.
Enemies included by the proposal
Should be (kept) merged if option 2 wins:
Bird (toy) - in its organic Mario vs. Donkey Kong remake appearance, it acts the exact same as its toy appearances throughout the series. Its page should be renamed "Bird (Mario vs. Donkey Kong series)".
Fly Guy (toy) - pretty much just Fly Guys in everything but the toy appearance. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move, their sole appearance to date, identifies color variants as "[color] Mini Fly Guy", but overall they are not given a distinction. Should be merged with Fly Guy.
Monchee - conceptually and nomenclaturally the same thing as the long-tailed monkey from GB Donkey Kong, except it's a toy. Merge with Monkikki.
Ninji (toy) - jumps up and down like a Ninji. Is a Ninji by name. Merge with Ninji.
Pokey (toy) - It moves from side to side like an actual Pokey. It's true that you can destroy one through moves that require direct contact, something that you wouldn't expect to do with regular Pokeys, but Mario Kart Tourputs that notion to rest. Merge with Pokey.
Shy Guy (toy) - In the original game as well as its remake, they are mechanically identical to the Shy Guys in Super Mario Bros. 2. Mario and Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move calls color variants "[color] Mini Shy Guys", but they're overall just referred to as "Shy Guys". Merge with Shy Guy.
Snapjaw (toy) (added at request): It has a plasticky, "Crocodile Dentist"-style appearance in this series, but is mechanically identical to the bear-trap Snapjaws from Donkey Kong Jr.. Keep merged with Snapjaw.
Thwomp (toy) - appears in the Mario vs. DK remake as a redesign of the original Thwomp. It otherwise acts the exact same. Keep merged with Thwomp.
Thwimp (toy) - similar case to Thwomp (toy). Keep merged with Thwimp.
Should be (kept) split if option 2 wins:
Boo (toy) - though nigh on undistinguishable from regular Boos in the Mario vs. DK remake, the ones in Mini Mario & Friends: amiibo Challenge display different behavior: they only stop in place when they enter a bright area, not when you look at them, and allow you to pass through them in this state. I'd say this page should be left intact, with the remake appearance covered here for legacy purposes.
Any future enemy in the series with a gameplay function which is peculiar to it and not the base enemy. (Given option 2 wins, if any of the toy enemies in the "should be merged" list gain a special role in a future Mario vs. DK game, they'll be (re-)split as a whole.)
Hewer (talk) This feels comparable to how we don't split enemies from the Paper Mario games just for being made of paper when they're otherwise presented as the same enemy in a different style. And Boos having a weakness to light isn't exclusive to the toys, so that doesn't feel like a good reason to make an exception for them. The same enemies can and do have functional differences between completely different games.
Qyzxf (talk) — I think this proposal is completely overlooking why these pages exist in the first place. It's because they are identified differently; in both Japanese and English (though not always in the latter) these enemies are NAMED differently. They are mechanical toys based on live creatures but they are distinctly named entities with consistent designs (besides Boo) separate from their live counterparts. The Thwomp and Thwimp question is of course relevant in this case, but it's hard to say whether or not they should count unless we get names for the enemies in this game. This also applies to Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihou which are redesigned into completely different enemies altogether. Snapjaw being included additionally doesn't make sense because it is already in the correct page and isn't named differently in any game. Splitting or merging pages purely based on design elements feels counterproductive and like willfully ignoring their naming schemes being different, which is normally used as a standard for enemy sub-species being split.
Comments
There's also Snapjaw's plastic design in the series, which is currently merged despite being different from the metal bear trap enemies. Also, why are Yariho and Polterguy excluded? According to the JP names, they are counterparts to Spear Guy and Boo Guy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:05, February 16, 2024 (EST)
Added Snapjaw. As for the others, that's getting into discussions about lang-of-origin, author's intent etc. and I figured these would be best left for another time. Yariho and Polterguy's JP names listed on the wiki come from licensed guides, and even if they are present somewhere in-game, the series of games themselves were largely developed by an American division. -- KOOPACONCARNE 10:39, February 16, 2024 (EST)
@Qyzxf: Snapjaw is included for the same reason as Thwomp, Thwimp, and Bird: it will be split if option 3 passes and kept merged if option 1 or 2 pass. Tane Pakkun and Katakata Kaen Heihō are excluded from the proposal. And, uh, are the enemies consistently named differently? Because I'd probably also oppose this if they were, but they aren't in English, and if the names in other languages sections are anything to go by, they don't seem to be in Japanese either. That leaves the toy design as the only potential reason to keep these split, which you yourself already denounced as counterproductive...after using it as an argument a few sentences earlier. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Auxiliary Japanese material for the original release of MvDK has a trend give toy enemies the qualifier katakata, which loosely translates to "mechanical"; you have Shy Guy toys being called "Mechanical Shy Guys" in the instruction manual, and Ninji toys being called "Mechanical Ninjis" in the Shogakukan guideMedia:Mvsdk_book_ii.jpg. With that said, mechanical Shy Guys went on to be consistently referred to as simply "Shy Guys" (Heiho) in future games, and mechanical Ninjis hadn't reappeared until the recent remake, meaning that whether their original "katakana" qualifier is meant to truly distinguish them conceptually from live Ninjis is pretty moot in my opinion. Worth noting is that said Japanese material for the GBA release isn't even consistent with itself, as Monchee, the toy version of Monkikki, is simply named after its live counterpart, rather than something like katakata Monkikki. Point being, I don't personally think we should let those one-off qualifiers decide how these enemies are handled on this wiki. -- KOOPACONCARNE 08:32, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Upon more extensive research they have been consistently named as such in the Japanese releases but not the English ones. The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names. Additionally the "katakata" denominator is used in the Switch remake as well, which is the most recent release, and could therefore be seen as a "current stance" on Nintendo's part as you could indeed argue that old third party guides are somewhat unreliable sources... but the Katakata Heihou name (the Japanese name for Mini Shy Guys) being used officially in the latest game is already an argument in favour of keeping it in my opinion, or we'd be counteracting something that official material has just clarified for us. Qyzxf (talk) 12:44, February 18, 2024 (EST)
"The main Japanese release that differs is MvDK2 in which none of them have unique names." Did you check the other games in the series as well? "Additionally the 'katakata' denominator is used in the Switch remake." Even if that's true (a source would help), remember that the Switch remake, just like all the other MvDK games in the series, was developed in the US, not in Japan, and the in-game credits don't seem to make clear which localization team drafted the game's script. You can make a point about Japanese names only if the original script is Japanese; that's when they lend clues to the creative intent and development behind a subject, and can be used here as a pointer towards how info on that subject is organized. With Mini Shy Guys, literally all games save for one, as well as their extra material, have called them "Shy Guys" in non-Japanese languages, with English being presumed to be the "source" language of the games; at that point, whether or not Japanese localizations truly push their own interpretation of the character isn't decisive in the matter just by virtue of being the Japanese interpretation. Anyway, here's an ad for the remake (twitter.com) that plainly makes reference to "Shy Guys" and "Thwomps" without referring to them as toys. -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:12, February 18, 2024 (EST)
I understand the point about the language of development, and fair enough. I do think in the modern era Nintendo is more controlling of its Mario brand that the Japanese version is a relevant point to the conversation. For what it's worth, this graphic from the official website of the remake for example states Katakata Heihō for the toy Mini Shy Guy if it's worth considering, but as you said since the game is presumed written in English originally I don't know how much weight that should hold now. Either way it's evident this proposal will pass and when it does I do think we should add these Japanese names to their respective pages in the foreign names section to denote their different names in the MvDK games where applicable. Qyzxf (talk) 23:50, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Add the "Talk page proposal and support/oppose format" to the "Talk page proposals" section
keep as is 1-9
The "Talk page proposals" section in the header is missing a talk page proposal and support/oppose format, and that is confusing. I was just wondering if there is a possibility to add the format to the talk page proposals section.
This header will be placed after the talk page proposal rules:
<h3 style="color:#000">Talk page proposal and support/oppose format</h3>
The first paragraph will read as follows:
“This is an example of what your talk page proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following after starting a new fitting section and paste it into that section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your talk page proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Talk page proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the talk page proposal can be amended as necessary.”
—First paragraph
This is what the example placed after the first paragraph will be as follows:
{{TPP}}
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the talk page proposal was created), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "August 8, 2011, 23:59 GMT"]
===Support===
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
===Oppose===
===Comments===
The paragraph placed after the example will read as follows:
“Users will now be able to vote on your talk page proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own talk page proposal just like the others.”
—Paragraph placed after the example
The final paragraph will read as follows:
“To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's talk proposal. If you are voting on your own talk proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".”
Swallow (talk) It is basically the same as the previous section just with the TPP template and saying the proposal ends in 14 days instead of 7.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer; this is incredibly redundant, and while I could maybe see merit in a sentence or two clarifying "remember to change it to end in 14 days, remember to change the header levels", this... this isn't that, this is just the same template (albeit with those changes), twice.
Arend (talk) Per all, this is about as redundant as copypasting all the proposal rules in the TPP rules section when TPP rule 2 already states that the rules are nearly the same anyway with only a few exceptions. Just copy the mainspace proposal template, make sure the deadline ends in two weeks and to include {{TPP}}; no need for repetition.
Do we really need the full explanation if the code is the same as regular proposals except for the first line? MegaBowser64 (talk) 19:42, February 16, 2024 (EST)
So, I disagree with including the whole section twice on the same page, but would it not be helpful to explain how to use the TPP template? MegaBowser64 (talk) 11:07, February 17, 2024 (EST)
The final sentence of TPP rule 1 already explains where to place {{TPP}}, and also states to replace it with {{SettledTPP}} when the proposal is over, so that's also already covered. The most we can add without being too redundant is to simply copy the code if you don't know how to include a template, but I think the wiki trusts a novice proposer that they'd know how templates work... rend(talk)(edits) 16:35, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Ah, I see. In that case, we've got pretty much everything covered already, so yeah this is definitely unnecessary. MegaBowser64 (talk) 18:20, February 18, 2024 (EST)
Trim or remove various Smash franchise-specific subcategories
prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the given exceptions 1-4-0-1
This is what I'd consider part one to a few proposals I'd like to hopefully make later down the road. This is about the following categories, and if you'd like to humor us for a second, pick one of these at random and take a look at them:
If you played along with our request up above, odds are, unless you picked Rhythm Heaven specifically, you picked a category that has a large amount of Smash-related redirects and occasional disambiguation pages cluttering them--and potentially, if you clicked a category like Bayonetta or Tekken, you just saw a category with only redirects or disambiguation pages--literally zero unique articles to their name. The real loser has to be Pokemon, who not only has only a few disambiguation pages (that all only lead to redirects) to its name once all the redirects are pruned, but it has twosubcategories that are literally all redirects--and the only relevant information to the Mario series is provided not by the wiki, but via a now dead external-link in the main category's description that currently leads to a domain registration page.
So... Genuine question; who do the majority of these categories help? These are all vestiges of an era of the wiki that has long since passed where Smash was given its own coverage; nowadays, in the era of merged list articles and the dedicated Smash wiki, these are all just kind of linking to the same couple of articles. And on the off-chance you're looking for actual information related to non-Smash crossovers, the redirects completely flood those out.
Now, that's not to say every one of these categories is entirely worthless and without merit. We vaguely alluded to Rhythm Heaven in the opening, but in specific, here are a few exceptions to potentially retain (albeit after pruning their various Smash redirects), rather than deleting them:
Duck Hunt, Fire Emblem, Metroid, Kid Icarus, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, and Star Fox all have the same reason--they make regular enough appearances (e.g. 3 or more) in WarioWare microgames.
Ice Climber not only has the WarioWare microgames, but Nitpickers make an appearance in that game.
The Legend of Zelda has the most compelling argument to exist, in our eyes--not only does Mario regularly reference it leading to another Mario Kart track, the Zelda series regularly references the Mario series; this culminates in stuff like the two Thwomps exclusiveto Zelda games.
Pac-Man makes sense because of the crossovers in the Mario Kart Arcade GP games.
Rhythm Heaven has probably the most spotless track record; we give Rhythm Heaven Megamix coverage, it has a WarioWare minigame, and alien bunnies and Cicada both appear in Rhythm Heaven alongside their WarioWare appearances; in fact, the latter is a character who started out as a Rhythm Heaven character before becoming a WarioWare character later on.
Sonic the Hedgehog makes sense because of the various Olympic Games games.
When all that's said and done, we can think of three main things to do here:
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and then delete categories that don't have enough articles left afterwards: For the sake of argument, let's say the cutoff is that you need 3 articles; thusly, Mega Man would stay for Dr. Light, Dr. Wily, and Mega Man, whereas Minecraft is deleted because its presence is just the video game itself. As a warning, this could result in weirdness--for instance, we saw that the Kirby category could stay because of Kirby, Star Rod (Kirby), and Whispy Woods.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, and delete all categories except for our previously-stated exceptions: Pretty self-explanatory. If we didn't decide personally it was good to keep, it gets deleted outright; and then we remove the redirects. We think our judgements were fair enough, but if push comes to shove, we could re-instate a category after the proposal--after all, it's happened before with these Smash proposals.
NUCLEAR OPTION: DELETE ALL THE SMASH SERIES SUBCATEGORIES: The obligatory extreme option, but as we've mentioned, while the state these are in is very suboptimal, there are at least some categories here that have merit and could be used for non-Smash purposes.
Do nothing: We're obligated to include this, and while we are strictly opposed to keeping stuff like the Fatal Fury category around, we aren't going to exclude this just because we personally dislike this choice.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: February 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete categories that have 0-2 articles left
Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option. While we're a little put-off by the idea of a category with only 3 articles, it doesn't hurt as much as these categories in their current state.
Prune all Smash-related redirects, delete all categories except for the exceptions mentioned above
Camwoodstock (talk) This is our preferred choice. We think these categories all have merit due to their aforementioned non-Smash crossovers, and have all got substantial enough appearances to merit keeping their respective categories. While we understand potentially wanting to retain a few more, that can come in a future proposal--for now, we'd like to just keep these ones and work off of that.
NUCLEAR OPTION: Delete all the Smash series subcategories, period
Do nothing
Hewer (talk) Smash is still given its own coverage. It's in the form of list articles now, but we are still dedicating articles to talking about subjects that only cross over with Mario in Smash, so having categories reflect that feels fine. I agree with deleting the two Pokémon subcategories since a list of redirects that all go to the same list page is pretty useless, but the others I feel like can be kept for as long as we're still covering Smash stuff.
Comments
Reserve April Fools' joke proposals to a new section
Do nothing 0-5-11
I'm working on the assumption that joke proposals aren't actually banned entirely and are allowed on April Fools.
I'm not against the concept, however, I feel like there should be a specialized area for these things. Easy as it may be to tell such jokes from serious matters (ymmv on how serious of a pursuit you find editing a Mario fansite to be), the fact of the matter is that they have no business mingling with each other. April Fools content, at large, is already being separated from the rest of the wiki, albeit seamlessly so (it's being directly presented on the home page, but not linked from the mainspace), and you're still not allowed to vandalize actual articles on that day--shouldn't a similar restriction be applied to proposals? This here proposal aims to introduce a brand-new section on this very page (alongside "Writing guidelines", "New features" etc.) that will only be instated on April Fools day and will be reserved for joke proposals. (To clarify: it won't be a permanent part of this page, just on that day of the year.)
Option 1 of this proposal is to name this section the "April Fools' Day proposals" section. Prim, proper, self-explanatory. Option 2 is to give it a more jokey title, to which I raise "Extremely important proposals". Option 3 is to not add a section and let joke proposals wander about the page.
Neither of the first two options would actually "kill" any joke. The entire "punchline" of these joke proposals is the silly interactions between users, and, looking at their history, these proposals tend to be so clearly frivolous that they're easy to tell from the actual proposals. There's no surprise to ruin by putting these in their own section, but it's beneficial in actually drawing a line between them and the actual wiki discussion, and minimizing potential spillover into the latter.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) SolemnStormcloud's Vote is a vote made by SolemnStormcloud. (Per all.)
Tails777 (talk) Honestly, I agree the most with the statement of being a means of preserving the humorous interactions between the users. We put in a lot of work on this site, giving it an air of profession as we strive to gather and show as much information on the Mario series. I like the idea that it's less about preserving the jokes and more for preserving the, shall we call it, off-stage behavior of the users. So let us have our pie fun (I'm still waiting for the pie though... it's been years). In short: Per proposal.
#BMfan08 (talk) While the other option does make more logical sense, I think this option would be fitting for the joke-filled nature of the proposals. Now can someone help me with my comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo?
Option 3 (do nothing)
Glowsquid (talk) - It's April Fools. Having to preface it's a joke, kills the joke.
PnnyCrygr (talk) Stating that it's a non-serious, jokish proposal before adding in the funny April Fool (which is only once per year) proposal itself obviously, leaves the humor out of the bag. Captain Obvious kills the cat's humor. So forth, per the glow squid.
BMfan08 (talk) Glowsquid and PnnyCrygr have a good point, so I'm changing my vote. I still need help with the comic project on N Gang and Club Nintendo by the way
KCC if you don't make an april fool's proposal this year we're gonna be so sad We'd honestly prefer if there was no section, but it was disclosed to an admin that yes, it is indeed a joke or is an actually serious proposal--that way, the joke doesn't get "ruined" for most people, but there's at least someone who's able to, y'know, make sure if things get out of hand for what's meant to be a serious proposal/if things get too serious for what's meant to be a joke proposal, they can intervene. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:09, February 25, 2024 (EST)
@Glowsquid @Camwoodstock, option 2 directly addresses that issue. Either way, the point of joke proposals is less the "joke" itself and more to get others in on the play house and goof around. The "punchline" is the entire community interaction itself. That kind of stuff should not share a corner with Very Serious wiki discussion, the same way the wiki's April Fools campaigns should not be a part of the actual knowledge repository. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:59, February 25, 2024 (EST)
I don't think Option 2 actually addresses the issue because nearly everyone who sees something titled "extremely important proposals" would immediately know it is anything but. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:36, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Sure but the point of a joke proposal isn't to actually fool people into thinking it's a real proposal. It's to goof around something outlandish. The "Extremely important proposals" title does not ruin that goal, especially since looking at the history of these proposals, they tend to be obvious jokes from the onset ("Remove removals", "Pie for everyone", "Create SUPREME rank" etc.) -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
Just a quick question; has the issue this proposal intends to address (joke proposals appearing simultaneously with real ones on April 1st) actually occurred before? I've only been on here since late spring of 2021, so my perspective is rather limited, but I don't think that's been the case since at least then. Last year (2023) when I made my 「ウィキを青にしてマフィンを焼く」joke proposal, it was the only one up on the Proposal page that entire day; and the year before that (2022), there weren't any joke proposals made, and serious ones were on the page. S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 19:41, February 25, 2024 (EST)
2018, 2019, 2021 had them. I only just skimmed the revision log, though, so there should be more instances. -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:58, February 25, 2024 (EST)
I take it the opposition didn't read my comments or what I added to the proposal. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)
We saw, we just personally don't really agree; we personally feel the element of surprise is, indeed, part of the joke. Hence, while we'd still prefer our option of "tell an admin and nobody else", we abstained from both any form of support as well as a direct oppose for the time being. ~Camwoodstock(talk)
Is this supposed element of surprise (whose existence is debatable) really worth bogging down actual discussion? As I said, moving these to their own section could help minimize these jokes spilling over into the real deal. Even if it's only one day a year, that's enough time to have a joke vote or something to that degree worm its way where it shouldn't be and go undetected. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:27, February 28, 2024 (EST)
I read it. I don't think the problem being identified is a problem and I don't think the solutions being offered is necessary. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:37, February 29, 2024 (EST)
To be honest, I misunderstood the proposal and assumed these proposals would be added to BJAODN if you couldn't tell by my quick-edit. I wouldn't mind having these proposals there instead, as some of them already are, though admittedly it should be considered whether to differentiate from the other joke proposals there or not. BMfan08 (talk) 00:27, February 29, 2024 (EST)
To be honest, it IS kinda weird why we don't do that already. We preserve April Fool's Day main pages as well as funnily bad proposals at BJAODN, so why not the April Fool's proposals? Would it violate the "don't write badly on purpose" rule? Then why are the April Fool's pages preserved there anyway? To me, it certainly would be less of a hassle to just find them at BJAODN than manually going through countless pages of revision history. rend(talk)(edits) 11:20, February 29, 2024 (EST)
Split game series articles into sub-series articles
Do not split 1-12
My proposal to move the Super Mario series article to the name of the Super Mario Bros. series has been declined last year, so I had to make a follow-up proposal after five months since the last proposal was declined.
Tails777 (talk) While I did support the idea of the New Super Mario Bros. series getting it's own sub-series article, I can understand why it isn't. And if that series can't get a sub-series article, I fail to see how the Super Mario Galaxy games can. They're all apart of the same overall series so I don't see why we need to divide things up further.
Hewer (talk) I previously supported New Super Mario Bros. getting an article because I thought it would be the most eligible sub-series at four(ish) entries. But since then, Super Mario Land had its article merged, and now that we have all these sub-series merged (Super Mario Advance gets to stay the only exception since it covers Yoshi's Island as well), I feel like this is a much better choice for organisation when they're all just part of one series, splitting them all out would feel messy and redundant. It also calls into question the criteria for splitting sub-series - if Mario Galaxy is eligible, why not "Super Mario 3D" which also has two games? Or the aforementioned New Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Land? Better to avoid the headache and stay consistent by merging all of them.
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) I may support splitting just Super Mario Bros. since with Wonder it's been given further distinction from the 3D games as a series, however if supporting that here means splitting Galaxy and Maker as well, then I'm gonna have to oppose per all.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser. Splitting the Maker and Galaxy games in specific when they are strictly duologies is especially overkill to us.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per Nightwicked Bowser and Doc von Schmeltwick. Maybe individual "subseries" articles could be raised alongside the main series article, but not at the expense of breaking up the understanding of this as a discrete series of platform games. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Maker, and New Super Mario Bros. 2 are all part of the mainline Super Mario series and it artificially dilutes their cohesion by suggesting they are unrelated to one another.
Archivist Toadette (talk) This is just too vague on all fronts. What does and doesn't classify as a subseries? That's the question that must be answered before any discussion can happen. Per all.
This should really be either a case-by-case or have multiple options rather than all-at-once or none at all. Nightwicked Bowser 19:16, February 29, 2024 (EST)
Indeed. I have draft pages with empty tables for Super Mario Bros. series (including the NSMB games) and Super Mario 3D series (including the SMG games), but I think it needs more thought and discussion rather than trying to rush it through without any prior planning. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:22, February 29, 2024 (EST)
This proposal has now been updated to not split the Galaxy and Maker games into a subseries, however there's still the matter of Super Mario Bros and the Mario Kart Arcade games both being split if the proposal is supported with no one-or-the-other. These especially should be entirely seperate cases. Nightwicked Bowser 11:26, March 1, 2024 (EST)
I think this changes the scope of the original proposal too much. I would not have changed it. But I fail to understand the rationale of this new one anyways. Why Super Mario Bros. (sub-series)? Why not Super Mario Bros. (series)? Why change the name in the first place? - Nintendo101 (talk) 17:32, March 1, 2024 (EST)
Hmmm... I'm not opposed to splitting into sub-series, the definition of sub-series is "a series that is part of a larger series." So, we could still have sub-series articles. We wouldn't be saying that Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Bros. Wonder aren't part of the same series, they are. But I do get some of the reasoning used by the opposition. Redundancy would be a problem, as would criteria, though we would need a limit to how many games can constitute a series of sub-series, though SuperMarioLand could be a Super Mario Advance-esque situation, because of the Wario Land series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:58, March 4, 2024 (CST)
The Super Mario Land series used to have its own article that got merged by this proposal. We do have a page for Mario + Rabbids despite only having two games, so it could get arbitrary if we do decide on the number of games a series would need for it to have a page. Nightwicked Bowser 10:13, March 4, 2024 (EST)
Ok, you have a point. *Makes mental note to make proposal on April 4th* SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:23, March 5, 2024 (CST)
Hey, I was looking through here, this "comment thread" or something (I don't know the exact name, but you might know), and when I went to the Super Mario Advance (series) page, I saw that it said, "The Super Mario Advance series is a Super Mariosubseries which consists of video game reissues released only on the Game Boy Advance. It is a successor to Super Mario Bros. Deluxe on the Game Boy Color, itself an indirect successor to Donkey Kong on the Game Boy." That's right, subseries. So we already have a sub-series article. So what's going to happen to that article? Will it stay, or not? Even if this proposal fails (I'll probably make a successor to that proposal that is better than this one, there will be multiple options), I think it should stay, because of Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 07:32, March 6, 2024 (CST)
I think it should stay, might as well. MegaBowser64 (talk) 10:42, March 6, 2024 (EST)
