@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==Writing guidelines==
-===Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages===
-Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the [[Mariowiki:Naming#derived names|naming]] system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "[[Talk:Hefty Goombrat|Hefty Goombrat]]," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Linking_Bull%27s-Eye_Bill&curid=429765&diff=4195153&oldid=4111331 here]. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for [[Shoot]] was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "[[surfboard vehicle|vehicle with surfboard]]."
-'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': May 13, 2024, 23:59 GMT
-====Support====
-#{{user|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per.
-#{{User|Hewer}} Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
-#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's ''not what this site is even remotely about''
-#{{User|Axis}} Per all.
-#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
-#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over ''actual names'' if they exist.
-#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm pretty sure this all started [[Talk:Mame-san#Name source|here]], and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
-#{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
-#{{User|Somethingone}} Per the arguments raised above.
-#{{User|Metalex123}} Per all.
-#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
-#{{User|DrippingYellow}} Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.
-#{{User|Mushzoom}} Per all.
-#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
-#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Doc in the comments. If there's an official name, there's an official name, and we shouldn't just ignore it.
-#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
-====Oppose====
-#{{User|Archivist Toadette}} While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is '''not''' the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "[[Fire Spike]]" or "[[Wonder Hoppycat]]"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
-#{{User|Waluigi Time}} The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
-#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per opposition.
-#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
-#{{User|Tails777}} Per all.
-#{{User|Shoey}} Per all.
-#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per all of yall (collectively)
-#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
-#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
-#{{User|Mario}} Not a good idea.
-#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
-<s>#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good.</s>
-<br><s>#{{User|DrippingYellow}} I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across ''multiple'' pieces of English ''Mario'' media (i.e. ''gabon'' to Spike, ''kakibo'' to Goombrat, ''deka'' to "Big" enemies, admittedly ''kodeka'' for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have [[Hefty Goomba]]s as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. [[Sensuikan Heihō]] does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")</s>
-====Comments====
-@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just ''begging'' to be misused.  [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name ''that is a name'' exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, ''these'' have plenty of potential for misleading people. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-:Then what about the examples I brought up? {{User:Archivist Toadette/sig}} 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-::What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them ''explicitly'' conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can [[MarioWiki:Naming#Japanese|already take some liberties with Japanese titles]] I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-:Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "'''Assume'''". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like [[Sniper|Sunaipā]] to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "[[Koopa (species)|Koopa]]", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-:I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! [[User:Hooded Pitohui|Hooded Pitohui]] ([[User talk:Hooded Pitohui|talk]]) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-::Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
-For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
-:Writing Guideline proposals also last two weeks, like TPPs. {{User:Tails777/sig}}
-::Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)
-Uhh, the naming policy does NOT, in fact, support the reasoning in the proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:46, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-:That's because the very purpose of this proposal is to alter the naming policy. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:38, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-::No, I'm saying the naming policy does not, when I looked at it - I could be wrong,"[make] it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese)." [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:01, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-:::The naming policy admittedly isn't very clear about this, but it does say "If there is any reasonable doubt or debate about what a given derived name should be, then the use of a derived name should be abandoned in that case in favor of the non-English or internal name", which implies that it otherwise would take priority over the non-English names. And regardless, we've got examples of where this has been done on the wiki like [[Fire Spike]] and [[Hefty Goombrat]], which this proposal intends to change. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-::::But the sections above that put derived names at the same level as conjectural names, which is the lowest level, so we would already need to change the names of those article even without a proposal. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::The point of the derived names bit is to be an exception to usual conjectural name rules by giving the derived names higher priority despite their conjectural nature. If it wasn't, there'd be no point in that derived names clause existing at all, since it would just be a guide to make conjectural names straightforward when there are no official names, and we already try to do that anyway. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:38, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::My point still stands with those sections. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:00, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::No, it doesn't. Looking at the policy again, there's actually a bit I missed where it clearly says to use derived names "rather than using the non-English or internal name", so the policy's meaning is not up for debate. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::Woops, didn't see that. I missed that, too. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 09:37, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 ===Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in [[MarioWiki:Good writing]]===
@@ Line 88: / Line 22: @@
 And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:
-;'''Humorous/Comical/etc.''': "Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used ''only'' when a ''character'' finds something amusing.
+;'''Humorous/Comical/etc.''': "Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article ''finds'' something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).
 '''Proposer''': {{User|DrippingYellow}}<br>
@@ Line 97: / Line 31: @@
 #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
 #{{User|Hewer}} I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
+#{{User|Ray Trace}} We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
+#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
 ====Oppose====
@@ Line 103: / Line 39: @@
 "Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 :"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
+{{@|Ray Trace}} That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+{{@|Hewer}} I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Yeah, that works. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+===Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions===
+Inspired by [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]]'s [[User talk:Nintendo101/flowerpot|flowerpot]] subpage (from an [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=User:Nintendo101/flowerpot&oldid=4209600 earlier revision], before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of "History in the Super Mario franchise" over "History" if the article meets one of the following conditions:
+#It is a generic subject (e.g. [[Grape]]s) or a real person with a fictional equivalent in the ''Super Mario'' franchise (e.g. [[Thomas Jefferson]]).
+#It is from the [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] but has also appeared in video games not part of it. Popular examples would be the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' series]] and the ''[[Minecraft]]'' textures, and everything that isn't ''Super Mario'' would appear under a separate heading titled "History in other games." If it encompasses more or different formats than just video games, use "History in other media" instead.
+#Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in ''Super Mario'' media. Such examples would include [[Game Boy]]s, [[Link]], and [[Egg Pawn]]s.
+While none of these are necessarily not allowed (as far as I'm aware), standardizing this will help make it clear to readers what is ''Super Mario'' and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set.
+For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from ''Super Mario'' and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the [[Dinosaur]] article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the ''Super Mario'' franchise? It's the latter. For [[George Washington]], are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the ''Super Mario'' franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.
+For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that ''Super Smash Bros.'' is part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise and help better contextualize ''Super Mario'' as it exists in other media, like sometimes ''Zelda'' or ''Minecraft'', rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in ''Super Mario'' media itself.
+For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on [[nwiki:|NintendoWiki]]. Similarly, for articles like [[Link]], it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the ''Super Mario'' franchise. Then connections to ''Super Mario'' go under the "History in other media" heading.
+For flexibility, I'll provide several voting options in the proposal, with the numbers corresponding to the bullet points above.
+'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': May 31, 2024, 23:59 GMT
+====Apply to all three cases====
+#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I'm for this option.
+#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Yes. Also, for the flowerpot thing, I have that saved (with a few tweaks) [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)/Nintendo101's flowerpot old revision saved plus tweaks|here]].
+====Apply to #1 and #2, but not #3====
+====Apply to #2 and #3, but not #1====
+====Apply to #1 and #3, but not #2====
+====Apply to #1 but not #2 and #3====
+====Apply to #2 but not #1 and #3====
+====Apply to #3 but not #1 and #2====
+====Do nothing====
+====Comments====
+For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, {{@|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}}, glad to see that flowerpot page. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+:"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, {{@|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}}, glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and {{@|Nintendo101}} are free to edit it if you want. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+:No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of ''Super Mario''), splitting "History in other games/media"  into its own history heading. See what I did on [[Don Bongo]] as an example. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+:"History in other media" (see [[Link]] article). [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+::Makes sense. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:48, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
 ==New features==
@@ Line 129: / Line 120: @@
 #{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
 #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...? ADDITION FROM THE FUTURE: Per Glowsquid and especially Ray Trace; these images are already on other articles where they are far more relevant, and we shouldn't be prohibiting people stuck with 6GB of RAM or Chromebooks from accessing the wiki in favor of "the same image but instead of Captain Toad in the bottom right with a white outline, there's Yellow Yoshi (Kangaroo) in the bottom right with a white outline" repeated ad-infinitum. Just because ''you'' can load it just fine doesn't mean that it's fine for others, and a wiki shouldn't have a recommended system requirements that's larger than a web browser's.
+#{{User|MCD}} Per all.
+#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons|Gallery:''Mario Kart Tour'' course icons]] (I'm mentioning this in the support reasoning to bring attention to it). The wiki can keep its absurdly large Spriters Resource-esque collection of course icons without looking like a blemish on text-based articles.
+#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
 ====Oppose====
@@ Line 142: / Line 136: @@
 #{{User|Okapii}} Per Hewer.
 #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - I don't particularly like them, but outright across-the-board deletion of actual sprite-based game assets is an absolute no-no.
+#{{User|Memoryman3}} Per all.
+#{{User|YoYo}} If this was to pass, then I can raise the argument of other galleries with similar images needing the same treatment. When does it become "too much"? when is a gallery of images that are already about the same thing suddenly become obnoxious? its entirely subjective, and a definite definition would muddle a lot of pages up. All i see here is "I want to remove them because I don't like them." - zero convenience is made here, but a lot of inconvenience is. Per all.
 ====Comments====
@@ Line 166: / Line 162: @@
 ::::::::I don't remember anyone arguing anything about how the characters shown are determined, so that's quite the strawman. I don't see how it really changes anything either way in this debate. And @Shadow2, which characters are on the icons objectively ''is'' information, no idea why you're refusing to accept that fact. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :::::::::I didn't really mean to bring up how the characters are determined as any kind of rebuttal — I only really brought it up for the sake of completeness, since it is a ''little'' more gameplay-relevant than just being completely random. You're right that it doesn't really matter, though. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::Fine then, what '''useful''' information do they provide? The number of stitches visible in Mario's overalls in Super Smash Bros. Melee would be classified by your definition as "information", but we don't include it because it's not useful. And as {{@|Ahemtoday}} has just explained above, there is no useful information in these extra icons. The only useful information is the one single view of each course. A duplicate of the same image with Luigi instead of Mario provides no further useful information and thus should not take up space uselessly. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::I feel like "useless information" and similar arguments have been countered countless times at this point, but basically whether it's "useful" is subjective and isn't up to us to decide, what's important is that it's valid information and we should be presenting it in the best way possible in case a reader is interested. Anyone who wants to know the number of stitches on Mario's overalls can [[:File:Ssbmmario.jpg|go and count]], just as anyone who wants to know what characters were used to represent the courses in Mario Kart Tour can look at the images to find out. You don't decide what is and isn't "useful" for readers, you don't know what they're looking for and they may be interested in what you aren't. And the images don't really "take up space" in any sense (before you say "loading times" or similar, again, we can just [[MarioWiki:Article size|split the galleries]] like we always do). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:24, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
 :The Mushroom Gorge icons are relevant to the Mushroom Gorge article because they are Mushroom Gorge icons. 🧐 {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 05:37, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 :: In the past we've removed uploads for being excessive, character information for being esoteric or off-puttingly detailled, trivia sections for posting blunt statement of facts that are overly specific or don't have any greater point. [[Mariowiki:Good Writing#Fan Worship|Our own good writing guidelines page]] warn about going overboad on details and while it's specifically about page writing, the same philosophy could be extended to uploads and when "comprehensive" becomes ''too much''. I'm not saying not necessarily that's the case for these icons here (though I would likely vote in favour if the ammendments Sophie suggested above were made) but we've in fact cut information before for being uninteresting/useless/irrelevant. --[[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]] ([[User talk:Glowsquid|talk]]) 12:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@@ Line 202: / Line 200: @@
 ::::"they're different enough from each other to show new information individually". What information do they provide? As a casual reader, I look at these and do not understand what these images are, and why Mario is on one while Luigi is on another. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :::::You may want to read that whole sentence again. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 02:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::Right you are, I accept fault in that question lmao... [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :{{@|Koopa con Carne}} I say this respectfully and in good faith, and I am not signaling you out, as it seems that a few active users share the same sentiment. However, the "spirit" behind that comment bothers me. If readability does not matter, what is the point of having a wiki? What is our purpose? Who is this for?
 :I was a nerdy child. I grew up reading encyclopedias and there are quite a few behind me as I type this. All of these books were curated. They were made to be read. It is not inherently unencyclopedic to make curatorial choices on Super Mario Wiki, and if anything it is an inherent component of the craft.
@@ Line 231: / Line 230: @@
 ::::::::::Something like [[Tour New York Minute#Gallery|New York Minute]] looks organized well to me. I think the [[Gallery:Mario_Kart_Tour_course_icons#In-game_icons|in-game icons section of the ''Mario Kart Tour'' course icon gallery]] is significantly more difficult to navigate, burdens my computer, and all without substantive cause. Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. ''We'' did that. We are the only reason this exists at all. We should not be using them as an excuse to not disseminate information in an intuitive and healthy manner. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :::::::::::I usually don't have problems with loading things on this site and yeah, even I struggled on that gallery, so I suppose you're right there. However, it's a moot point either way since that's not the gallery being affected by this proposal. The galleries on the course pages, such as that of New York Minute, are what this proposal is about, and are what I've been describing. And my point with the "Nintendo's fault" thing was more that we generally strive to include as much coverage on the franchise as we can, and icons are a very usual thing for us to include a complete set of in galleries (even just regarding sprites in Mario Kart, I'm pretty sure we have every single course icon from all the other Mario Kart games, not to mention [[emblem]]s, [[Lists of sponsors|sponsors]], etc.). I don't think the repetitiveness of Mario Kart Tour's icons (which is Nintendo's fault) is a good reason for us to not do the same as we usually do with this game. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::::”Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. ''We'' did that.”<br>Then again, Nintendo also didn’t evolve Mario into an expansive franchise with the intent of having it documented by fans on MarioWiki. We are the architects of that endeavor. What Nintendo’s intent was with any given part of this franchise shouldn’t be germane to this site’s purposes. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:49, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
 Had an idea. What are y'all — on both sides here — y'all's thoughts on making an article {{fake link|List of course icons in ''Mario Kart Tour''}}, or maybe {{fake link|Gallery:''Mario Kart Tour''/Course icons}} or something, which could have subheaders for all the courses, maybe even the different variants of the courses. Then, we can easily stick a "see also" template into those gallery sections, linked to the section on that course in that article, and can trim down the images to put less of a strain on bandwidth. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 15:17, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 :::Who's making the judgement calls that it's "useful" to have [[SNES Rainbow Road#Course icons|the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with a Shy Guy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Metal Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Ice Mario in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Lemmy in front of it, followed by the exact same icon of SNES Rainbow Road with Rosalina ''in a Tanuki costume'' in front of it, only to repeat this cycle again for the R, T, and R/T variants of the track]]? Be honest with yourself--what information do you actually gain from this that a simpler version of this couldn't already tell you? That Rosalina, Shy Guy, Metal Mario, Ice Mario, Lemmy, and Tanuki Rosalina are all in ''Tour''? On the article made for SNES Rainbow Road, where if you wanted to know the roster, you'd probably be searching for that instead? If we had a lower-end computer, we'd want to see images for SNES Rainbow Road first and foremost--not images of the cast of Mario Kart Tour that just kinda happen to feature the exact same images of SNES Rainbow Road as only half of the image. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 ::::It's not about usefulness, it's about completeness. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::This wiki would be about 500 times larger than it already is if we were focused on "completeness" for everything. "Completeness" would suggest uploading all assets from a single game, including all sprites, textures, and text dump, to make coverage of a game "complete". That's not what we do. The images we upload and display on the pages all serve some sort of '''use''' for the reader. Even if you have a gallery with a TON of screenshots, each one is still '''useful''' because it shows off different aspects of the game or subject. These course images are all the same, but with a random character art slapped on top of it that doesn't actually mean anything useful to the reader. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:19, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 ::::@Nintendo101: By that logic, to include information in the wiki at all and present it in a logical form is a subjective judgement call. Including information ''is'' the default on Super Mario Wiki, as is presenting it well, and when it comes to images, [[MarioWiki:Galleries|galleries]] are a long-established way to do so.<br>@Camwoodstock: What the icons for a course look like (i.e. the very images used in the game to represent them) are absolutely relevant to that course. There's nothing they're more relevant to. The information it tells you is what characters they chose to use to represent the course. You finding that information boring doesn't reduce its validity as information. And I've already repeatedly argued the "lower-end computer" point, but ok I'll say it again: [[MarioWiki:Article size|just split the gallery like we always do]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:50, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :::::We're not saying "remove the icons entirely", we're saying that we shouldn't be excessive about them. All your average reader is going to want or need is exactly one variant--one for the base version, one for the R version, one for the T version, and one for the R/T version. We don't need 6 icons of the base version, 6 icons of the R version, 4 icons of the T version, and then 7 icons of the R/T version, where the only thing different between those copies is how much King Boo (Gold) they happen to include along the way. You could trim down the SNES Rainbow Road gallery to just the 3 versions with base Rosalina and the 1 version with Baby Rosalina, and you would properly showcase all four icons just as well as you do by including all 23 of them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 13:01, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 ::::::The proposal is ultimately too vague in what it intends to do to support it IMO. Especially after that Smash redirect thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:08, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::...I don't quite understand. What "Smash redirect thing"? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::I think [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Trim_or_remove_various_Smash_franchise-specific_subcategories|this?]] [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:55, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::[[User talk:Super Mario RPG#Deletion templates for Smash redirects|Yeah]], [[User talk:Camwoodstock#Enacting proposal|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:10, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::...We don't exactly appreciate the implication that it's ''on us'' that somebody else didn't ask us what the proposal was about before they started slapping delete templates everywhere. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::I don't think that's what me & {{@|Hewer}} are meaning. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::Yeah that's not what I meant in the slightest. I was just trying to provide context for what the thing was that Doc was referring to. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::::Please stay on course, peeps. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::::It's not OUR fault! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 ::::::I know the proposal won't delete the icons (though some supporters clearly do want that, while others don't seem to), but what it will do is have the wiki go out of its way to hinder its presentation of these icons for no good reason. I see no reason to define "your average reader" and pander to this non-existent person's supposed needs - that just feels like a more complex way of saying what you personally want to happen. "Your average reader" probably isn't interested in many, many, many things on this wiki, but that doesn't make their inclusion invalid, because another reader might go seeking those things. If the reader doesn't find something interesting, they're free to ignore it, that's not our problem. Our goal as a wiki isn't to only include the stuff we subjectively deem interesting, but to provide complete coverage on the whole franchise so any reader can find the information they seek about the franchise, whatever it may be. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::The current state of [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons]] is a hindrance to the presentation of this wiki, if not an outright disaster. I've removed just the course icons as a test[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Gallery:Mario_Kart_Tour_course_icons&diff=4211579&oldid=4161703], which entails in subtracting '''−142,842''' bytes of content and it's not text-based. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::I don't understand what the "presentation of this wiki" entails here. Not only is the gallery not displayed up-front when you access mariowiki.com, it is relatively obscure--you'd normally have to dig your way through a couple of pages first to get there, unless you directly type its title in the search bar, which implies knowing of its existence beforehand. Furthermore, there's a point to be made that the gallery could further be split into "landscape icons" (the ones you see in in-game profile windows) and "course icons" (the ones you tap on when you're browsing the cups). Coin rush and bonus challenge icons can be removed from that gallery and kept on specialized articles ([[Coin Rush (Mario Kart Tour)]], [[Ring Race]] etc.) I really don't like how slow that page is either, but let's not immediately jump to such drastic solutions. There are ways to make this work. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:34, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::...Maybe split [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons]] even further based on which game they originated from (e.g. {{fake link|Gallery:Mario Kart Tour icons for Mario Kart Wii courses}})? {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:46, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::Excuse me. We are hosting an "[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&diff=4211591&oldid=4211590 asset dump]"? Why? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:34, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::Yes? Do you have a point bringing that up? {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 19:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::I genuinely wasn't aware "asset dump" is an actual term that defines a slightly more specialized thing than the one I was describing. I used it in a very literal sense: that gallery, whether or not it's worth keeping around, is a dumping ground of in-game assets. I can't argue with that. Then again, most galleries on this site fulfil a similar purpose, so I don't really see the outrage surrounding its existence. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 20:00, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::::That's okay. I responded with surprise because, in my experience at least, asset dumps have negative connotations for curatorial projects like wikis, encyclopedias, etc. They are not tied to comprehensiveness or to provide information. They are aggregations for aggregations' sake. If that is something you feel should be supported on the wiki, that's fair, but I don't think that is the active standard. Users have removed sound files, quotes, ''Mario Party'' minigame textures, etc. without this kind of pushback. The only place where that could be be appropriate are dedicated depositories like the Spriters-Resource, and I wouldn't even call them asset dumps. They are beautifully organized and easy to navigate.
+:::::::::::Super Mario Wiki is not the only site I help edit and curate. In my experience, trimming is just part of the process, and it really bothers me that it is being treated as an objective wrong. Wanting to keep the ''Tour'' galleries is one thing. Asserting that removing any of these images compromises the "completeness" of the site is just not true. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::::::I don’t think anyone here is arguing that trimming content into something neater is objectively wrong. Some are simply saying that putting these dedicated course icons into course pages is the intuitive thing to do, but that’s repeating the same talking point over and over. What I fundamentally disagree with is the notion that this site cannot have designated spaces for the aggregation of content, like images or quotes, with some users going as far as to advocate removing these icons altogether for reasons that range from subjective (“I don’t like them because they’re too repetitive”) to arbitrary and plainly wrong (“they occupy too much space on the server”-they all make up less than 300mb spread among thousands of thumbnails measuring kilobytes, a tiny amount in a sea of upwards to [[Special:MediaStatistics|80,000MB]] worth of media files) {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:40, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::::Just to be completely clear in case there's any doubt, Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons will not be affected by this proposal. Only the galleries on course pages will. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:58, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::::Ok, I knew that, I just didn't like that people thought that it would. The gallery's not the problem, and neither is the Kanaami Road page. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:28, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-==Changes==
+I put together a proof of concept on one way to handle this proposal in [[User:SolemnStormcloud/Sandbox#Wii Mushroom Gorge|my sandbox]]. It uses {{tem|main-gallery}} to link to the appropriate section of [[Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons]] as smoothly as possible. [[User:SolemnStormcloud|SolemnStormcloud]] ([[User talk:SolemnStormcloud|talk]]) 13:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
-===Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections===
+:Seems like a good workaround if icons get trimmed down from course pages. I like that. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:16, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
-This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.
+::I like it. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:19, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::Unfortunately, see my comment regarding Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
-I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.
+::::See my comment there. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:28, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+::Love it! Exactly what I envisioned. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, that looks like an alright compromise. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:58, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify ''Yoshi's Safari'' as a ''Yoshi'' game on par with the ''Yoshi's Island'' series, and I haven't seen ''Wario's Woods'' being listed among the likes of ''Wario Land'' series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of ''Wario's Woods'', despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about ''DK'' arcade game). And ''Mario vs. Donkey Kong'' could either be a ''Super Mario'' game, since it stars Mario, or a ''Donkey Kong'' game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of ''Donkey Kong'', and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.
+Ok,this is getting to be very crazy! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:100kb JPEGs are no laughing matter! {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 14:31, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::I never said it was! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:28, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still ''Super Mario'' characters starring in their own games, not different than ''Captain Toad'', ''Princess Peach'', and ''Luigi's Mansion'', all of which are explicitly ''Super Mario'' games but starring different characters.
+I've seen The Spriters Resource be brought up in these comments, and it was the first thing I thought of when I saw Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons, but on the ''Mario Kart Tour'' Spriters Resource page, I don't think there's actually a place for course icons, not even in a ZIP file. That would make the wiki's gallery page the most easily accessible repository for those sprites on the Internet, to my knowledge; whether or not that's a good thing is up to interpretation. Also, this is off-topic, but Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons and Category:Mario Kart Tour track icons have different names, and it's driving me crazy!! [[File:Crazy Wario.png|32px]] {{User:ThePowerPlayer/sig}} 21:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Wary of delving further into tangential topics, but given "course" is the official terminology, the category is the one that has to change. Unfortunately, since that's way more difficult to change on all of 'em. Might have to get a bot on that... [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 00:03, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
-In the ''Smash Bros.'' series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.
-'''Edit:''' Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: <code> ===''Yoshi'' franchise=== ====''Yoshi's Island'' series==== =====''Yoshi's Island DS''===== </code>
-'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': May 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
-====Support====
-#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
-====Oppose====
-#{{User|Nintendo101}} I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting ''Wario Land'' and ''WarioWare'' titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with ''Donkey Kong Jungle Beat'' and the other ''Donkey Kong'' platforms. ''Smash Bros.'' did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
-#{{User|JanMisali}} Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
-#{{User|Arend}} Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of [[Special:Diff/4174787|this edit on the Icicle page]] ([[Icicle|which is still in use btw]]). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it ''has'' a purpose, and is ''not'' entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would ''only'' make sense if we treated ''every game'' like this and have ''everything'' listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
-#{{User|MegaBowser64}}Perall!
-#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.
-#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}}I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
-#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
-#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} No, sorry. This would make things a little more complicated.
-====Comments====
-@Nintendo101: Except the ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is not a ''Yoshi's Island'' game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-:I would argue that ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' is a ''Yoshi's Island'' game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.
-:What is not subjective is that ''Woolly World'' (in addition to ''Yoshi's Story'', ''Crafted World'') has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized ''Yoshi's Island'' games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the ''Yoshi'' platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for ''Donkey Kong'' and ''Wario'' titles, as I would for ''Mario Party'' and ''Mario Kart''. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-::Then there's the ''Yoshi'', ''Yoshi's Cookie'', and ''Tetris Attack'' puzzle games, supposedly with the ''Yoshi'' branding, though I think the former two are ''Super Mario'' games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the ''Super Mario'' franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.
-::''Yoshi's Story'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and ''Yoshi's Crafted World'' not being part of an explicitly defined ''Yoshi'' platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-:::I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-::::Because the same question could apply to why does [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in ''Zelda'', would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as ''Yoshi'', ''Wario'', and ''Donkey Kong''. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'' come after ''Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins'' in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' after ''Super Mario World'' (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on ''Yoshi's Woolly World'' being a ''Yoshi's Island'' title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group ''Woolly World'' with ''Yoshi's Island'' because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the [[Yoshi (franchise)|''Yoshi'' franchise]] on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a ''Yoshi'' franchise (also a ''Wario'', ''Donkey Kong'', etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.
-:::::Are the ''Donkey Kong'', ''Yoshi'', and ''Wario'' franchises themselves not within the ''Super Mario'' franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. ''Zelda'' would inherently be outside of that. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::The three you mentioned are part of the ''Super Mario'' franchise, that's true. And ''Tetris Attack'', a puzzle game, is as much of a ''Yoshi'' game as ''Super Mario World 2''. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put ''Yoshi'' puzzle game, the [[Super Scope]] game ''Yoshi's Safari'', ''Yoshi's Island'', and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to ''Yoshi's Island'', which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the ''Super Mario'' franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: <code>====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Land 2====</code>, <code>====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====</code>, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: <code>WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!</code>, <code>Wario World</code>, <code>WarioWare: Twisted!</code> This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
-The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. {{User:Mario/sig}} 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
-:Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, [[Cog (obstacle)]] has ''[[Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns]]'' listed under "''Donkey Kong'' franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
-::"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
-::Except gears also appear in ''[[Mario Kart DS]]'' and ''[[Mario Kart 8]]'' thanks to [[DS Tick-Tock Clock]], the former being inbetween ''Jungle Beat'' and ''Country Returns'' (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the ''[[WarioWare: Twisted!]]'' and ''[[WarioWare Gold]]'' microgame [[Scrambled Egg]] (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::Come to think of it though, ''[[WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!]]'' already features gears in the microgame [[Gear Head Fred]], so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before ''Jungle Beat'' anyway. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them <font color="#444">'''a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader'''</font> could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, [[user:Arend/sandbox|see this sandbox]]). Not sure if it's ''entirely'' necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed '''bold'''. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::I'm not a CSS buff but if we have to consider editing the CSS to resolve the problem I just think introducing these subheaders is too much trouble for what it's worth. Use franchise subheaders for articles that can use them, but generally stick to just standard chronology otherwise. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:42, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
-===Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles===
-This proposal aims to allow separating the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling platformers ([[:File:SMR Notifications 2023-12-20 excerpt.jpg|it's official]]) from the ''Super Mario'' 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series separately from the ''Super Mario'' 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' itself), ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is said to be the first ''Super Mario Bros.'' game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2]]'' and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' were released).
-Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.
-The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is that would mean ''[[Super Mario Maker]]'', its sequel, and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' would all be disqualified from the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series. The ''Super Mario'' series is the standard/main series, and ''Super Mario Maker 2'' has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a ''Super Mario 3D World'' format. ''Super Mario Run'' is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in ''Super Mario'' series. This proposal is to help the ''Super Mario BROS.'' games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.
-The ''Super Mario'' name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Strikers]]'', for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "''Super Mario''", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.
-'''Proposer''': {{User|Super Mario RPG}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': May 16, 2024, 23:59 GMT
-====Support====
-#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} As proposer.
-<s>#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.</s>
-====Oppose====
-#{{User|Nintendo101}} I do not support severing the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "{{wp|clade}}" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a ''Super Mario Bros.'' series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]], a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Super Mario'' franchise]] as recently as [[:File:SuperMarioBros35thAnniversary - Game Collection.jpg|2020]]. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that ''Super Mario Land'', ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario Maker'', and ''Super Mario Run'' are not within the same series as the original ''Super Mario Bros.'' or ''New Super Mario Bros. U'', and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
-#{{User|JanMisali}} The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.
-#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Nintendo101.
-#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101 and JanMisali. Plus, I see no point in separating proper 2D side-scroller Mario games such as ''Super Mario Land'' 1 & 2 from an ill-defined ''Super Mario Bros.'' series on the sole basis that those games lack the word "Bros." in their title.
-#{{User|Arend}} As one can see in the comments, people have vastly different views of what counts as a ''Super Mario Bros.'' game and what doesn't (e.g. Doc believes the ''Super Mario Land'' games don't count because Luigi doesn't appear in them, I think that's superficial and that the ''Land'' games should still be counted as at least related since the general gameplay is still the same otherwise). While a good idea on paper, it will lead to many arguments and disagreements until we get a definite answer from Nintendo what should count and what shouldn't... and all we get from Nintendo is that they lump every ''Super Mario'' game, from ''Bros'' to ''Land'' to ''64'' to ''Sunshine'' to ''Maker'' to ''Run'' to ''Odyssey'', as part of the same series.
-#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, especially the fact that the Super Mario Bros. series is a subset of the Super Mario series anyway. If we separated SMB as its own thing, wouldn't that be implying the Super Mario series only contains 3D games and miscellanea like Maker? Because that's certainly not the case.
-#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, and also the mere fact that jan Misali did in fact make a 40+ minute video on roughly this same subject, juxtaposed with the comments below. This would be an extremely strange thing to try to enforce when there's no fewer than 4 major standards for what even counts as a ''Super Mario'' game, and one of them is literally our own.
-#{{User|Scrooge200}} How do we know what's mainline? Everything is senseless 'cause there's no consensus. Opening us up to even more inconsistency would just make it harder to navigate and lead to pointless back-and-forth edits on what goes where.
-#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} While it is a good idea, there's just too many unanswered questions. So sorry, but I have to change to oppose.
-#{{User|Jazama}} Per all.
-#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Per Nintendo101.
-====Comments====
-@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the ''Mario Maker'' (which implements ''3D World'' in a sidescrolling format) and ''Run'' titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series. This is just the starting point. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:True, but only ''Mario Maker 2'' implemented ''3D World'', and ''Run'', from experience, has all the hallmarks of a ''NSMB'' game, whereas the ''Mario Maker'' games COULD be seen as related to the ''NSMB'' games due to having ''NSMBU'' as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMB3'', & ''SMW''. Otherwise that helps. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check [[Super Mario (series)#Ports, remakes, and compilations|here]], for instance, has ''Captain Toad'', ''Super Mario World 2'', ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::And the official sources say [[Super Mario Bros. 35th Anniversary#Games|this]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:We already had [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|a proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series]] somewhat recently, and it failed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario Bros. (series)|here]] and one for the 3D series [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Super Mario 3D (series)|here]]. ''Land'' and ''Maker'' are additional subseries, while ''Run'' is its own thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has ''Mario Bros.'', ''Super Mario (series)'', & ''Wrecking Crew'', but the ''Super Mario (series)'' bit is basically my main focus. I have ''Super Mario (series)'' into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the ''Super Mario'' name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same ''Super Mario Bros.'' name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, ''Super Mario Land'' (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & ''NSMB'' (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::''Super Mario Land'' can't be a sub-series of ''Bros.'' because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about ''Special'', but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of ''Bros'' because it was listed with the ''Bros.'' games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::Except that list wasn't referred to as "''Super Mario Bros.'' games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::(facepalm) No, not THAT list. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:11, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::Then what list? Care to link or show an image? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:30, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::Look [[Super Mario Bros. 30th Anniversary#Gallery|here]]. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:24, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::That list includes the 3D platformers too. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:41, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::So? It shows that the ''Maker'' games & ''Run'' are part of the same series as ''SMB'', ''SMW'' & ''NSMB''. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::So this is not an example of an official source classifying the games in the same way this proposal suggests. The fact that this list includes ''Super Mario Land'' does not demonstrate that ''Super Mario Land'' is part of a specific subset of ''Super Mario'' games that includes ''Super Mario Bros.'' and excludes ''Super Mario 64''. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 19:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::No, but it proves my main point. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:01, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::It proves that ''Super Mario Land'' is a mainline game, but that wasn't under question. The thing that was asked was why your list of ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, as a separate subseries, includes the ''Super Mario Land'' games as a sub-subseries. This source could also justify classifying the 3D games as a sub-subseries of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries for exactly the same reason. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:05, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::Ok. 1. this lists the ''Super Mario (Bros.)'' series. 2. The ''Super Mario'' sub-series (3D games) ARE listed here, but are separate due to recent official stuff. 3. The ''Super Mario Land'' games are listed as a sub-series to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series (2D games) because, despite the different shared names, which are a reason of them being a sub-sub-series, ARE ''Super Mario Bros.'' games. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:14, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::The ''Super Mario Run'' notification is ''very'' specific in how it phrases its statement. ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first "side-scrolling entry" in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years. That specificity means that there ''could'' be entries in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series which are ''not'' side-scrolling games, because otherwise there'd by no reason to specifically say "last side-scrolling entry". I believe these sources taken together ''could'' imply that at least some of the 3D games are ''Super Mario Bros.'' games, and that using "''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries" to refer to the 2D platformers is not helpful. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 20:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::They are ''not'' "Super Mario Bros." games, Luigi isn't in them. Hard to be "Bros." without the Bros. (Though again, ''Special'' is the exception due to its watered-down nature). [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::::Luigi is ''only'' in the (early) Super Mario Bros. games because of the 2-player mode. If ''Super Mario Land'' and ''Super Mario Land 2'' had the possibility of a 2-player mode, then Luigi would obviously be added in those games (we know that Nintendo tried adding Luigi in ''Super Mario 64'' but scrapped it due to difficulties with adding multiplayer). If we ''had'' to hard-gatekeep the Mario Land games out of the ''Super Mario Bros.'' subseries (even as a spinoff to it like ''Super Mario Maker'' and ''Super Mario Run'', then logically, we should do the same with ''[[New Super Luigi U]]'', which features no Mario at all (and since ''New Super Luigi U'' has been released at one point as a standalone game, ''and'' we've been counting campaigns like ''[[Bowser's Fury]]'' as official entries, I think that should count).<br>To me, I think we should view the Land games, the Maker games, and Run at least as related games to the ''Bros.'' titles, since they feature basically the exact same kind of gameplay as any other ''Super Mario Bros.'' title. Hell, ''[[Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', the USA version, is more different than ''Land 1'' in terms of gameplay, yet we're counting it as an official entry. I don't think the ''Land'' games should be exempt purely because of something as superficial as "there's no Luigi in it". {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:14, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::::I mean, by virtue of all those games being Super Mario games, they (along with the 3D games) should be "related" to the Super Mario Bros. series by default, right? To distinguish "related" beyond that, deciding if a game is "related" to a subseries that it shares a larger series with anyway, feels a bit hair-splitting. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::The notification does also specifically say that ''Super Mario Bros.'' is a "series of side-scrolling action games", so to then say afterwards that ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling game in 11 years... I feel like their intent is pretty obvious here. I was an SMB series doubter for the longest time, but first with that quote in one of the interviews leading up to ''Wonder'', and now with this notification in-game in ''Super Mario Run'', it's definitely giving the impression that Nintendo considers Super Mario Bros. a sub-series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 21:26, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::::Well, it said "side-scrolling" games, & ''Maker'' is a game-maker game, while ''Run'' is like one of those auto levels but you have some control, so at that point we'll need at least one extra layer. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:25, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::::''Maker'' and ''Run'' both have cameras that scroll to the side. That's the literal definition of "side-scrolling game". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 09:51, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::::::(facepalm) It said "'''''side-scrolling action games'''''", which, yes, ''Maker'' & ''Run'' fit in, but both ''Maker'' & ''Run'' also fit under other categories, whilst this notification only specifies side-scrolling action games, NOT other categories of games OR games that mix categories (like ''Maker'' & ''Run''). [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::::::But you admit that Run and Maker also fit the definition of "side-scrolling action games". Your idea that the classification excludes "games that mix categories" is not supported at all by the text of the notification. By that logic, would the [[New Super Mario Bros.#Minigames|minigames]] included in New Super Mario Bros. somehow disqualify it from the series too? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:35, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::::::::No, because ''NSMB'''s minigames are not the main game. ''Maker'' being a game-maker game AND a side-scrolling game, or ''Run'' being an "automatic movement with some control" game, ARE the main game. The text of the notification ONLY says "side scrolling action game", but not anything else in terms of type of game. And I never said anything about games being disqualified, because of other official sources including games like ''NSMB'', ''Maker'', etc. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::::::::Indeed, the notification only says "side-scrolling action games", not "side-scrolling action games except those that also feature other elements". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::::::::Has anyone considered that the reason they stated that "''Super Mario Bros. Wonder'' is the first side-scrolling entry in the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series in 11 years", because they may consider ''Super Mario Run'' and the ''Super Mario Maker'' games as ''spinoffs'' to the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series? I mean, for comparison, ''[[Mario Party: The Top 100]]'' and ''[[Mario Party Superstars]]'' only includes information from Mario Party 1-10, leaving out ''[[Mario Party Advance]]'', ''[[Mario Party DS]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Star Rush]]'', and in Superstars's case, ''[[Super Mario Party]]''; but these are all undoubtedly ''Mario Party'' games as well, with ''DS'' and ''Super'' in particular featuring the same basic gameplay as the first eight ''Mario Party'' titles. {{User:Arend/sig}} 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::::::::Well, Super Mario Bros. for NES is the first game in both the Super Mario Bros. series and the broader Super Mario series, so anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:16, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-{{@|Hewer}} That's one of the things I used for my ''Super Mario (series)'' sub-series split. Also, I don't think that this will affect ''Maker'' and ''Run'''s mainline status. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:I don't understand what you mean. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::You brought up [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run|this]] (which the second part of my reply was directed to), & as for the 1st part, I don't really remember what that was supposed to be directed to. Seems to be directed to one of the various things you said here, but it could've been for someone else. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::For the second part, I'm aware this proposal won't directly affect Maker and Run's mainline status, but Super Mario RPG said that this "could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the ''Super Mario'' series", which is why I brought up that past proposal that tried to do exactly that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-"Anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right?" By that logic, with the ''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]'' beginning both the ''[[Mario Bros. (series)|Mario Bros.]]'' series and the greater [[Super Mario (franchise)|''Mario'' franchise]], shouldn't the entire mainline Mario series, being a "spinoff" of ''Mario Bros.'', all be merged under one "''Mario'' (mainline series)" header? Not only is that an organizational mess, but Nintendo has never treated it as being such.<br>While you could argue it was ambiguous before, I feel now that Nintendo has given us a very clear delineation of a separate "''Super Mario Bros.'' series of side-scrolling action games" that excludes the ''Maker'' games and ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' (which were released in the 11 years between ''Wonder'' and "[[New Super Mario Bros. U|the last side-scrolling entry]]"). Let me emphasize: A series of ''side-scrolling action games'', and this is a ''side-scrolling entry'' in the series of ''side-scrolling action games''. It seems like a stretch of logic to infer from this that there could be non-side scrolling and/or non-action games in a side-scrolling action series. [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 12:10, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:Under the logic of the 1st 2 setences, we should merge all 4 franchises and all the series into 1 article! Also, for the last sentence, what about games that are both ''side-scrolling action games'' AND ''non-side-scrolling action games (like game-making or "automatic movement with some control" games)''? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:24, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::If a game is a side-scrolling action game, it can't also be a non-side-scrolling action game, this isn't Schrödinger's game genre. Being able to make levels in the Maker games doesn't mean their side-scrolling action elements somehow don't exist. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:I agree with you about the classification of the Super Mario Bros. series as part of the Super Mario series, my point was more that "spinoff" is a bit of a useless classification when we're dealing with sub-sub-series and what have you. However, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|I don't think we need to have a Super Mario Bros. series article separate from the main Super Mario series article]], if that's what you're suggesting. I feel like the Mario Bros. example isn't really comparable because of how obviously untenable merging most of the franchise's distinct series into a single page would be. In my opinion, series contained within series shouldn't get articles, but series contained within franchises should. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::But then what about DKL? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:28, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::What about it? It's a related yet separate series to DKC. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::It could be considered a sub-series of DKC, due to its numerous similarities (& especially DKC2/DKL2 and DKC3/DKL3), and thus wouldn't deserve an article. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:34, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::A sub-series is a series contained within another series, not a related yet separate series, which is what DKL is. Compare Mario Tennis and Mario Golf - they're similar, related series of sports games developed by [[Camelot]], but are separate as neither can be said to contain the other. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:39, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::And yet Mario Golf & Golf are part of the same overall series, which has to do with golf, and all the sports games are all part of the same overall sports series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:41, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::[[Golf (series)|Uh, no?]] {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:44, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::1, "...eventually leading to the Mario Golf series...". 2. [[NES Open Tournament Golf]] is part of both series. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:48, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::Good point, but I still think it's a stretch to call them part of the same series, and that doesn't seem to be the wiki's current interpretation, with the [[Mario Golf (series)]] article referring to the "previous ''Golf'' series", and much like with DKC and DKL, "leading to" doesn't necessarily mean "containing" (though admittedly some kind of re-evaluation of the golf games might be in order since [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/character/mario/en/history/index.html Nintendo seems to consider Japan Course and US Course as Mario Golf games]). Anyway, to return to the topic of the Super Mario series, I still don't think there's any sub-series that need splits here. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:19, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::I never said that DKC LEAD TO DKL, but DKC2 is almost the same as DKL2, and same with DKC3 & DKL3. Also, what do other people think concerning "there's any sub-series that need splits here"? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::::::::::Uh, I thought we were in agreement that DKC led to DKL, that much at least seems inarguable ([[Donkey Kong Land (series)]] article tells us "The series is based on the ''Donkey Kong Country'' series"). I just don't think that makes DKL a "sub-series" of DKC, but rather a [[Donkey Kong Country (series)#Related series|related series]], since neither series contains the other. But I digress. Anyway, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65#Split game series articles into sub-series articles|this quite recent proposal]] dealt with splitting sub-series, and it failed by quite a margin. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::::::::::I never said DKC led to DKL. All I was saying was that DKC2/3 are basically the same as DKL2/3. As for that linked proposal, see my comments on that proposal. <small><small><small><small>Also there are other contributions I made that are still "current", so anyone (including you) needs to reply so that they can keep going. </small></small></small></small>[[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-Ah, wait, I think I misunderstood the proposal at first. Is this basically an extension of the proposal to get rid of "franchise" headings, to be able to separate the SMB games and other Super Mario games into different places in the History section? [[User:DrippingYellow|DrippingYellow]] ([[User talk:DrippingYellow|talk]]) 14:45, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
-:The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
-:I don't think that would work since the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series would be regarded as a part of the ''Super Mario'' mainline series. Meaning that the ''Super Mario Bros.'' series would be listed under a subheader of the ''Super Mario'' series alongside ''Super Mario 64'', ''Super Mario 3D World'' and the like. I had thought that this was what Super Mario RPG was aiming for, instead of putting the 3D game headers in different places like you seem to be suggesting what he's talking about, since, well, the Super Mario 3D games are ''also'' mainline games, but not the same as the sidescrollers. What I was thinking would allow the ''Bros.'' games to be listed together ''and'' still be listed among the 3D titles at the same time.<br>But if what you're suggesting is what Super Mario RPG ''actually'' wanted... well that's probably just as bad, if not worse, than removing the franchise headers, as it effs up the organizing even further (because, again, the 3D ''Super Mario'' titles are just as mainline as the sidescroller ones). {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:39, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
-===Move ''Super Mario Odyssey'' kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for ''Odyssey'' kingdom articles===
-It is strange that, while infoboxes for courses in ''Super Mario 64'' or ''Galaxy'' feature useful data for players (like missions and comets for galaxy articles), we don't have any of that type of info in the ''Odyssey'' Kingdom infobox (such as number of Power Moons, number of regional coins and bosses). The infobox template for ''Odyssey'' kingdoms include just the brochure data, like population and industry, but, since that is fictional and irrelevant data, we should move it to the kingdom article's brochure details section, as it ''is'' just brochure data.
-I propose:
-* Moving the current kindom infobox (centered on brochure info: kingdom and location taglines, population, size, locals, currency, industry and temperature) to the Brochure details section. The kingdom tagline could be displayed as the quote at the top of the article as well.
-* Use the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]] instead for the opening of the article, as that is already used for the 3D games' courses and galaxies without distinction.
-* Adding info for the number of Power Moons and number of regional coins into the course infobox template.
-In order to maintain the layout of the Brochure details sections intact, we could make the kingdom infobox into a horizontal box like so:
-{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width="100%;"
-!Horizontal box idea
-|-
-|
-{| style="width: 80%; font-size: .9em; padding: .4em; background-color: white; margin: auto;"
-|-
-|rowspan=5 style="width:280px" | [[File:SMO Cap Brochure Art.png|280px]]
-|colspan=2 | <big><big>'''Cap Kingdom'''</big></big><br>"''Home of Tradition, Propriety, and Hats''"
-|-
-|colspan=2 | <Big>Bonneton</big><br>"''A land of haberdashed dreams.''"
-|-bgcolor=whitesmoke
-|'''Population'''
-|Middling
-|'''Size'''
-|Smallish
-|-
-|'''Locals'''
-|Bonneters
-|'''Currency'''
-|Hat-shaped
-|-bgcolor="whitesmoke"
-|'''Industry'''
-|Hats, Airships
-|'''Temperature'''
-|Average 71°F (22°C)
-|}
-|}
-'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
-'''Deadline''': May 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
-====Support====
-#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per my proposal.
-#{{User|Hewer}} Sounds reasonable, per proposal.
-#{{User|Arend}} As long as we still use the (revised horizontal) infobox in the brochure details, per all.
-#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Nice idea! Per all.
-#{{User|Nintendo101}} Good idea, and I like the horizontal box.
-#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
-====Oppose====
-#{{User|LadySophie17}} I like the infobox as it is. It's charming and harmless. If necessary, we could just add the relevant info like number of Power Moons, Regional Coins and following/preceding kingdoms to the template itself.
-====Comments====
-Actually, given that the brochure infobox's info is already displayed in a similar table in the brochures in-game, wouldn't it be a good idea to simply just ''move'' the kingdom infobox to the article's brochure details section, instead of removing the infobox altogether? That would be the simplest way to move all the info to that section ''and'' keep both the kingdom tagline and area tagline neatly in the brochure where it already belongs in-game, instead of separating it to the top of the page. The course infobox can still take the kingdom infobox's initial placement on the article, it's not like we haven't had articles with multiple infoboxes before. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:I think I'd prefer that too. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:I guess, but that would mess up the layout used in the brochure details sections, which I personally think looks pretty nice and clean the way it is, which is why I didn't consider it (unless we made the box horizontal). You think it is worth it? {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 21:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::You've got a point there. Maybe we could try to revamp the infobox to be horizontal so it wouldn't have to mess up the layout. {{User:Arend/sig}} 22:59, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-:::I updated it and kept the box as you suggested. If you have any ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. {{User:Bro Hammer/sig}} 23:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
-::::Looks great! I'd probably set the <code>colspan</code> for the Kingdom name/area name/taglines to <code>4</code> instead of <code>2</code> so it would look nice in 4:3 screens (i.e. iPad), and I'd probably try to keep the [[Template:SMO kingdom infobox/styles.css|styles]] that the infobox had as much as possible (e.g. with the dark khaki border and area tagline), but it's perfectly serviceable regardless. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
-I should probably note though, that all ''Super Mario Sunshine'' courses (e.g. [[Sirena Beach]], [[Pinna Park]]) appear to use the location infobox instead of the course infobox. Would that also have to be changed (or at least determined via another proposal)? {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
+==Changes==
 ===Create <nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> template===
 The ''Super Mario'' DLC articles are missing a <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>{{fake link|DLC infobox|Template:DLC infobox}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code> template. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to create the <code><nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki></code> template. The following parameters are as follows:
@@ Line 488: / Line 317: @@
 #{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work.
 #{{User|Arend}} Per all.
+#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. better to have it now than to need it later down the line
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
+#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Wow, we don't have this? MAKE IT!
+#{{User|Sparks}} I like the sound of this!
 ====Oppose====
@@ Line 495: / Line 328: @@
 :Then do you have any better ideas than create the <code><nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki></code>? {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 11:52, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
 ::...I don't think they were implying that a DLC infobox is a bad idea... at all. All they were saying (aside from complaining about the Smash FLC redirects) was that the Coin Rush DLC packs could implement a DLC infobox as well (which I'm unsure about, given that {{tem|NSMB2 pack infobox}} already exists), and that only ''New Super Luigi U'' doesn't need it since it's got a standalone physical release. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:03, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
+:::How about we use {{tem|game infobox}} instead of <nowiki>{{DLC infobox}}</nowiki>? Would that be a better idea? {{User:GuntherBB/sig}} 22:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::::You still misunderstand, no one in these comments is against the DLC infobox idea. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:04, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+I'm starting to feel that GuntherBayBee is posing these questions purely to drum up more engagement in his proposals. It's not exactly the same as [[Special:Diff/4161234|stating to think about voting for an option they already voted for from the beginning]] or [[Special:Diff/4166018|literally asking people that engaged in the comments what option they're voting for]], but in all cases, it was preceded by a lack of engagement in his proposal (although, in this case, it's more because this proposal is sandwiched inbetween several proposals with way more engagement than one could wish for). I would otherwise have no idea why he's trying to bargain different ideas when people are literally ''unanimously agreeing with his DLC infobox idea'' (with not a single opposing vote so far), unless he's ''really bad'' at reading. {{User:Arend/sig}} 10:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Yeah, same here. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:52, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
 ===Split the Super Mario universe and the Paper Mario universe===
@@ Line 517: / Line 354: @@
 #{{User|LadySophie17}} Per all.
 #{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Well, it's either this, merge the Paper Mario characters into their OG versions like the 1990's Live-Action Mario Movie counterparts, re-split said counterparts, or keep as-is, and that's not even factoring in ALL THE OTHER COUNTERPARTS!
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
+#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
+#{{User|Ray Trace}} Per Hewer.
 ====Comments====
@@ Line 565: / Line 405: @@
 #{{User|LadySophie17}} That really doesn't belong there.
 #{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Yeah, no. We might as well take the stance of Sega on Sonic's canon, "Everything is canon". Then again, in the words of {{@|janMisali}}, "How do we know what's mainline?" That only talked about video games, but also could apply to non-games, but I think we need to play safe, so oppose.
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
+#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
 ====Comments====
@@ Line 596: / Line 438: @@
 #{{User|Arend}} I assume the same thing as the rest here and believe this is only about how we list ports/remakes/other reissues on series pages, to which I have to agree with the rest of the opposition: it's best we do not treat these rereleases on the same level as a mainline franchise entry. Nintendo doesn't seem to do that either if the whole [[:File:SMR Notifications 2023-12-20 excerpt.jpg|Mario Wonder being the first sidescroller entry in 11 years]] thing is anything to go by (''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'' was released only 4 years prior). If we did, it would only look disorganized. (Also, I ''pray'' this proposal isn't talking about rerelease ''pages'' being merged to their original counterpart, which is even worse)
 #{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
+#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
+#{{User|Mario}} Bad proposal, poorly written and probably breaks several rules we have on the wiki anyway.
+#{{User|Ray Trace}} No idea why the comments section has blown completely off the rails in regards to the aim of this proposal but per the opposition.
+#{{User|Pseudo}} Per all.
 ====Comments====
@@ Line 615: / Line 462: @@
 @Hewer, @SONIC123CDMANIA:
-I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon. That's why I said Mainline games should all be in a category. Ports, Remakes  Remaster, Collections included. There's also a special example. What about Bowser's Fury.
+I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon. That's why I said Mainline games should all be in a category. Ports, Remakes  Remaster, Collections included. There's also a special example. What about Bowser's Fury. ? It's a new Adventure, but it is listed under Ports, Remakes, etc. Other games or Spin offs should be in a different category. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 16:57, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-? It's a new Adventure, but it is listed under Ports, Remakes, etc. Other games or Spin offs should be in a different category.
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 16:57, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
 :I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]]. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
 :@Big Super Mario Fan: What has certain games not being canon have to do with ports and remakes of mainline titles? No one has said anything about which games are being canon or not in this discussion until you brought. Hell, no one in this discussion has even ''uttered'' the word "canon" before you did (and as you can see, you bringing up canon has brought on a whole different discussion that completely undermines the original topic of the proposal).<br>Truthfully, bringing up canonicity in this discussion about regarding rereleases as equal to the originals (i.e. putting them in the exact same lists and categories as if they're standalone games), would imply that you view ''all'' ports, remakes, remasters, etc. as canon... which muddies the water even more on what could be regarded as canon or not, since certain remakes and rereleases actually provide different or additional content that isn't found in the original version, bringing into the discussion which version is canon and which version is not. See ''[[Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker]]'', for instance: the original Wii U version clearly precedes ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'', but the [[Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo Switch / Nintendo 3DS)|Switch/3DS rerelease]] precedes ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'' instead. Which version of Treasure Tracker is canon, then? That's not even saying about the DLC for the Switch version, which precedes ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'', a rerelease of ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U]]'' that should be even older than 3D World ''and'' Odyssey. What is the timeline here?<br>This is why [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] states that there's no officially recognized canon. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is canon and what is not canon, and changes into rereleases of mainline titles make that matter even more complicated. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
-@Hewer:
+:{{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} I never said anything about ALL Mario games. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it. 1. Mario (Super Mario Mainline games + Spin offs) 2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario series) 3. Mario (Mario + Rabbids series) 4. Mario (Super Smash Bros. series) 5. Mario (Animated Movies) 6. Mario (Live-Action movie) 7. Mario (Cartoons) 8. Mario (Comics). There could be even more.
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 19:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
+@Hewer: I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it. 1. Mario (Super Mario Mainline games + Spin offs) 2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario series) 3. Mario (Mario + Rabbids series) 4. Mario (Super Smash Bros. series) 5. Mario (Animated Movies) 6. Mario (Live-Action movie) 7. Mario (Cartoons) 8. Mario (Comics). There could be even more. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 19:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
 :The fact is, the canonicity article is how this wiki operates, period. There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 19:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
 :loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
 :You know, the sentence right after the boldened one stating that there's no officially recognized canon (the sencence you're arguing against) states ''"Therefore, arguments over canonicity (canon vs. non-canon) are purely speculative, and are of no importance to wiki articles."'' Your argument about there not only being a definitive canon (which you haven't elaborated on yet), but there being at least eight different Mario universes in a Mario multiverse, ''is exactly that kind of purely speculative that the Canonicity page was talking about''. I'm not even sure if Nintendo would currently recognize several of these as part of their franchise (throwing muck in that whole multiverse idea of yours), such as "live-action movies" (there's only one of those btw) or "comics" (there's the German Club Nintendo comics and the Nintendo Comics System of Valiant btw, I doubt these share a universe). They sure don't recognize ''[[Hotel Mario]]'' as part of it.<br>Moreover, I'm not interested to, for instance, split the Mario page into several different articles that each describe a different incarnation of the character, if your Paper Mario proposal indicates anything. It'd be simpler and more organized to keep it all in [[History of Mario|one article]]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:Live action? You mean the 1990's one? That's a multiverse in & of itself! The cartoons, comics, AND animated movies are also multiverses in & of themselves! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-@Arend:
+@Arend: I eleberate on the definitive Mario canon (the 1st, main Mario universe). It consists of:
+*Super Mario Mainline games (2D & 3D)
+*Mario & Luigi series
+*Mario Kart series
+*Mario Party series
+*Mario Tennis series
+*Mario Golf series
+*Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
+*Luigi's Mansion series
+*Yoshi's Island series
+*Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
+*Super Princess Peach
+It's not speculative at all. Those are all heavyly implied things. Some are even semi-confirmed. Comics and Movies are different universes than the Game universes. It wouldn't be good if it's all one one page. Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all. Also there is already a Paper Mario page. But just for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. This page could be used for the Paper Mario series. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:"Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all." ...there. ''Is.'' Though. This is quite literally what the Canonicity guidelines mean when they say "baseless speculation"--Mario in Mario Golf isn't a different character from Mario in Mario Tennis. Even if we wanted to go along with this when we already moved away from the "Marioverse" term as far back as 2007, this doesn't factor in the dozens of lesser spinoffs and side-games--though to be blunt, trying to argue between the how Mario is in some way "different" between [[Mario's Egg Catch]] and [[Mario Super Sluggers]] is beyond an exercise in futility, and would be less than useless. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+::Well...not really? Do we consider Rabbid Mario the same as Mario? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::No, because he's not. We do, however, consider Mario from the Mario + Rabbids games to be Mario, because he is. My guess is that Big Super Mario Fan thinks Mario + Rabbids just features Rabbid Mario instead of normal Mario, but in reality they both appear in the Mario + Rabbids games as completely separate characters, so it's more comparable to [[Paper Mario (character)]] in Paper Jam if anything. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:08, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+::::Yeah, true. Though we do have variants of characters that are completely different merged because of intent (and probably other factors I'm missing) with [[Bowser]] & [[President Koopa]] (which as of this writing isn't the case, but will be because a proposal on this passed). [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 11:33, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::The logic there is that President Koopa is just the movie's version of Bowser. The same can't be said about Mario and Rabbid Mario since they're clearly distinct characters that coexist in the same games, like how the Paper Mario character article only covers his Paper Jam appearance because that's the only game where he's a distinct character to normal Mario. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::No, that's not correct. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 11:53, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::Yes, it is correct. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+::::No, I think he ''knows'' that Mario and Rabbid Mario appear both in the ''Mario + Rabbids'' games, and only mistakingly called the actual Mario "Rabbid Mario" once: his reasoning for why the ''Mario + Rabbids'' games take place in an alternate universe, as he provided on [[MarioWiki talk:Canonicity#the Mario universe does have a canon, infact there is even a Mario multiverse!|MarioWiki talk:Canonicity]], is an [https://www.gameshub.com/news/features/mario-rabbids-sparks-of-hope-interview-davide-soliani-combat-worlds-22770/ interview with Davide Soliani] (to be fair, the assumption also matches with the intro of ''Kingdom Battle'', when the SupaMerge hits a ''Super Mario'' poster and causes the Rabbids' washing machine to teleport into its world). His reasoning stems from the idea that ''all the Mario characters from those games'' are an alternate version of the mainline characters (not just their Rabbid counterparts), and as he stated both here and on the Canonicity talk page, he wishes to split these incarnations, as well as ''other'' incarnations from the eight (or more) "universes" he provides: which includes not just ''Mario + Rabbids'' and ''Paper Mario'', but also ''Super Smash Bros.'', ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Movie]]'', the 1993 ''[[Super Mario Bros. (film)|Super Mario Bros.]]'' movie, the DiC ''Super Mario'' cartoon shows and "comics".<br>And to me, that is way, WAY worse than thinking Rabbid Mario is the same person as Mario but from another dimension. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::Yeah, you have a very good point! Also, I think the "comics" aren't part of the same continuity, which makes things worse (We'd be splitting Super Mario Kun Mario, KC Deluxe Mario, Super Mario Adventures Mario, etc.).[[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 11:53, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+::::::Indeed. On the Continuity talk page, Big Super Mario Fan admits he doesn't really know the comics that well, which is why he simply wrote "comics" as one universe instead. I imagine that if he was aware of how many comics there were, he'd want the incarnations of those to be split off too. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:01, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::::Yes. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:06, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+@Camwoodstock: That's not what I meant. The Mario in Mario Golf and in Mario Tennis is the same. When we talk about games specifically there are 4 different Marios. 1st the Mario who appears in most Mario Games. 2nd Paper Mario who appears in the Paper Mario series. 3rd Mario who appears in the Mario + Rabbids series. 4th Mario who appears in the Super Smash Bros series. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:50, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
+:I'd ask why you insist the ''+ Rabbids'' one is different of all possible options, but the fact is neither I nor anyone else here cares. You're basing this off nothing at all other than your own preconceived notions, which is the very definition of speculation. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+::He was talking about Rabbid Mario [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-I eleberate on the definitive Mario canon (the 1st, main Mario universe).
+@Doc von Schmeltwick:
+To Answer your question. It's not speculation. Obviously there's the Main Mario, where most of his games take place. Than there's Paper Mario, who's confirmed to be a seperate character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Than there is Smash Bros. Mario who is a toy/trophy brought to live by imagination. Than there's Rabbid Mario, who was created in the Mario + Rabbids series, as seen in the cutscenes of that game. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 21:08, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:You didn't say "Rabbid Mario." You said "Mario from Mario + Rabbids." That's not the same thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+::He MEANT RABBID MARIO! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+"Heavily implied", "semi-confirmed" — these read to me as admissions there isn't proof. We're a wiki. We work with facts, not guesses. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:40, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:Well, SOME stuff is, but not fully. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Exactly this. There is a time and a place for headcanons and inferences; a matter-of-fact wiki is perhaps the last place you should be putting them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, better off putting them in either your Userpage, or you User talk page. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-It consists of:
+@Doc von Schmeltwick: I meant Mario from theMario + Rabbids series. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:You mean Rabbid Mario. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+@Ahemtoday: It has something to do with logic. You know milk comes from the cow, when you buy it in the supermarket. Than you wouldn't write it comes from the supermarket. Also there is evidence. Just watch the cutscenes of Super Smash Bros. or Mario + Rabbids  and play Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:It is very easy to take a single thing, not interrogate it at all, and use "logic" to extrapolate it to everything with no regard for its actual bearing on reality. If I am to be convinced that Mario in a specific set of games is a different character from Mario in some other set, I require nothing less than an official source explicitly stating as such. To my knowledge, nothing like that exists for any of these cases. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 23:15, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, cutscenes aren't FULLY official sources, developers are. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Super Mario Mainline games (2D & 3D)
+@Ahemtoday: Well at least for Super Smash Bros., there is an official Interview with Satoru Iwata. http://time.com/3747342/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata/ [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 23:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario & Luigi series
+I would like to point out that fellow NIWA wiki, the Zelda Wiki, the wiki for ''The Legend of Zelda'' series, which ''definitely'' features different incarnations of Link, Zelda, and various enemies and NPCs, do not split these incarnations in separate articles and keep them all under the same subjects (e.g. there aren't multiple articles on Link or Octorok, despite there being multiple versions of those). I know that our wiki is not the same thing, but if a wiki based on a series with ''100% confirmed'' different incarnations of the main cast doesn't split their articles, then why ''should'' <u>our</u> wiki do this when the series we do cover don't have multiple incarnations of their characters at all (or it's being "implied" or "semi-confirmed" at best)? {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Good point! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario Kart series
+@Arend: I give you an example. Following your logic. If a man jumps out of a window the man next to him should jump out too. Just because the Zelda Wiki doesn't split their articles, doesn not mean that we should not do this eather. Also in that Interview it's confirmed that the Super Smash Bros. characters are toys. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the ''opposite'' of what other wikis are doing, either.<br>I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look ''way'' different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all.<br>''Super Mario'' isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, ''Mario + Rabbids''!Mario is ''identical'' in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in ''Mario + Rabbids''. Same goes for ''Mario & Luigi''!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's ''actually different'' incarnations into separate articles, then why should ''we'' be splitting hairs here?<br><s>Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reason</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Good point! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario Party series
+Y'all, we've gotten ''way'' off track. This proposal isn't even ''about'' universes. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Yes. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario Tennis series
+Ok, {{@|Hewer}} On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Ok, good point at that, but it did say "ports, remakes, remasters, & collections". {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} I'm still waiting for a reply here. Unless you've stopped because you've seen the wrongness of your arguments. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario Golf series
+@Arend: Easy. The games that are not canon should be listed in a different category than the ones that are canon. Regarding Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. I can answer this as well. Both versions are canon. Here's the timeline. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World (Wii U/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo Switch). The 2. Captain Toad adventure (episode) happens in between. New Super Mario Bros. U / New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe happen at the same time. Before Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Odyssey. Because Ports or Remakes add content that wasn't in the original release. But it still happened at the same time. For example Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions happens at the same time. The same applies to Mario + Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey. The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Special Episode happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, as they find the Super Crown here. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 17:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:You've kinda just reiterated what Arend was saying with more words, minus the actually important part: that this is pointless speculation that will definitely not be used as a basis for the wiki's organisation. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Wait, you're not making any sense here. First, you're saying that, somehow, the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happens ''before'' the Switch/3DS version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, even though it's ''the exact same adventure'', so it would logically take place at the same time, something you state as such later anyway. I mean, I get ''why'' you would say that, given that in the Wii U version, it's directly followed up by 3D World, but on Switch and 3DS, it's directly followed up by Odyssey instead; but if anything, this would more logically indicate a split timeline, not that the exact same adventure happens twice. Then you say that the 2nd Captain Toad adventure (by which I assume you mean the DLC episode) happens ''inbetween'' the Wii U and Switch versions of the regular game (which already makes no sense given that it's DLC for the Switch iteration, so it should happen after that, meaning that ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' would also take place inbetween those versions (specifically after 3D World, because there ''really'' is no room for another adventure to squeeze inbetween; the 3D World opening plays directly after the credits of the Wii U version)... only to THEN say ''New Super Mario Bros. U'' takes place before BOTH 3D World and Odyssey?<br>Basically, what you're saying is this: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, Special Episode (DLC)) > New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, main campaign (even though it's the same as Wii U's main campaign)) > Super Mario Odyssey<br>...bro, I think it would be easier to say that the rereleases happen in an alternate timeline, than what you're trying to explain here, because what I've got out of your explanation doesn't make ''any'' sense. And do I really need to say that this timeline you've given me is also ''highly speculative''? Aka, ''not confirmed''? As in, ''not canon''? {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Also, would it hurt if you had answered my things regarding the canonicity on remakes under where I was actually talking about that, instead of under the Zelda Wiki stuff? {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::Yeah, all of what {{@|Arend}} said IS true. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
+@SONIC123CDMANIA: It is strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes. Second, of course there would be more universes than what I specified. It does have to do with universes, because only the canon ones should be in a category. The others should be in another category. But it shouldn't matter if its a new game, a remake, or a port, etc. It's shouldn't stop. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 17:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:"strongly implied"
+:"semi-confirmed"
+:Please just stop. You can ''say'' that it's right, but that doesn't make it true. It's not an official distinction, there's no consistency between the relations of games. This '''again''' has nothing to do with the proposal you are discussing on. If you ''insist'' on having this discussion, it would make more sense to do so on [[Mariowiki Talk:Canonicity]], though it's probably better suited for the forums. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:56, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, Big Super Mario Fan keeps saying those two terms a lot, as if it means anything (plus I wouldn't say that Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happening twice or that New Super Mario Bros. U happens both before and after Super Mario 3D World is "strongly implied" or "semi-confirmed" in any way).<br>At this point, "strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes" feels like a bad equivalent of the "L + ratio + get rekt" meme or however that goes. <s>(And I still have no idea why they brought up what is or isn't canon themselves, on their own proposal about merging rereleases with mainline titles)</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::Yeah, this is not going well. Also, some "universes" are actually multiverses in their own right! How do you factor THAT in!? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Luigi's Mansion series
+@Arend: Okay, here's an easy to understand timeline: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC ➡️ New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS / Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey.<br> So there definitly is a canon in Mario. All the way from Donkey Kong (1981) to Princess Peach: Showtime (2024). The things is sometimes the Mario canon is a bit complex. That's why some people say there is no canon. But it's simply not true. That shouldn't be an excuse for the Super Mario Wiki. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 21:37, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:It doesn't matter how many times you baselessly declare there is a canon, it won't become any more true ("semi-confirmed" wouldn't cut it even if it was accurate). This is all still pointless speculation that will absolutely not affect how the wiki is organised, and you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone here that your speculative canon and timeline is better to base the wiki on than [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|the way we've been doing it for years]], so I suggest you just drop it, or at the very least, as Doc said, do this discussion on [[MarioWiki talk:Canonicity]] instead of your unrelated proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:23, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Now you're saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before ''the Treasure Tracker main game?!'' How does that make any sense at all?! I already said that it makes more sense that it would happen after the Switch version of the game, given that it's DLC for that game. And again, The Switch and 3DS versions are practically the same as the Wii U version aside from the fact that it's directly followed by Odyssey instead of 3D world. Again, it makes more sense to say that the 3DS/Switch version takes place in an alternate timeline (also, your proposed timeline doesn't even come close to "semi-confirmed" or "heavily implied"; saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before ''any'' of the main games is heavily speculative). {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:???? This is making less sense. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Yoshi's Island series
+@Hewer: Yeah, than I will discuss it on the MarioWiki Canonicity page. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 04:13, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:We could discuss Mario AND Sonic canon on my talk page. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Captain Toad:
+@SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;ATSA  - The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC comes before the main game, because they find the Super Crown here. Which is then used in New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe. And yes we could discuss Mario & Sonic canon on your talk page. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:36, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
-Treasure Tracker
+:I think that official DLC descriptions like [https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/captain-toad-treasure-tracker-special-episode-70070000005061-switch/ here] ("[...] you can purchase the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - Special Episode DLC to '''continue your journey''' [...]"), website descriptions like [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Captain-Toad-Treasure-Tracker-1348071.html#Overview here] ("'''More adventures''' for Captain Toad and Toadette are available as paid downloadable content!"), and official trailer blurbs like [https://youtu.be/i5_VMuEUdqA?feature=shared here] ("Captain Toad and Toadette are '''back for more adventures'''!") kind of imply that the DLC takes place ''after'' the main game, not ''before''. Moreover, several of the levels in the DLC are revisitations of previous courses of the main game, with the Level names titled in a way that differentiates them from the original, similar to the remix levels of [[World Mushroom (Super Mario 3D World)|World Mushroom]] and [[World Flower (Super Mario 3D World)|World Flower]]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:26, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Yeah, I agree with Hewer here. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ Super Princess Peach
+@Arend: Oh man! You're not making this easy for me. But the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC definitely happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, because they find the Super Crown here. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 22:49, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Explain the DLC descriptions! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:Well yeah, I suppose I ''am'' not making this easy. ''You're'' the one disagreeing with our [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|Canonicity policy]] and claiming that ''all'' the remakes/ports/rereleases take place in the same canon timeline, and ''we'' point out the flaws in your logic. The whole ''Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker'' thing is perhaps the most notable example on why including every singe port and remake in the same single timeline as the mainline games would result in a ''huge mess'', given how the Switch port and its DLC make changes to what follows after the game. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:27, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+@Arend, @SONIC123CDMANIA, @Hewer: I know Rabbit Mario is not Mario. That was a mistake. I don't really care about the comics. You can't split every Mario incarnation. Because than we'd have 100 Mario pages, 100 Peach pages, Bowser pages. I was only taking about the Important once. For me those are.
-It's not speculative at all. Those are all heavyly implied things. Some are even semi-confirmed.
+. Mario (Main Mario Universe)
-Comics and Movies are different universes than the Game universes.
+. Paper Mario
+(Paper Mario Universe)
-It wouldn't be good if it's all one one page. Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all.
+. Alternate Mario
+(Mario + Rabbids Universe)
-Also there is already a Paper Mario page. But just for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. This page could be used for the Paper Mario series.
+. Toy/Trophy Mario
+(Super Smash Bros. Universe)
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+. Cartoon Mario
-:"Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all." ...there. ''Is.'' Though. This is quite literally what the Canonicity guidelines mean when they say "baseless speculation"--Mario in Mario Golf isn't a different character from Mario in Mario Tennis. Even if we wanted to go along with this when we already moved away from the "Marioverse" term as far back as 2007, this doesn't factor in the dozens of lesser spinoffs and side-games--though to be blunt, trying to argue between the how Mario is in some way "different" between [[Mario's Egg Catch]] and [[Mario Super Sluggers]] is beyond an exercise in futility, and would be less than useless. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+(Cartoon Universe)
+. Animated Mario
+(The Super Mario Bros. Movie)
-@Camwoodstock:
+. Live-Action Mario
+(Super Mario Bros. Live-Action movie) [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 02:49, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:1, Rabbid Mario is TECHNICALLY a alternate Mario. 2, I never said ALL versions, as in official AND unofficial, just all official versions. 3, your arguments fail when taking into account multiverses within multiverses. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:So you admit that splitting all these incarnations is a bad idea, but still insist on splitting just some of them randomly? Straight up using "I don't really care" as an argument is certainly not helping your (already very bad) case. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ That's not what I meant. The Mario in Mario Golf and in Mario Tennis is the same. When we talk about games specifically there are 4 different Marios. 1st the Mario who appears in most Mario Games. 2nd Paper Mario who appears in the Paper Mario series. 3rd Mario who appears in the Mario + Rabbids series. 4th Mario who appears in the Super Smash Bros series.
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:50, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
+@SONIC123CDMANIA: 1. Yeah but that also includes Mini Mario then. 2. Ok 3. What do you mean with multiverses in multiverses? Can you name me an example? [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-:I'd ask why you insist the ''+ Rabbids'' one is different of all possible options, but the fact is neither I nor anyone else here cares. You're basing this off nothing at all other than your own preconceived notions, which is the very definition of speculation. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+:The cartoons, 2023 Mario Movie, 1993 Mario Movie, and the comics are all multiverses in their own rights. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+@Hewer: Not randomly splitting. Only the important ones. I only don't care about the comics. But I do care about the games. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:Well we're not splitting any of them and that's that. {{User:Nightwicked Bowser/sig}} 15:46, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-@Doc von Schmeltwick:
+To be honest, this discussion has spiraled so much out of control into this whole canonicity-timeline + split-the-characters thing, that I'm contemplating whether or not we should store this on [[MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals]] after this proposal has ended (to clarify, that would be for the comments section alone, not the proposal's actual subject) {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:21, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:My distaste for BJAODN aside, would you mind not openly mocking a user earnestly trying to argue for something? {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 17:41, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, uh, please do not put what is very clearly just a small child that doesn't know what headcanon is into BJAODN '''''right in front of them.''''' {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:06, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:::Flashbacks to when many of my genuine contributions as a 13 y/o ESL were placed in BJAODN and it was among the things that gave me major anxieties that I still had to resolve by the time I turned 20. Some attitudes never change! {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:08, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+::::...Yeah, okay, sorry for the suggestion. I wasn't trying to mock anyone here. I was basically spitballing since I'm kind of frustrated that this down-spiraled, off-topic discussion is ''still'' ongoing and hadn't been dropped earlier. In retrospect, suggesting it for BJAODN would probably be a bad idea and sounds meanspirited, and I apologize. {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:23, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-- To Answer your question.
+@SONIC123CDMANIA:
-It's not speculation. Obviously there's the Main Mario, where most of his games take place. Than there's Paper Mario, who's confirmed to be a seperate character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Than there is Smash Bros. Mario who is a toy/trophy brought to live by imagination. Than there's Rabbid Mario, who was created in the Mario + Rabbids series, as seen in the cutscenes of that game.
+- Why are they multiverses in itself?
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 21:08, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+- King Koopa is a Live-Action adaptation of Bowser though.
-:You didn't say "Rabbid Mario." You said "Mario from Mario + Rabbids." That's not the same thing. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
-"Heavily implied", "semi-confirmed" — these read to me as admissions there isn't proof. We're a wiki. We work with facts, not guesses. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:40, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+- Cutscenes are canon too
-:Exactly this. There is a time and a place for headcanons and inferences; a matter-of-fact wiki is perhaps the last place you should be putting them. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 22:41, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+- That Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC description is not canon. It's just Marketing. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:Cartoons: Super Mario Bros. Super Show has "a" Earth (live-action segments) & Mushroom Kingdom's planet (Cartoon segments, TAoSMB3, SMW), & also others based on other Mario cartoons (Captain N, etc.). Comics: Super Mario Kun multiverse (Main world, LoZ, etc.), KC Deluxe universe, etc. 1993 Mario Movie: "Earth" & Dinohattan (and I guess the adaptations too). 2023 Mario Movie: "Earth" (cause Brooklyn) & Mushroom Kingdom (and others not seen). For the King Koopa thing, I'm pretty sure it's President Koopa (who is an alternate version of Bowser from 1993 Mario Movie), unless you're talking about King Koopa's Kool Kartoons? For the cutscenes thing, well of course, they're part of the game. For the CT:TT DLC description, isn't marketing canon?  For the Mini Mario thing, the form, or the toy? Both are split. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
-@Doc von Schmeltwick:
+@SONIC123CDMANIA:
-▪︎ I meant Mario from theMario + Rabbids series.
+I didn't know al that. I meant the Live-Action Bowser. Not the Cartoon one. And I still don't think the Captain Toad DLC description is canon. For Mini Mario, I meant the toy.
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:47, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+:"Live-Action Bowser" President Koopa, or the weird-looking Bowser from King Koopa's Kool Kartoons (the one that looks like he's a suit)? And Mini Mario is already split. For the CT:TT DLC description, we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:01, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+@SONIC123CDMANIA: I meant President Bowser. I knoe that Mini Mario already his own page. Yeah I have different opinion on the DLC description.
-@Ahemtoday:
+[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 23:03, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
-▪︎ It has something to do with logic. You know milk comes from the cow, when you buy it in the supermarket. Than you wouldn't write it comes from the supermarket. Also there is evidence. Just watch the cutscenes of Super Smash Bros. or Mario + Rabbids  and play Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam.
+@Ahemtoday:I thought the MarioWiki doesn't care to much about canon. Then they could include all Mainline games in one category. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker wouldn't be included anyway, since it's not a Super Mario game. It's a related Game. Also this proposal isn't about canon or not. It's about listing Main Games, Ports, Remasters, Remakes etc. of Games, in the same category. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+@NightwickedBowser: Don't be so sure.[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-:It is very easy to take a single thing, not interrogate it at all, and use "logic" to extrapolate it to everything with no regard for its actual bearing on reality. If I am to be convinced that Mario in a specific set of games is a different character from Mario in some other set, I require nothing less than an official source explicitly stating as such. To my knowledge, nothing like that exists for any of these cases. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 23:15, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+@Arend: I'm sorry if you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. BJAODN is just dumb/joke proposals. This comments section doesn't belong there. It should go to the archive just like the others. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:...Look, while I do genuinely feel terrible for suggesting to put it on BJAODN in the first place, it's not because I'm not "smart enough" to understand what you were talking about. My main concern is that the whole discussion has gone off-topic and has undermined the original subject of the proposal by a ''very'' large margin. Of course, I now realize that BJAODN is not the solution here, but there should probably be a discussion on how to prevent future proposals from going off-topic like this after this one ends. {{User:Arend/sig}} 19:07, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-@Ahemtoday:
+@LadySophie17: You're right. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-Well at least for Super Smash Bros., there is an official Interview with Satoru Iwata.
+@Camwoodstock: Maybe your a small child? Me? No. Definitely not! You know what a headcanon wood be? If I'd say Mario has a 3rd brother. But I only talk about things that are heavily implied, semi-confirmed, some are even fully confirmed. There you have your answer. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-http://time.com/3747342/nintendo-ceo-satoru-iwata/
+@Koopa con Carne: That's sad. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 23:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
+Yeah, look, let's get back on track here. Your proposal, as I understand it, would put ''[[VS. Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World]]'', ''[[BS Super Mario USA]]'', ''[[BS Super Mario Collection]]'', ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'', ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', ''[[Super Mario World: Super Mario Advance 2]]'', ''[[Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3]]'', ''[[Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.]]'', ''[[Famicom Mini: Super Mario Bros. 2]]'', ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition]]'', ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U + New Super Luigi U]]'', ''[[Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS]]'', ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]'', ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', ''[[Game & Watch: Super Mario Bros.]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury]]'' alongside the actual mainline titles. This is not simpler. There would be more ports/remakes/collections in the "mainline" section than actual mainline games. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 19:18, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-I would like to point out that fellow NIWA wiki, the Zelda Wiki, the wiki for ''The Legend of Zelda'' series, which ''definitely'' features different incarnations of Link, Zelda, and various enemies and NPCs, do not split these incarnations in separate articles and keep them all under the same subjects (e.g. there aren't multiple articles on Link or Octorok, despite there being multiple versions of those). I know that our wiki is not the same thing, but if a wiki based on a series with ''100% confirmed'' different incarnations of the main cast doesn't split their articles, then why ''should'' <u>our</u> wiki do this when the series we do cover don't have multiple incarnations of their characters at all (or it's being "implied" or "semi-confirmed" at best)? {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+I'm surprised all of you are so willing to engage in what looks like bad faith debate with this user. Oppose the proposal, and leave it at that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 20:01, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+@Ahemtoday here my list. How I would do it (🆕️ meabs games that aren't already in the list, because the others are alteady in the list):
+▪︎ Super Mario Bros.
+▪︎ Super Mario Bros.:
+The Lost Levels
+▪︎ Super Mario Bros. 2
+▪︎ Super Mario Bros. 3
+▪︎ Super Mario Land
+▪︎ Super Mario World
+▪︎ Super Mario Land 2:
+Golden Coins
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars
+▪︎ Super Mario 64
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Bros. Deluxe
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Advance
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World
+▪︎ Super Mario Sunshine
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3
+▪︎ 🆕️ Classic NES series:
+Super Mario Bros.
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario 64 DS
+▪︎ New Super Mario Bros.
+▪︎ Super Mario Galaxy
+▪︎ New Super Mario Bros. Wii
+▪︎ Super Mario Galaxy 2
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars: 25th Anniversary Limited Edition
+▪︎ Super Mario 3D Land
+▪︎ New Super Mario Bros. 2
+▪︎ New Super Mario Bros. U
+▪︎ Super Mario 3D World
+▪︎ Super Mario Maker
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Maker
+for Nintendo 3DS
+▪︎ Super Mario Run
+▪︎ Super Mario Odyssey
+▪︎ 🆕️ New Super Mario Bros.
+U Deluxe
+▪︎ Super Mario Maker 2
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario 3D All-Stars
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario Bros. 35
+▪︎ 🆕️ Super Mario 3D World
++ Bowser's Fury
+▪︎ Super Mario Bros. Wonder
-@Arend:
+games are in this list,
+I would add 13 games = 35 games.[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-I give you an example. Following your logic. If a man jumps out of a window the man next to him should jump out too. Just because the Zelda Wiki doesn't split their articles, doesn not mean that we should not do this eather. Also in that Interview it's confirmed that the Super Smash Bros. characters are toys.
+@Mario:I have good arguments. And I'm good at discussing things with other people. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+@Arend: Look. Don't blame this on me. I just made the Proposal. I could'nt know that it would go off-topic. I don't want this eather. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-:While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the ''opposite'' of what other wikis are doing, either.<br>I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because ''The Legend of Zelda'' series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look ''way'' different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all.<br>''Super Mario'' isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, ''Mario + Rabbids''!Mario is ''identical'' in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in ''Mario + Rabbids''. Same goes for ''Mario & Luigi''!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's ''actually different'' incarnations into separate articles, then why should ''we'' be splitting hairs here?<br><s>Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reason</s> {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:The topic began to diverge when you said: ''"I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it."'' You begun reading the Canonicity page upon Hewer's suggestion (who could not have predicted that you would react like this at all), who in turn suggested you to do that in the first place because you told him and SONIC123: ''"I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon."'' Note that prior to this, ''no one has ever uttered the word "canon" in this proposal at all'': people only begun talking about canonicity and multiverses ''after'' <u>you</u> brought up those topics. I'm sorry man, I don't know who else to blame here BUT you. {{User:Arend/sig}} 21:12, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+::@Arend: Yes I said that. But I couldn't know that would discuss this further. But I think those people misunderstood me. Because I said three things. Canon, Multiverse and Timeline. But most of it doesn't matter for thid proposal. It's about what games should be included in a section and what in another section. [[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 23:25, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
-Y'all, we've gotten ''way'' off track. This proposal isn't even ''about'' universes. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:32, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+'''Stepping in as sysop:''' This topic has gotten far off on a tangent and likely won't go anywhere. Keep comments after this directly relevant to the proposal. If you have nothing else to add regarding the canoncity of the Mario franchise, which is mostly a moot point anyway and our stance in the wiki will not change on this, vote on the proposal. I won't personally stop you from making comments on canoncity but you can continue argument inside, say, collapsed content. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:20, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+:What about replies to previous comments? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
-Ok, {{@|Hewer}} On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. {{@|Big Super Mario Fan}} First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::You can comment freely as if I never said anything but I'm just trying to steer the discussion back to what it's supposed(?) to be, which is about the proposal to merge remakes and whatnot and not necessarily about if there is a canon or not to the Mario universe. {{User:Mario/sig}} 11:55, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
-:Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::...I never said that. I just was asking if it was fine to reply to previous comments, not make new ones. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 11:59, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+::::Yes you may. {{User:Mario/sig}} 12:00, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+:::::That's all I wanted to know. Thanks! [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:07, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
 ===Create seperate pages for Level themes===
@@ Line 743: / Line 708: @@
 ====Support====
 #{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} - Per my proposal.
+#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Well, the proposer said it wasn't for repetition, so sure.
+#{{User|MegaBowser64}} Per proposal
 ====Oppose====
 #{{User|Sparks}} Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all ''Mario'' games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages.
 #{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly.
-#{{User|BMfan08}} We already have a [[Level]] page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.
+#{{User|Mario}} I'm not going to support a proposal that's poorly put together. Elucidate your course of action.
+#{{User|Ray Trace}} The [[Level]] page I feel is already adequate for covering the themes (could maybe use an expansion). As for the Airship, Ghost House, etc. those are at least marked with a unique icon in the world map whereas a generic snow course isn't so I feel those are exceptions rather than the rule.
+#{{User|Sdman213}} Per all.
+#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per Ray Trace.
+<s>{{User|BMfan08}} We already have a [[Level]] page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.</s>
 ====Comments====
@@ Line 768: / Line 739: @@
 I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
 :This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like [[Level]] already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such as[[World 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.)]] should be counted as ground levels or sky levels. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:::I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+@SONIC123CDMANIA:
+I tell you what I have in mind. There should be pages for level themes likes Grass lands, Deserts, etc. They should be structured like the pages about Ghosthouse, Airship and Castle.
+[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 17:45, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:(facepalm) I knew THAT, I'm talking about the other comments. Is this just for repetition, or not? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+No, it's not just for reptition. It's also interesting to know about such things.
+[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 18:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:Ah, ok. Thanks. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+@Mario:
+As I wrote. The Proposal is about creating pages for Grassland, Dessert, Water Level themes (History, Apperances), that a built like the pages for Ghost House, Airship, Castle.
+[[User:Big Super Mario Fan|Big Super Mario Fan]] ([[User talk:Big Super Mario Fan|talk]]) 20:55, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
+===Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form===
+bit of a wordy title, so let me explain.
+as they stand, enemy lists in game articles are sorted purely alphabetically. this causes some minor organization issues, for example: the "B" section of every enemy list being crowded with just about every Big variant in the game. i think that's not a useful communication of information. what i propose is that instead, variations such as [[Big Goomba]]s, [[Horned Ant Trooper]]s, that usually don't appear on their own, would be listed right after the base form even if it breaks alphabetical order. of course, since there can be more than one variation of an enemy, those would then be listed alphabetically, placing [[Big Goomba]] before [[Mini Goomba]].
+some games split new enemies into their own table, so if a game introduces a new variation (such as something like a Big Gamboo) they would just be on the new enemy table.
+'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
+'''Deadline''': May 28th, 2024, 23:59 GMT
+====Support====
+#{{User|EvieMaybe}} as proposer.
+#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} Yeah, sure.
+#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I think that's really a good idea.
+#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
+#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Yeah, I'm fine with this.
+#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
+#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per proposal.
+#{{User|Yook Bab-imba}} This is something that has bothered me forever, so I agree wholeheartedly.
+====Oppose====
+<s>#{{User|Megadardery}} As the proposal currently stands, it doesn't offer a well-established alternative to the alphabetical order. I assume you mean that you want to merge the following as well ([[Paratroopa]]s is grouped with [[Koopa Troopa]], [[King Bob-omb]] is grouped with [[Bob-omb]]s, etc). Doesn't this mean, we are just grouping by species? [[List of species]] kind of already fills this purpose. Alphabetical order makes the most sense for an uncategorized exhaustive list of enemies, where List of species page fills other purposes.</s>
+====Comments====
+Would you be open to drafting an example of what you'd like to see changed on your userpage or a sandbox? I'm kinda visually oriented. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:48, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:Some time ago I formatted the ''[[New Super Mario Bros. 2#Enemies and obstacles]]'' in a manner similar to this proposal. This game has the gold variants, and having them clumped together just because they all begin with "gold" was odd (in fact, most enemies in this game are just variants), so I took the liberty to rearrange it. {{User:Yook Bab-imba/sig}} 12:58, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
+@Megadardery: I'm pretty sure Evie is just talking about enemy lists on game articles (e.g. ''[[Super Mario Bros. Wonder]]''), which tend to ''always'' list enemies in alphabetical order regardless of enemy variants. Evie mentions how enemies are listed on games a lot. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+:indeed, i kind of forgot to specify. retouched phrasing to clarify. [[User:EvieMaybe|EvieMaybe]] ([[User talk:EvieMaybe|talk]]) 23:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
+::Oh, I apologize, I thought this referred to [[List of enemies]]. I'll redact my vote, I agree that alphabetical order in articles is clunky, but I think chronological order (order by appearance in levels) makes the most intuitive sense. As it's less "subjective" than other forms of grouping--{{User:Megadardery/sig}} 06:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+:::You know, that's not a bad idea either. We'll have to see what Evie thinks of it, though. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:25, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
+::::Weird, I remember looking at the linked page once and that was how it was structured! Did something change since then, or was that a different page? Maybe it was [[List of species|this]]?? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:41, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
 ==Miscellaneous==
 ''None at the moment.''

MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

MarioWiki:Proposals (view source)

Revision as of 23:03, May 17, 2024