Reconsider Nintendo's website filenames being used as a source
consider filenames as a source and create redirects 6-0-1-0
See this proposal for full context. Nintendo is sadly known to make mistakes in their filenames found on their websites (especially Play Nintendo). I think we can all agree there is zero reason to believe these files should have the same priority as number 4 in the acceptable sources for naming policy, but I also believe we shouldn't throw them away. If Nintendo blunders, we mention it. If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:
Nintendo's weird website filenames can be added either as trivia or in the same section as internal names, but these names shouldn't be anywhere near the first paragraph.
In a potential unforeseen case where the website filename is the only name Nintendo provided, it will occupy the last 7th place in acceptable sources for naming (yes, even below the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia)
Redirects, on the other hand, is something I'm unsure about.
Proposer: Axis (talk) Deadline: August 24, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Support, use these names as redirects as well
MegaBowser64 (talk) No harm done by using redirects, unless we want to obliterate these names off the wiki.
Hewer (talk) Honestly, I still don't really get why the last proposal had so much vehement opposition just because "no one thinks these are the actual names". While that may be true, it's not like we're trying to make these the article titles - I'd obviously agree if that was the proposal, but I don't really see the harm of making a note of these on pages like we usually strive to do with all the official information we get. And I tend to support redirects for any names that have been officially used, since having more redirects is completely harmless - it's potentially helpful and never a hindrance, so again, I don't see a problem.
Mister Wu (talk) If we can distinguish them from the games’ internal names, I think that these names can be a nice addition to the pages.
Camwoodstock (talk) Since the original option was, evidently, not in-line with what we were expecting, this one seems at least closer with our original intent. While these should be low-priority due to their obscure nature, but there's no harm in acknowledging that they exist in the first place.
Support, but these names shouldn't be used as a redirect
Only cite them in case of no other source being available
Koopa con Carne (talk) I don’t know how often this might happen, but if a filename is the only source we can work with for a given name, it shouldn’t be discounted.
#Camwoodstock (talk) In the extremely unlikely case that the Nintendo website's data is the one, the only authority on a name, we may as well use it; otherwise, though, we can probably get away with discounting them. After all, these are names you'd only encounter by prodding at the site data.
#Koopa con Carne (talk) I actually think it's a good idea to cite web filenames as a recourse when absolutely nothing else comes in clutch, and I support mentioning the original filename of a wiki upload on its file page as it still defines the image in an official capacity, but the overall course of action proposed here still puts too much stock in this kind of material. Per some of the opposers to the previous proposal.
Comments
@Camwoodstock: Why is it that the obscurity of the names means we should ignore them? There's plenty of obscure content on the wiki, if anything it makes it more interesting to note them if it's obscure and not many people know about them. I don't understand why this proposal and the previous one were opposed with arguments along the lines of "too obscure, no one will see these" when that's never been a factor in anything else on the wiki to my knowledge. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:31, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Yeah, I was bewildered by this argument in the previous proposal too. It's nonsense, as the wiki already cites no shortage of material you'd normally have to look really deep into finding--and it seems weird to think a filename for an image that is readily available on Nintendo's website is somehow more obscure than a section in some '90s player's guide that is not sold anymore. However, I'll grant you that there are still some reasons to argue against the use of these filenames as sources of information, namely that those who help piece together promo material aren't obliged to demonstrate a staggering amount of professionality in the way they represent Mario concepts, and are not what you'd construe as an authority on such. -- KOOPACONCARNE 05:47, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
Indeed, hence why I don't think we should make these page titles or otherwise give them much credence, but noting them in trivia sections and the like seems like it should be fine to me as this is still official material, and it's certainly not like we usually tend to ignore promotional material like these websites. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:21, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
We should probably clarify that we specifically mean our vote in the sense of, if there is zero other authority for a name, we can use it as a last resort, as it is still a valid name. Not "discard" it as in "it gets ignored outright the moment more authoritative name arrives", heavens no! But if a more definitive name exists, it should get priority over the website name for stuff like, y'know, article names, while the website name can remain as a redirect if it doesn't conflict with anything. Apologies for not being very clear. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 22:39, August 20, 2023 (EDT)
So you agree with making redirects for the file names but are supporting the option to not create them? This just makes me more confused. The support options here aren't to regard these as a high source of authority, just to make them redirects and make a note of them on articles like we usually do with alternate names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:01, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
...Okay, now we're confused, OOPS. We voted that because we thought the option was to consider those a valid name, but only as the second-to-lowest priority, literally only beating out the Encyclopedia; as better names from higher priority sources follow suit, we follow our standard protocol from there. If that's not what the option meant (and it's seeming like there is, indeed, a semantic difference, but we wanna make absolutely certain first that's the case!), we can change our vote as need be. And, once again, sorry for the confusion. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:20, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
The option you voted for does not allow these files to be used as redirects, and the Enclyclopedia names would actually take priority over these weird web filenames. I should have made it clearer, but it's too late to edit the proposal now Axis (talk) 10:35, August 21, 2023 (EDT)
Axis (talk) Given a large amount of Mario themes present in this game, there is enough content to justify creating a full article on this game.
Ray Trace (talk) Tbh, we have an article for the Nintendo Badge Arcade even though it's a Nintendo game with the extent of Mario-related appearances being practically Mario-themed skins. This game appears to have more Mario-inspired content than that, and even comes with its own soundtrack (which is more than something like SSX on Tour and NBA Street V3). In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with), I'd say the changes are enough to warrant an article, especially with the high amount of Mario content it did receive.
Killer Moth (talk) Per Ray Trace. After thinking about it this makes sense.
Camwoodstock (talk) Was formerly on the fence, but after thinking about it, this really isn't out of the ordinary at all. In the interest of narrowing down any specific details, though, if we've got stuff like Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (a game that mostly features cameos and a few Mario items as pivotal game mechanics), Densetsu no Stafy 3 (a game that is otherwise linked to a single series, but has a full Wario Land 4 crossover level), and especially the aforementioned article on standard Tetris and Nintendo Badge Arcade, both of which feature as primarily cameos but have notable things beyond that (The Tetris cameos had a hand in later titles like Tetris Attack, and y'know, Badge Arcade has the multi-time niche fandom anomaly that is Crazy Galaxy), Tetris 99 fits just right in as another one of those guest appearances we can give some level of coverage.
Oppose
Hewer (talk) I think this is really stretching what can be considered a guest appearance. It doesn't have you playing as Mario characters like many of those examples do, and the Mario elements it features don't even directly affect gameplay or get interacted with, it's just skins based on other games that change visuals and sounds. I'd say it fits better on the list of references.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) per Hewer. I get that they are a lot of effort put in them, but it doesn't really modify the gameplay. Let, if the Tertis blocks were maybe replaced with Mario blocks, maybe? I mean, Just Dance was voted a guest appearance but that was because of the effort of the music videos. Even if I would agree with you, you don't try to explain how it is more than a skin. Because that's how it feels to me.
Comments
Please note that there was just a proposal that determined that the NES Tetris does not count as a full appearance or a guest appearance but rather a standard reference; it includes direct appearances of Mario, DK, Luigi, Bowser, and Peach outside of gameplay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:02, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
I think Art Style: PiCTOBiTS should be a good comparison for games that don't have playable Mario characters or interactible Mario elements.
How many themes/levels are Mario themed?
Are there sounds/music borrowed from the Mario games?
And most importantly, how much of a game do these levels/objects/themes occupy compared to non-Mario elements?
If the answers to these questions are comparable to Art Style: PiCTOBiTS, then we could say it is a guest appearance. Also take a look at the proposal Doc von Schmeltwick linked, as what is and isn't a guest appearance is very much up for debate. What do you think? Axis (talk) 12:10, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
For the last point, the Mario themes are only some in a plethora of themes based on Nintendo Switch games that are exclusively available in limited-time events, so I don't think it gets a great score there. And from what I can tell from its article (I haven't played the game), it seems like Pictobits does feature interactible Mario elements in the form of coins and POW Blocks. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:37, August 19, 2023 (EDT)
As resident Pictobits-head, we can vouch that you do in fact use Mario items to an extent (you can collect coins very obviously modelled off of SMB1, and there's the POW block as a mechanic). So, there's definitely a stronger argument for Pictobits over Tetris 99, as you can directly interact with both of those (you spend coins, and as mentioned, the POW is an outright mechanic of the game). ~Camwoodstock(talk) 22:37, August 20, 2023 (EDT)
In addition to the Super Mario elements already mentioned, Tetris 99 does actually feature Super Mario elements in gameplay. In the Super Mario Bros. level, Empty Blocks fill the bottom of the playing area when other players attack, and the player must destroy them with tetrominoes before they get too high. In the Donkey Kong level, the bottom fills with barrels. In the Super Mario All-Stars level, the bottom fills with Hard Blocks. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, the bottom fills with brick blocks. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, the tetrominoes themselves have Wario, Ashley, Young Cricket, Kat, 9-Volt, 18-Volt, and Mona on them. Further, in the Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario All-Stars levels, the player can earn up to four Super Stars when they defeat other players. In the Donkey Kong level, you earn Hammers. In the Luigi's Mansion 3 level, you earn Polterpups. In the Paper Mario: The Origami King level, you earn coins. In the Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury level, you earn Cat Shines. In the WarioWare: Get It Together! level, you heard the Golden Coin from Wario Castle. In the Mario Party Superstars level, you earn Stars. Tetris 99 also features several arrangements of Super Mario musical themes not heard in any other game. The Super Mario Bros. level features original arrangements of the "Ground Theme", "Shiro BGM", and the "Course Clear" themes, and the Donkey Kong features original arrangements of the "Game Start", "25m" and the "Hammer" themes. Additionally, the Luigi's Mansion 3, Paper Mario: The Origami King, Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Golf: Super Rush!, Warioware: Get It Together!, and Mario Party Superstars levels feature several original musical themes from each of their respective games, as well as a wide variety of Super Mario sound effects. ToxicOJ (talk) 16:43, August 23, 2023 (EDT)
@Ray Trace: "In context of the puzzle game (where there wouldn't be playable characters to begin with)" I beg to differ. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:55, August 23, 2023 (EDT)
Trim requirements for elemental creatures categories
tighten the second half 1-8-1
This proposal follows from the responses on Talk:Koopa Troopa#Water creatures. Currently, the requirements for these categories are for the subject to either be composed of an element or use it in some way, and more recently the latter has led to some arbitrary cases that may only be exclusive to one or very few games, for example Bowser is under Category:Poisonous creatures for some of his attacks in the first two Paper Mario games causing Poison, and Koopa Troopa is now under Category:Water creatures for a water-based animation in Mario Power Tennis. This proposal aims to ditch the second half of the requirement of these categories; only if the subject is clearly composed of the subject may the category be used.
PROPOSAL EDIT: Addition of another option to keep the second half but tighten it. This will lead to usage of the categories if the subject isn't composed of the element but is still strongly associated with it such as Bowser remaining categorised under Fire creatures for his fire breath, and one-off RPG enemies that cause status effects with these elements such as Poison Pokey and Flamin' Stooge.
Proposer: Swallow (talk) Deadline: September 16, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Ray Trace (talk) Honestly I'm iffy on the existence of these category at all since for example in the poisonous creatures category, they're either composed of creatures that can cause a poison status effect in RPGs or characters that can spit purple fluids. It spans across too many games of wildly different genres and idk, it just doesn't sound right at all when something like a Sniffle Thwomp occupies the same category as a Malboro.
Mario (talk) Categories should be reworked yeah. We should be calling several of the poisonous creatures "VENOMOUS". 😤
Do nothing
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I find it rather difficult to be "clearly composed of [poison]," myself. That category is primarily for things that cause the poison status effect, are mentioned as being poisonous in their name or description, or are capable of spitting poison projectiles. The only examples I can really think of are Poison Bubble, maybeMokura, and possibly some Pokémon. It also makes sense to have things that can cause the burn status to be listed as fire creatures, things that can freeze be listed as ice creatures, and so on and so forth.
Comments
If we go with simply tightening the second criteria, how would this affect Mini Goomba, which I brought up in the preceding discussion? Disregard this—I didn't notice the "one-off" in the proposal. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:12, September 9, 2023 (EDT)
What do you think should be defining terms for "tightening" the second half? Like, where would we draw the line? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:10, September 9, 2023 (EDT)
Mostly if it's an element the subject never uses outside of the game or series where it does, as has been brought up with Bowser and Koopa Troopa. Nightwicked Bowser 19:14, September 9, 2023 (EDT)
Do not delete templates 1-11
It's been four months since My last proposal to create interwiki templates to various wikis (like NIWA) has been declined, and the {{wp}} and {{fandom}} templates are still there. In fact, the Super Mario Wiki does not need these. Like Steve said, when the prefixes work just fine. If you don't want to type things twice, just do either [[wikipedia:Mario|]] or [[wikia:c:mario:Mario|]]; the following will work: Mario for Wikipedia and Mario for Fandom. Just like that!
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: October 2, 23:59 GMT
Axis (talk) Just because there is a relatively short alternative way, it doesn't take away from the fact that the template names are even shorter. Especially the Fandom one.
MegaBowser64 (talk) *cough* *sigh* "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Axis. The template names are already as short as they can get short of full-on one-letter templates of borderline incoherence, and we probably don't need to lengthen these names arbitrarily if anyone editing these already understands WP is Wikipedia and Fandom is... well, Wikia/Fandom. Besides, it saves time in inserting these links and in some extreme cases (read: basically any scenario involving Fandom articles) can even shrink the overall page size--both of those are very good things to have on particularly large articles!
Hewer (talk) Per all, these templates are some added convenience that have no reason to be removed, and having just two such templates that are commonly used and easy to remember is quite different to the labyrinth of abbreviations suggested in the previous proposal (not that I really feel very strongly either way about the inclusion of those other templates, I just don't see the need to remove the ones we already have).
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. I don't really see the point of doing this.
Dine2017 (talk) Per all. In addition, [[wikipedia:Mario|]] lengthens to [[wikipedia:Mario|Mario]] after the page is saved, creating more visual clutter when someone later edits the paragraph.
@Axis Doesn't that logic mean the previous proposal should have passed, though? The templates proposed there had shorter parameters to type out, but people decided it was unnecesary. Shouldn't the same apply here? S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 13:31, September 25, 2023 (EDT)
Well, {{wp}} and {{fandom}} are very commonly used and quite nifty interwiki link templates (the former because, well, it's Wikipedia, and the latter because it's the largest and most well-known wikifarm that hosts thousands of wikis: linking to a specific wiki on Fandom is in itself a bit complicated as it is, too). That whole laundry list of the previous proposal, though... they're mostly there just because they're NIWA wikis. Some of them, such as for Zelda Wiki and Nookipedia, make sense to have a template for, since Super Mario has some connections with Legend of Zelda or Animal Crossing, and thus interwiki links would be commonly used, but then there's those for Wapopedia, Dragalia Lost Wiki, and Kovopedia, which represent series that barely have any connection to Mario, and so is barely linked by this wiki, so in turn the template would barely be used as well. Not to mention it's a lot of suggested shorthands to keep track of. In such a case, it would be easier to just type [[kovopedia:Magical Vacation|]] whenever the one occasion we have to link to one of these games makes itself apparent rend(talk)(edits) 21:37, September 27, 2023 (EDT)
Do not rename articles until the relevant media has released
wait until release 15-3
What this proposal aims to enforce is that if a subject is confirmed to have a new name in an upcoming game, the article must not be moved to the new name until the game has released. A prime example is the recent situation with Psychopath, which the Nintendo of America Twitter account referred to as "Thought Peek" for the remake and the article was immediately moved, but was since moved back to Psychopath as it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name, so this proposal should also prevent jumping the gun like this. The new name can still be mentioned in the article, but as stated must not be the article title until the game's release regardless of source.
EDIT, PLEASE READ BEFORE VOTING: I get the feeling a lot of people are going to see this and completely misunderstand my motive here, I'm not saying that we should completely ignore or distrust all pre-release marketing, this proposal is solely aimed at returning subjects in games and if they are eligable for a rename, all I hope to accomplish is establishing a rule like with latest appearances and infobox images, in that the move doesn't happen until release. Obviously it would be impossible to apply this to new subjects and I would not try and halt the creation of those articles, any form of official pre-release marketing for those would be perfectly acceptable.
Proposer: Swallow (talk) Deadline: October 5, 23:59 GMT
Tails777 (talk) Not even just for games, content overall. Not to dig up old cases (and not to sound insensitive or anything), but we've jumped the gun before on upcoming content so I support the idea of waiting until everything is fully known before making any moves.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Doesn't seem like it could hurt, it's not like keeping the older name for a few months is the end of the world... Or is it?
Waluigi Time (talk) This seems sensible enough and consistent with how we generally handle upcoming media in other areas. Also saves us the headache of fixing things a second time if a pre-release name differs from the final product, which is always a possibility.
Herobrine (talk) Per all. Also there's always the chance of differences between American/British English localizations to take into account as well.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. As anyone acutely familiar with game development will tell you, things change mid-development, even (and in some cases especially) after promotional content says something about the game, all the time. And even if things don't change, all it takes is one blunder of cyclical reporting to accidentally trip people up anyways--remember God Slayer Bowser? Better safe and wait for the game to release than pre-empt it and get caught with our proverbial pants down if they walk back on it for whatever reason. And as Herobrine mentions, Nintendo has held different English translations between American English and British English for awhile now--who's to say this isn't another case of exactly that?
LinkTheLefty (talk) Let's just say that I have unfortunate reason to believe that the retranslation situation is in a way more precarious position than all of us would've liked, but since I really should not get into that here/now/ever, I'll just say "I agree it's a good idea to treat everything as a placeholder until release" and leave it at that. (Also, I thought this was already standard practice.)
Mister Wu (talk) Agreed, we can’t be sure of the final name until the actual release.
Oppose
Hewer (talk) I can understand not immediately moving based on one social media post, but this easily has the potential to just seem silly if a rename is ever made very clear in pre-release material. This would also create a bit of an inconsistency with pre-release material being acceptable for the names of new subjects but not returning ones. This should probably be case-by-case in my opinion.
PaperSplash (talk) I see no reason to distrust official social media and other pre-release marketing material in cases like these.
@PaperSplash I'm not saying to distrust official social media and pre-release marketing, I'm just saying to hold off from moving article titles until release like with latest appearances and infobox images. Nightwicked Bowser 15:56, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
Then why hold off? And apologies for misunderstanding, but I didn't know how else to interpret "it might not be a proper confirmation of a new name". It makes sense to wait until release for latest appearances, and while I don't necessarily agree with our current rule on infobox images I can see the reasoning for there, but I don't here. I don't think the DS Mario Circuit edit Tails777 cited is a good enough argument for a policy change across the board because Mario Kart Tour and the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass have a rather unique situation of having content released (and seemingly developed) concurrently. (Also said edit and the reason given for it in the edit summary feel rather contradictory to me...) This also isn't like God Slayer Bowser since we're dealing with an actual official source here. I'd also like to point out that Nintendo had largely put a stop to separate American English and British English localizations by the beginning of the Switch era; pretty much all the games that still have them separate are ports of games that already had them separate and are seemingly kept that way for consistency more than anything. (And even then, there have been exceptions like Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury where the original game's British English localization was discarded anyway.) The only comparable situation I can think of where the English localization ended up going back on a rename from pre-release to post-release is the Fishman ("Merman") spirit from Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (which didn't end up affecting us either way since it's not a Mario character, but I'll still concede on this). That's what we should be looking at if anything. PaperSplash (talk) 22:18, September 28, 2023 (EDT)
The Case of Donkey Kong 64 Sub-Areas
Do not split any sub-areas 4-0-5-0
While inquiring about the Prima name of what we are now referring to as the Temple with Five Doors (discussion here), I posed another question. Why are the Temple with Five Doors and Llama's Temple (both parts of Angry Aztec) the only level-specific areas of Donkey Kong 64 to have separate articles? They date back to 2012, which is old, but not stone age old. Either way, it doesn't really make sense to have articles for just these two. So you'd think the obvious solution would to just give articles to every other sub-area. After all, we have articles for stuff like Surf Cabana and Sand Cabana, so why not? Well, there is one problem: names.
Super Mario Odyssey went so whole hog with naming everything aside from a few "bonus areas" that I had to make a proposal to decide what we didn't want articles for. Donkey Kong 64... does not do this. Wrinkly Kong mentions a few of them in her hints, but often in generic terms, so we're forced to rely on guides for many of them. Even then, the guides don't name every sub-area, so there are still some missing links in the chain. Using conjectural names to fill in the gaps would open a can of worms regarding creating articles for other nameless sub-areas such as the pyramid in Shifting Sand Land or the volcano in Lethal Lava Land.
Only split named sub-areas: Simply put, we only split the sub-areas that would not require a {{conjecture}} template. This avoids the issue of setting a potentially troublesome precedent involving nameless sub-area articles, but creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope. The rather expansive but unnamed underground crypt in Creepy Castle would not get an article, but the very small "Silo" from that same level would, purely because it and not the former was named in a guide with a seemingly arbitrary policy for naming and capitalizing things.
Split everything: Every sub-area gets an article, even if we have to use some conjectural names. I've already mentioned the can of worms this would open, but there's also just the fact that some of these areas, such as the crusher room in Frantic Factory, are very small and only house a single Golden Banana. Others may also prove challenging to come up with good conjectural names for. It does, however, avoid the arbitrariness of "whichever ones we can cite a name for" dictating which ones get articles and which don't.
Don't split any sub-areas: We'd just cover them on the main level articles. Llama's Temple and Temple with Five Doors will be merged with Angry Aztec. This avoids both the arbitrariness and the nameless sub-area precedent. Of course, many of these sub-areas are fairly large and even have different music tracks, so it could be seen as losing something. However, not having articles for DK64 sub-areas isn't that illogical to me. DK64 doesn't have much lore or world-building like Sunshine or Odyssey do, and this is reflected in how the game doesn't really name its sub-areas much, with a lot of the names coming from low-effort guides. Therefore, it's easier to justify not having an article for the Llama's Temple than it would be for Hotel Delfino.
Keep the status quo: Is there a valid argument for only having the specific two articles we have now? I really don't see how there could be one.
A list of the sub-areas and which ones have known names is included in the linked discussion page above. Note that the only guides I can reference are Nintendo Power and the Banana Guide, so anything from Prima or other guides is beyond me. If anyone could chime in about these, it would be helpful. Crocodile Isle (Donkey Kong 64), Banana Fairy Island, and K. Lumsy's Prison will not be affected by this proposal. Also, I'm thinking that the Mechanical Piranha (from Gloomy Galleon) should get an article regardless of this proposal's outcome, since it is an active robotic construct and not "just another submap".
Proposer: 7feetunder (talk) Deadline: October 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Only split named sub-areas
Camwoodstock (talk) This is our primary choice, personally. If they bothered to get an official name, we might as well give them articles--or at the very least redirects, but, well, see our secondary option. This honestly wouldn't even be that much effort, as we don't believe there are too many named sub-areas as-is.
MegaBowser64 (talk) It's not like consistency is a universal quality of life, we don't need all the sub-areas in the same format, if we can split an area into its own article, why not??
Pseudo (talk) Seems like the most straightforward solution to me. Per Camwoodstock.
ToxicOJ (talk) Per Camwoodstock. If they got an official name, I think we should give them an article.
Split everything
Don't split any sub-areas
7feetunder (talk) To be honest, this is what I'm leaning towards, for the reasons I've given above and the flaws of both split options. I don't think this would result in bloated level articles either, since the two sub-area articles we do have aren't that long to begin with and many of these areas aren't as big as them.
Camwoodstock (talk) If that doesn't work out, we'd like to vote this with the caveat that we should retain redirects for named subareas, instead of a full-on deletion. We should also probably mention the official names for these sub-areas in the merged articles when it's appropriate to do so.
Ahemtoday (talk) In general, I don't think a guide should be our sole determinant for whether to split or merge an article, at least not in these sorts of situations. And any size-based criterion would be fuzzy and subjective, which is also something I think we should avoid.
Keep the status quo
Comments
Regarding the point in the proposal that splitting named sub-areas "creates some discrepancies regarding size and scope", I think that we should set the baseline standard that areas with an official name should get an article, but I don't think this should mean that there should not be articles for large areas without an official name. There wasn't really an option to reflect this exact position, so I voted for the first option as I feel it's the closest. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:52, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
It's not just the size and scope oddities that would arise from this, it's the fact that the guide that would largely be dictating what sub-areas get articles and which don't is, naming-wise, a complete mess. For example, the short, one-way tunnel in Angry Aztec (which is not even a sub-area) containing a Stealthy Snoop barrel is given a proper name by the guide (Quicksand Tunnel) even though there's no reason for it to have one, many names are very generic (with capitalization being the only reason they can be considered names at all), and several more expansive areas are not named.
Regarding your other points: while areas with official names do usually warrant articles, not all of them do. The Super Mario Odyssey proposal I mentioned above is a perfect example of such, since the game's unprecedented "name every Checkpoint Flag" policy is the only reason it was an issue to begin with. Another example would be Windswept Valley, a specific section of a Mario 64 level I have never seen anyone vouch for splitting. About making exceptions for sufficiently large areas: we could do that, but then how "large" does an area have to be to warrant a conjecturally-named sub-area article? And that just leads us back to the slippery slope flaw of the "split everything" option. 16:36, October 10, 2023 (EDT)
Rename "Latest portrayal" section in character infobox to "Notable portrayals"
leave as is 7-1-10
This is rather self-explanatory. Regarding the {{character infobox}} template, instead of simply listing one voice actor/actress in the infobox, I believe that the section should instead list others. Not all of them though, only actors who have portrayed the character enough times to become a recognizable name for the character in whatever OFFICIAL media they portayed them in, alongside their latest ones of course. In fact, the wiki kind of already does this with characters like Mario having Charles Martinet and Chris Pratt listed together (now with Kevin Afghani too). So I propose that we rename the section to "Notable portrayals" to make the section not quite as confusing/misnamed. of course the other option would be to enforce the "latest" part, and drop Chris and Charles from the section (on Mario's page at least) entirely, leaving only Kevin Afghani, since he would be the "latest" portrayal.
So to summarise:
Option 1: Rename it to "Notable portrayals" and include multiple VAs. For example; list Charles Martinet, Chris Pratt, and Kevin Afghani for Mario... maybe even Lou Albano and Bob Hoskins since they fit the hypothetical definition I gave earlier.
Option 2: Enforce the "Latest portrayal" part. For example, only list Kevin Afghani as Mario's VA.
Option 3: Do nothing.
Proposer: YoYo (talk) Deadline: October 20, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Rename the section
YoYo (talk) Other wikis handle it this way too, like Wikipedia.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes sense. If we're treating this section like a "notable protrayals" section in the first place (e.g. listing both Charles and Kevin in Mario's infobox), we should probably actually label it as such so people don't get confused in the future.
Pseudo (talk) Seems sensible to me especially since this section is already being used in this way, and it should help with wiki navigation more generally.
SeanWheeler (talk) Do we have to list only one voice actor? What if someone was curious about all the voice actors who voiced Mario? Charles Martinet had voiced Mario for thirty years, and now he's getting taken off the page because Nintendo just hired Kevin Afgani? That's only going to confuse readers into thinking Kevin voiced Mario for all these appearances when he only just started in Super Mario Wonder. We should list all the voice actors for readers who are curious.
Super Game Gear (talk) Martinet deserves to be recognized for his long-time role of voicing Mario, Luigi, and others, even post-retirement.
OmegaRuby (talk) Especially with the sudden, new change in voice actor for the two main characters in the entire franchise, I feel that changing 'latest portrayals' to 'notable portrayals' would be extremely beneficial and informative for newer fans of the series. There are readers, such as myself as a small child, who generally just look at the infobox or the first section of the article for information they need, and it would probably be overall beneficial for new Mario fans browsing the wiki to know about Charles, who portrayed Mario the most, as well as being the man who has the most roles as the same character in video game history without scrolling all the way down to his Portrayals section.
Don't rename it and enforce the "latest" part
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. Just doing the latest performance will make help to make sure the page is objective.
Leave it as it is
LinkTheLefty (talk) I don't think this is fixing anything that was too broken. The second option is ideal for streamlining the infobox, but there are probably going to be more times when the latest voice actor is uncredited or when it's a one-off or substitute. And what if we have another situation where there are multiple in-game voice actors concurrently playing the role anyway? Disclosure: I owe Charles a little favor so this may or may not be my extremely petty way of returning it.
7feetunder (talk) If even the proposer isn't sure what qualifies as "notable," it's probably not a good idea. It may be blatantly obvious to include Charles Martinet for Mario, but what about Princess Peach? Which of her numerous voice actresses are "notable?" How many times does a VA have to voice a character to be "notable?" Does appearing in The Super Mario Bros. Movie alone qualify you for "notable" status? Do VAs from the old cartoons count? I had previously voted for the second option as well, but LTL's vote and comments by Waluigi Time and especially ToxicOJ have led me to retract it. There are simply too many potential gray areas regarding the latest portrayal for me to support a strict enforcement of latest only. I vastly prefer LTL's below suggestion of simply listing all game portrayals in a collapsible section, which avoids the arbitrary qualifier of "notable" entirely.
Camwoodstock (talk) Thinking on it, we think we'd be alright with this as well--plus, as we've since gone over in comments, we do have an idea that we'd prefer over simply enforcing the "latest" part.
Waluigi Time (talk) What's considered a notable portrayal is going to be very subjective (there's already uncertainty about what could qualify in this proposal). Leaving only the latest portrayal keeps the infobox simple and streamlined, and the rest of the portrayals can be covered in a dedicated section. Also, having three VAs in Mario's infobox was the decision of one editor and as I'm writing this that list has already been narrowed down to just Kevin, so it's not really accurate to say we already do this. The movie was a special case since those were the latest portrayal, but obviously not intended to be replacements for the entire franchise going forward. (I originally voted for option 2, but the only difference between these is probably a misunderstanding by the proposer. Let's not needlessly split the vote.)
ToxicOJ (talk) There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. I understand arguments for both other options, but I am voting to leave it as it is because I think there are significant issues with both alternatives. Regarding option 1, I sympathize with the view that Charles should be recognized for his contributions, but changing the criteria to "notable portrayals" makes things much more subjective and leaves tons of room for gray area. Additionally, per 7feetunder, this may be an easy solution for Mario, but this proposal will impact ALL character pages, and the standard for "notable" VAs will be very difficult to determine for some characters. Regarding option 2, I agree with most of the arguments for this option, but per my comment I think a very strict interpretation of "latest portrayal" could lead to issues surrounding reused voice clips and game re-releases. Further, I think it is too early in Kevin's career as Mario to know how often Charles' voice will be reused, and we should be wary of making decisions surrounding this issue until this until the dust settles and this dynamic becomes clearer down the road. All of these reasons are why I think we should just leave things the way they are now. I also think that LTL's suggestion to list all portrayals is a great idea.
Mushroom Head (talk) Per all. If we have one VA recording new voice lines and another getting their previous ones used, then switching would be annoying and pointless. On the other hand, if no switching occurs, we use the latest one. Option 2 seems unnecessary to me.
Comments
We feel like defining a "notable" protrayal isn't all that hard, honestly--just kinda spitballing one way we could handle it, it could feature both the first portrayal*, and anyone who's played the character for some amount of time (be it in terms of chronology or in terms of games/media). The finer details and any exceptions (such as, say, putting Kevin in there despite him having only voiced one game thus far on the grounds that this was a formally-announced thing, or putting Chris Pratt in as his most recent film protrayal) could probably be determined at a later date in a future proposal (possibly one after this if "rename to notable" passes?)
...Of course, all of this is moot if we simply choose to enforce the "current voice" moniker in the first place, which we can definitely understand. We just wanna make sure people realize what they're doing when they say to do that and what that entails, in case it turns out down the road that the "simpler" option really, really wasn't for the best. Personally, failing what we mentioned above, we feel like if we had to limit it, the smartest option would be to simply have a "first protrayal/latest protrayal" thing like we do with the games*--just a little something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one.
* doing either of these would have the objectively hilarious side-effect of potentially putting either Harris Shore from a few TV ads or Pat McBride from Donkey Kong Goes Home, both of which have Mario performances so obscure they currently lack their own articles, in the infobox on the Mario page, seeing as the two of them seem to both be contenders for first voice in our admittedly cursory searches. which we would permit on the grounds that that is, in fact, notable, even if it's very funny to jumpscare people with that album in particular ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:13, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
What if we just limited the infobox to collapsible in-game portrayals, and made portrayals in other media its own optional section? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:25, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
I wouldn't be opposed to including the latest actors from each distinct form of media in the "Latest portrayals" section, ie. Kevin Afghani (video games, 2023-), Chris Pratt (The Super Mario Bros. Movie). User:Whitey (talk / edits) 14:48, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
That also works, though you do still definitely run into edge-cases when a media hasn't been represented in awhile. For example, do the DiC cartoons not count as the most recent animated series, so do we include Lou Albano? ...What do we do about Pat McBride, considering how much an outlier Donkey Kong Goes Home already is? This definitely runs the risk of cycling back to the "what does everyone else consider notable enough?", so we'd be fine with just keeping it to most recent overall portrayal, personally... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
"something to indicate that there are indeed more voices than just, the current one" - There doesn't need to be anything else to do this because that's what the latest portrayal field is for already. In cases where a character has only ever been portrayed by one person, the portrayed by field is supposed to be used instead (though latest portrayal is frequently misused for this). --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Come to think of it, this proposal might need to be restructured a bit. As I've already pointed out, the situation where Mario had three actors listed at the time this proposal was written was not based on any existing wiki standards and is no longer the case. I assume the leave as-is option was based on the assumption that this actually was standard. Otherwise, there's not much difference between the latter two options. Even though I voted for "enforcing" this, I'd be okay with having multiple actors listed at the same time if we get another TSMBM situation where what's technically the most recent portrayal clearly isn't meant to be across the entire franchise. Unless anyone is strongly opposed to that, it's unnecessarily splitting the vote when this could probably work fine as a standard support/oppose proposal.
As an aside, I have to wonder if we should be listing Kevin at all since Wonder hasn't released just yet. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 15:36, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
How would it be handled if a future game only uses old voice clips from Charles Martinet, such as a re-release like Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, or the remastered Mario & Luigi games? I feel like it would be strange to keep swapping back and forth between Charles and Kevin if we exclusively list the voice actor from the most recently released game. On a related note, how would the years active be listed if Charles' voice is reused in a future game? ToxicOJ (talk) 07:57, October 17, 2023 (EDT)
In a situation like that, it's probably better to keep the person who's actively doing the role listed than to keep switching it out over recycled clips. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)
@SeanWheeler: The information will still be there, there's a portrayals section further down the page that does list every person who has ever portrayed Mario for anyone who wants to see that. This proposal affects the listings in the character infobox and nothing else. That field also specifically says "latest portrayal" and lists the years, in this case 2023-present, so no one should be confused about it. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:43, October 19, 2023 (EDT)
A section for portrayals right in the middle of the page? I hadn't even noticed it before. But considering how many voice actors are on that list, I agree that the infobox should only have the notable portrayals such as Charles Martinet. The way he was listed in that section looks like he's been in only four games. Not many people would understand the dash between game titles as they would with years. SeanWheeler (talk) 23:45, October 20, 2023 (EDT)
Remove Creeper Launcher Link from Princess Daisy's Page
do not remove link 1-7
The top of Princess Daisy's page currently serves to point users in the correct direction in regard to content that may also contain the name Daisy. Linking to the film variant's page and the baby counterpart's page makes sense to me. Linking to a variant version of a Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon enemy that by definition is, "as the name implies, a Gobber with daisy flower designs all over him," doesn't seem justified. This character is hardly its own entity to begin with hence it being in a subcategory of the one it branches off from, and its relevance to anything beyond that seems extremely minor compared to a character like Princess Daisy. Unlike the other info it isn't even related to Daisy, and it is an extension of the Creeper Launcher, and a shallow one at that. Wario is a featured article, and it doesn't contain any such info clogging up the top of its page, even though it could arguably include anything from Baby Wario to Bwario and plenty more. At what point is there a line drawn in how much clutter and to what degree of relevancy content like this is defined? Hopefully this can serve as such a mark in the sand.
Arend (talk) The {{redirect}} template, which the Creeper Launcher page is being included to on Daisy's page, is there to link any possible page a visitor might be looking for when searching for a specific term, when said term is already a redirect to the page this template is applied to. It's very similar to the {{about}} template, in that both are meant to disambiguate in regards to similar terms, like a lot of disambiguation pages. This means that sometimes, pages that may have nothing to do with the subject that the template is applied to would have to be included because they share the exact same name. That's the point of the template. The Gobber with the daisy pattern is named "Daisy", and there might be someone that may be looking for such a thing, though it would be very unwise to made the page "Daisy" a redirect to a section on Creeper Launcher when the much more well-known Princess Daisy, also referred to as "Daisy" exists. Hence why the Creeper Launcher page is on the Princess Daisy page; it's for disambiguation purposes.
Camwoodstock (talk) Admittedly, there doesn't feel like there's anything inherently wrong with this due to just how generic the word "Daisy" is. Though, it also doesn't help that, like it feels like a lot of things lately, Nintendo seems keen to throw us a curveball with the upcoming Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon 2 remake coming to Switch... Which seems to be once again not using the NoA names as a basis. Not that it'd seemingly matter much in this case, as it as originally named Daisy in Japanese as well, but then with the retranslations happening for the SMRPG characters... Yeah, this feels like a largely pointless removal that'd only serve to confuse things. We, admittedly, couldn't find the full policy on "See also"s on the start of the article, but from what we could gleam it's generally accepted to try to retain more links than it is to remove them unless it is well and truly silly to do so (such as the infamous Flat Zone, see also Flab Zone--literally only existing to seemingly catch typos.)
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. How come Wario's article only has one redirect though?
Koopa con Carne (talk) Reader searches "Daisy" on Mario Wiki in hopes of finding more about the Luigi's Mansion enemy, but gets redirected to Princess Daisy's page instead because she's the more popular character. The link at the top of the page is handy because it leads this particular reader to their intended goal.
Pseudo (talk) Per all, particularly the scenario cited by Koopa con Carne. Even if this is an obscure boss variation, it's still legitimately called "Daisy" and should be navigable to by the usual methods, regardless of how much more prominent Princess Daisy is.
SeanWheeler (talk) Until we have a Daisy (disambiguation) page, might as well link to the other "Daisy" pages on top of her page.
Comments
This should be a talk page proposal in Daisy's talk page. Nightwicked Bowser 16:19, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Yes, this should be moved to Talk:Princess Daisy; Proposals on the MarioWiki:Proposals page should only feature proposals that affect multiple articles, yet this proposal only affects one article. rend(talk)(edits) 16:20, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Ehh, we've seen a few proposals that would otherwise only impact one page end up here just because they would hold a precedent for future articles. It's not that too big a deal, admittedly. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:10, October 14, 2023 (EDT)
Reconsider mainline status of Super Mario Maker, Super Mario Maker 2, and Super Mario Run
leave as is 5-16-0-10
Hi, we're doing this again! As you may or may not know, back in 2018, I ran a successful proposal to get the wiki to consider Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run as entries of the mainline Super Mario series. Based on the sources and information I had at the time, the decision felt sound, and the wiki's userbase agreed. However, in the five years that have passed since then, new information has come to light that has led to me reconsidering my opinion on the subject in regards to Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run.
For starters, my main source on this argument came from Nintendo's official timeline page, which alongside the games most commonly agreed to be mainline, included Maker and Run. In the time since, this page has been updated, and with the inclusion of games that are unambiguously re-releases of existing games, such as New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, it raises the question of if this is a reliable list of "distinct entries in the mainline Super Mario series" at all. Additionally, in official dev interviews released in the buildup to the release of Super Mario Bros. Wonder, Wonder is treated as the first mainline 2D Mario game in 11 years, with both Maker games being brought up as if they're something else entirely. I could also bring up the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, which treats Maker as a spin-off as well.
So, if being on Nintendo's official timeline doesn't necessitate a game being a distinct mainline entry, and official material from Nintendo treats the Maker and Run games as spin-offs, then should we still include them as mainline entries in the Super Mario series? Under this proposal, the Makers and Run would be treated as "Related games" in a similar vein to Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and New Super Luigi U, and would be excluded when numbering the mainline Mario series (Wonder would be treated as the 19th mainline game rather than the 22nd). It would also, somewhat annoyingly, lead to us having to reorganize the "History" section for pages on a bunch of characters, objects, and enemies, so apologies in advance.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I've done extensive research on the subject of which games people consider to be part of the mainline series, and while there isn't anything close to a total consensus, most people do agree that the Maker games and Run are not mainline.
Camwoodstock (talk) That makes sense to us. If Nintendo's stopped really considering the Makers and Run as mainline games as of Wonder's release, it probably seems only fair to stop counting them ourselves. Especially seeing as people already don't really treat them as mainline games if The Video Essay You've Probably Seen By Now If You're A Longtime User Of This Wiki That Was Linked Above™ is to be trusted.
Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal. Run is an auto-runner game rather than a regular platformer, and Makers are not centered around the builtin levels but rather around user-created levels.
Change nothing, keep all three games as mainline
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The confusion here stems from conflating the overall Super Mario series with the specialized Super Mario Bros. subseries, which is made up of the various 2D games starring Mario and Luigi (ie, omitting the Land, Maker, and Run games, as well as, of course, the 3D games). I have the bones of a page for a SMB series article here.
Hewer (talk) Per all, plus these games were considered part of the series in 35th anniversary stuff, so I think the official stance is clear. And as much as I like the video the supporters bring up, what fans say isn't a valid argument, see Blue Shell.
DrippingYellow (talk) Per Doc. I'd also like to point out that "entirely new" Mario games as mentioned in the interview could very well exclude the Mario Maker series, since their game styles are all derived from earlier Mario games. Either way, what exactly is "mainline" is not determined by the developers, but by Nintendo themselves (i.e. Miyamoto saying Zero Mission isn't a mainline Metroid game wouldn't mean anything). I don't feel like recent re-releases being placed on the list devalues that in any way. (I neglected to mention when I first wrote this comment that there's a good reason why Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia seems to treat Super Mario Maker like a spinoff: both the game and the book were released as a tie-in for Mario's 30th Anniversary (little over a month between them), it makes perfect sense that the Encyclopedia would cover it separately.)
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) I mean, it's too early to tell if Nintendo is actually going reconsider these games as a spin-offs. It's a trick business, because there's the series and franchise, but this is far too early to make a judgement. Also, the way encyclopedia treated Mario Maker was more the recent game released at the time. I mean, who knows. A new book could exclude these games, but given the situation right now, this is the safest option.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Doc; they're stating in the interview that Wonder the first new 2D game in the Super Mario Bros. series since NSMBU. Mario Maker and Mario Run aren't Super Mario Bros. titles, but they are Super Mario titles, as listed on the American Mario site. There's a distinction. Also not sure how Some Guy's "extensive research" has any relevance here; it's a survey with a sample constituting like, what, 0.001% of Mario fans? Fan opinion is not taken into consideration on this wiki anyway, unless it's confirmed to act as a significant backdrop for a decision by Nintendo.
Conradd (talk) Let's wait and see what Nintendo thinks of these games in the future before making a decision.
Mateo (talk) This shouldn't even be discussed in the first place. Like it was mentioned before here and in other pages, Super Mario Bros. Wonder is officially (and consistently: https://www.nintendo.com/us/whatsnew/nintendo-direct-june-2023-recap/https://store-jp.nintendo.com/list/software/70010000068687.html even in said interview) considered the first Super Mario Bros. game (or full-fledged/traditional game, it means the same distinction) since New Super Mario Bros. U but all of them are officially considered mainline games and are listed as such in official sites (and the ports are virtually the same game so of course they'd include them). The encyclopedia is not a reliable source and it's outdated, as seen in its own page. We all should follow the facts, not personal preferences. Unless their status is officially changed (which is unlikely), this is the way it should be. Also Per all other reasons.
ExoRosalina (talk) Per all for some reason; because I think Run, Mario Maker series could consider as mainline
Arend (talk) Per all. Considering the Land, Run and Maker games as spinoffs to the Super Mario Bros. subseries should be fine enough, and I think that's what Nintendo meant when not including these games when stating Wonder is the latest Super Mario Bros. game since New U.
Sparks (talk) I thought it over now and I say that Super Mario Run plays like a traditional Mario 2D game, although on mobile instead of consoles. Like what I said in my comment below, I think the Mario Maker games are just sandbox games, and thus I don't consider them mainline Mario games. Super Mario Run is the normal Mario gameplay, and thus I think it is a mainline Mario game.
Seandwalsh (talk) Per Sparks. Super Mario Run has pretty consistently been considered mainline despite what many fans arbitrarily want to believe. Since the Super Mario Maker games have become their own beast I think their status is a little more up in the air.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. Super Mario Run is platforming, no matter what you want to call it, so it should be main series. Mario Maker features drastically different, non-platforming gameplay at its core, so it should not be main series.
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all. The Maker games are less games and more tools or platforms to create games. Although a story mode is present, it mostly serves as one big ideas book for people to take notes from, as levels are made in the editor with items all available to the player, save a few.
Personally, I think the Mario Maker games are just games where players around the world could share and post levels online (I know Mario Maker 2 had a story mode but still), but Super Mario Run is different. It's not a sandbox game and has worlds, levels and many playable characters. I'm kinda leaning towards keeping Run as a mainline Mario game, but I'll think it over first. Sparks (talk) October 31, 2023, 12:46 (EDT)
It's worth noting that Nintendo is extremely inconsistent with regards to which games are part of this series, and that this wiki already doesn't use the exact set of games found in official sources as its definitive list. There isn't an "objective" answer here; any decision for how to classify the games in this series will be a decision. Attempting to reach a definitive answer that isn't based on fan interpretation is literally impossible. Categorically, everyone here is a fan, and we are interpreting things. There's no way around that. Even if you point to one specific list Nintendo has used and say "yes, this is the definitive Canonical list of mainline Super Mario games", the choice to prioritize that source over other sources would itself be subjective fan interpretation. JanMisali (talk) 17:07, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
The whole wiki could technically be considered fan interpretation, but that's fine if it's fan interpretation of official sources, not fan interpretation with no official basis (e.g. "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because Nintendo never counts it as such" is fine, "Hotel Mario isn't mainline because most people don't think it is" is not). Anyway, I don't think I'd say Nintendo's stance is extremely inconsistent - the only differences I notice between the current official websitelists are that the Japanese version has The Lost Levels, Mario Maker 3DS, SMB 35, and Wonder while the English one doesn't. The two Maker games and Run are always considered part of the series in these official sources, so even if the wiki's current list is inaccurate (I've honestly started considering reclassifying Mario 35 while writing this comment), the games concerned by this proposal aren't part of that inaccuracy. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:27, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
There are, however, more than just those two sources. I think "Super Mario Run isn't mainline because the developers of Super Mario Bros. Wonder don't consider it to be mainline" is just as valid as "Run is mainline because there's a website that puts it in the same list as the mainline games and some but not all reissues of mainline games". Which source you prioritize is entirely a matter of opinion, at which point I think what the most common opinion happens to be can absolutely be a relevant deciding factor. JanMisali (talk) 18:38, October 31, 2023 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: Question: Would you consider the Run and Maker games, and maybe even the Land games, spinoffs of the Super Mario Bros. subseries? All of them feature 2D platformer gameplay in the same vein as other Super Mario Bros. games (in fact, they all feel closer as Super Mario Bros. titles than even Super Mario Bros. 2), with Run in particular featuring the same style of graphics and similar music as New Super Mario Bros. U, and Maker in particular featuring four gameplay styles based directly on four Super Mario Bros. games. I personally feel it would be wrong to not consider them Super Mario Bros. titles (or at least Super Mario Bros.-adjacent titles) purely because there's no "Bros." in the title. Keep in mind that we have dozens of Mario spinoffs despite the main series and franchise as a whole being called Super Mario, and that 90% of these spinoffs don't include "Super" in front of "Mario" in each title, so the full "Super Mario Bros." name having to be in the title shouldn't be the deciding factor IMO. I understand that you might think this has little to do with the proposal itself, but I feel this is also relevant to your vote, since you brought your concept for a Super Mario Bros. subseries page up there. rend(talk)(edits) 19:29, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
The Super Mario series and Super Mario Bros. series share the same first four games, so by definition anything exclusive to the former is a spin-off of the latter. The reason the Super Mario Bros. series was brought up was to explain why the Wonder devs considered it the first Bros. game since NSMBU. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:56, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
Until the statement from the Wonder devs, I included Run as well. The Maker series would count, except 2 has the Super Mario 3D World style, which is of course part of the Super Mario 3D subseries instead. As for how they'd relate to each other, I'd consider Land/3D/Maker/Run to be derivative of Bros., but not direct subseries of it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:04, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
I get where you're coming from about this Super Mario and Super Mario Bros. subseries distinction Doc, but bringing all of this up raises a very important question to me, which is... where did you get your list of Super Mario Bros. games from? It feels weird to me to make a point about how "fan interpretation doesn't matter" in the context of deciding which games are mainline, only to include in your counterargument... a list of games that, as far as I am aware, is largely derived from your own interpretation. We can infer that Nintendo has acknowledged the existence of a Super Mario Bros. subseries, and that Maker and Run are not part of it but U and Wonder are, but past that, any decisions we'd make are largely based on conjecture. Yeah, it's reasonable to assume that if U is part of the series, then so are the other three New Super Mario Bros. games, but without an official statement, can we really be certain? For all we know, the title New Super Mario Bros. 2 could be treated as proof that New Super Mario Bros. Wii shouldn't count. WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
There's this list of nine Super Mario Bros. games, but (if Google Translate is to be trusted) the wording implies that they're just examples and it's not an exhaustive list. Regardless, what matters to the proposal is that the Maker and Run games are Super Mario but not Super Mario Bros. What else is in the SMB series is irrelevant, and it's also not something that's even covered in the mainspace as far as I'm aware. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Pretty sure Blhte confirmed that was simply a list of random side-scrollers Mario's been in. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Amittedly, this is very silly, and we know for a dang fact this is not what Doc Von meant by this--this is just us bringing it up for the sake of being as thorough as possible, even to a highly illogical extreme. But it is worth noting that, uh, defining what counts as a mainline Mario platformer as hinging entirely on the inclusion of the word "Bros" not only leads to weird exclusions such as the two Lands, but... um... somerathersillyinclusions, to put it lightly. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 21:12, November 2, 2023 (EDT)
But of course; I'm only talking about the side-scrolling platformers based around Mario (and usually Luigi). Granted, I was the one who wanted to include Super Paper Mario and Super Mario Kart as "related" games to the Super Mario series, so maybe it's not so far off of a comparison after all :P Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:49, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I feel obligated to ask this: what other lists of mainline Mario games have been made by Nintendo over the years? Genuinely not sure where else Nintendo has addressed this. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:55, November 1, 2023 (EDT)
I kinda feel the need to draw attention to a pretty major point I made in the proposal, which is "How much can we really trust the Nintendo of America Super Mario Website as a canonical list of which games should be considered mainline?" This list excludes Super Mario Bros: The Lost Levels, includes Super Mario 3D All-Stars but not Super Mario All-Stars, treats recent rereleases like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe as distinct entries, but not earlier ones like Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3. I get the impression what we're seeing is less "canonical Nintendo-approved list of which games should be counted as distinct mainline entries" and more "Nintendo is a corporation that wants to promote their recent titles and is throwing in anything recent that vaguely falls under the Super Mario banner". Like, I don't know how bold a stance this is, but I don't think it's completely out of the question that a game can be a Super Mario game without being a mainline entry. (Hi Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island!) WayslideCool (talk) 10:25, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
The list is ordered by US release date, so it makes some sense that they would exclude The Lost Levels because of its weird release history outside Japan. The Japanese version of the site, ordered by Japanese release date, does have The Lost Levels. And ports are all listed separately on the Super Mario (series) article anyway because that's just how the series pages are organised. The official list being used to promote games does not change the fact that it is Nintendo's official list of Super Mario games, and also isn't a reason that we should discount specifically Maker and Run any more than it's a reason we should discount the Land games or the 3D games or whatever else we feel like excluding. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Well, we did decide that Bowser's Fury and Maker for 3DS go in the "Ports, remakes, and compilations" category, despite it being arguable that both games could very well count as full sequels. And yet Super Mario Bros. 35, which again is on the same list of games without any distinction being made between it and other titles, doesn't count as a mainline entry or a reissue? I'm not suggesting that strictly adhering to Nintendo's apparent classification of these games would be better than the way we're doing it now, but we definitely are currently already discounting a few games entirely on the basis that Nintendo's classification of them doesn't make sense. JanMisali (talk) 11:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
You do have a point with Mario 35 like I mentioned earlier, but if there are discrepancies between our classification and Nintendo's, I think the solution is to fix them rather than use that as a reason to become even less accurate. Also, how exactly could those ports be considered "full sequels"? A port with new content is still a port and still falls under that section, I really don't see how there's an argument to be had there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:14, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Playing devil's advocate here, Bowser's Fury is a completely new game that just happens to also include a port of a previous game. Maker for 3DS, while mechanically nearly identical to Maker, has completely original levels, making its single-player "campaign" exactly as different as, say, The Lost Levels is from Super Mario Bros. Is that enough of a reason to justify actually calling them mainline entries? No, but it is enough, I think, to question exactly how objective the reasoning currently being used to disqualify a handful of the games on "the official list" really is. Clearly, not all of the games on this list "really count" as mainline Super Mario games, and it's not as simple as just pointing to some of them and saying "okay, these are reissues, so they go somewhere else". JanMisali (talk) 12:47, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
In the case of the ports specifically, I don't think it's really an argument of mainline vs. not. Note how in history sections on the wiki (Blooper for an example), the "Super Mario series" section covers ports as well since they're considered part of the series (this is even true for things that appeared in the ports but not the original like Toadette). They're listed separately in series pages and navboxes just because it's important for organization to distinguish between entirely new games and re-releases of old ones. And I still don't think the fact of them being ports is really up for debate - Bowser's Fury and the pre-made levels in Mario Maker aren't standalone games so they can't be counted separately from the ports. To get back to the topic of the proposal, I still don't see a good enough reason to distrust the official list and decide that we should exclude specifically Maker and Run. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:28, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I think whether a game counts as mainline or not boils down to platforming. This is the core of the mainline Mario series. And in the case of the Mario Maker games, platforming is not at the core of it. The central concept, the critical quality of these games, is creating levels. Sure, platforming is a part of it, but say you open up one of the games for the first time. You've already played most of the 2D Mario games, and you're excited to see what this game has to offer. You don't go into course world and start playing levels, you explore the new, central concept of the game: Making levels. That's why it's called Super Mario "Maker" and not Super Mario Player. Sure, you can play user-created levels, but how would you be able to do that without users creating levels?!? Think about it. Users create levels, users play user-created levels. If it weren't for the creating aspect of the game, there would be no game! BOWSER... (talk) 10:49, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Platforming is still a very central part of the Mario Maker games, you can't make levels without playing them and playing other people's levels in Course World is also a major aspect of the games (not to mention the pre-made levels they all have). But more importantly, what you personally think makes a game mainline isn't what matters - what matters is that Nintendo officially considers them to be mainline games. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:02, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Per Hewer. While it's true that level creation is a core aspect and the whole point of the Super Mario Maker games, it should be noted that platforming is just as important, since, well, you'd be platforming in the levels that were created. If it wasn't important, why give the option to play those levels in the first place? Why does the creator need to test the levels in order to ensure they're fully playable before submitting them online? Why would there be a separate mode in which players can play a collection of random levels created by other players, which unlocks an extra goodie when completed every time? Not to mention that the back of the box notes three points: Play, Create, Share; and also lists the slogan "Everyone can play it, anyone can make it". Also, the levels can be styled after one of four Super Mario Bros games, and even Super Mario 3D World in the sequel, and all styles look, sound, and play almost identical to the original games. The Maker games use five core Super Mario games as a core part of its core aspect; it's basically a core Super Mario platformer through and through with a level editor. rend(talk)(edits) 13:17, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Fair enough. Just as a thought though, I see the Mario Maker games as more of an adaptation of previous games, using older content as a tool to create a new gameplay mechanic. It barely has any new content in terms of what can be used in future games, and is basically just "squash a whole bunch of old stuff together and throw in a level editor". Another point to be made is the lack of actual content created by Nintendo in the Mario Maker games. Sure, they made some levels, but it's just like in Geometry dash where no one really plays the official levels. Just because of the massive differences between the Mario Maker games and the average 2D Mario game, I think it should be a spin-off. I'm not saying there aren't tons of similarities, it's just that the similarities aren't overly prominent. BOWSER... (talk) 14:44, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
ThereareenoughoriginalthingsintheSuperMarioMakergamestogivethemtheirownidentity (certainly not "barely any" no matter how you slice it, probably not far off from how many things some of the NSMB games introduced and definitely more than The Lost Levels introduced). And your claim that there is a "lack of actual content created by Nintendo" isuntrue. And "massive differences" also isn't much of an argument when this is the same series that includes both Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Odyssey. But again, most importantly, how you see the games doesn't matter, how Nintendo sees them does. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:11, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
i rest my case --BOWSER... (talk) 21:21, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Make coverage of playable Toads and playable Yoshis consistent with each other
merge Blue Toad and Yellow Toad into a shared article 2-9-13-1-3
Currently, this wiki has separate articles for Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. series) and Blue Toad (character), but does not have separate articles for the different color Yoshis that are playable in Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder, instead covering them all under the Yoshi (species) article. This inconsistency is a little bit silly, as there isn't really anything that differentiates the Toads that couldn't also be said about the Yoshis. While I don't have a particularly strong preference for how this should be changed, I do think it would be a good idea for this to be changed to become more consistent.
Here are what I consider to be the main options for how to resolve this inconsistency:
Create new articles for all the different color Yoshis. These would not, for example, discuss every light-blue Yoshi, but only the specific character named Light-Blue Yoshi who is playable in Super Mario Bros. Wonder. This would be analogous to how the articles about the playable Toads are written.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the Toad (species) article. This would be analogous to how the playable Yoshis are currently covered.
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into one singular "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" article, and leave the coverage of Yoshis as-is. (Creating a separate article for all the different color playable Yoshis collectively would be more consistent, but is also a bad idea.)
Merge the Yellow and Blue Toad articles into the main Toad article, and move the coverage of the different color playable Yoshis into the main Yoshi article. That is, treat these characters purely as variations of Toad (character) and Yoshi (character), like Pink Donkey Kong Jr. or players 3 and 4 from Mario Bros. (Game Boy Advance).
Personally, I think of these the third option is the most sensible, and would be the least disruptive.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: November 7, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Create new articles for individual playable Yoshis
Tails777 (talk) This has always been a goal for me. Multi colored Yoshis have had consistent playable appearances and consistent differences across multiple games. Beyond just Super Mario Run and Super Mario Bros. Wonder and regardless of whether or not this option covers such things, this is the step I'd rather take.
SeanWheeler (talk) I would prefer individual pages of every character that exist over merged pages of duos.
Merge Yellow Toad and Blue Toad with Toad (species)
Somethingone (talk) Primary choice; I agree this situation is the same as the colored Yoshis, but I don't necessarily think that splitting a member solely because they are playable is a good rule to follow. There's little indication that the two toads are unique beyond them being playable.
Blinker (talk) Per proposal, I agree that something should be merged here. Considering they've been collectively referred to as "Toad" in U Deluxe and the Wonder direct, I think this makes more sense than the "Yellow Toad and Blue Toad" option. Not sure about the character/species distinction though. The line between the two pages feels quite arbitrarily drawn, for the most part, but there are instances of both playable and non-playable Toads in the character article, so if playability isn't the criterion, might as well play along with the Toad article's being written as though it's about an individual, I guess.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per proposal, this is probably the closest to what I want in the long run.
Okapii (talk) I don’t mean to diminish the amount of effort and care that went into the pages for Blue and Yellow, but tbh I just don’t think there is enough merit to warrant these two having their own pages, or even a shared one. Taking a look at the talk pages for both shows that there has been confusion for years as to what even constitutes an appearance for these two, because they are so generic in design, personality (or lack thereof), and ability.
Camwoodstock (talk) Seeing as we nixed unique articles for each individually colored Yoshi long ago, this definitely makes more sense to us. We don't really have a dedicated Green Toad article, so these two having articles feels like a remnant of a long-bygone era of the wiki.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) omekapo jelo Toad en laso Toad, mi wile ken sina. Jokes aside, I initially thought of the idea of merging to two into their own article as a duo, but the more I thought about it, it's actually debatable on whether or not Nintendo has made any distinction on who is exactly the Yellow or Blue Toad in many games. I know it's a controversial stance, but the same issue applies to Birdo and Boom Boom. Whenever Nintendo puts these characters in a game, they don't make it very clear on who the Birdo or Boom Boom is. Compare them to Toad, Lakitu, and Kamek in comparison totheirspecies. There's enough information to tell the characters and species apart here. In this case, we are talking about two colors with flat personalities. I'm not going to deny that Nintendo wasn't trying to make these Toads special, but with the advent of tons of Toad colors in other Super Mario games, there's almost a level of speculation on who the actual Yellow or Blue Toad is. Both colors appear in the Mario Baseball games and there is even another Yellow Toad in the Toad Brigade. That one in particular has a unique Japanese name while the two Toads are actually given genericJapanese names (if only they went for Bucken-Berry and Ala-Gold). Super Mario Maker 2 also has a Blue Toad in Mario's construction crew and Nintendo doesn't specify if he's the same dude. I don't agree with merging these with the Toad character, because the Toad modifier only really applies to one game and in that case, the generic instance of "Toad" in that game while probably intentionally meant to reference the Toad, was really an attempt to merge these characters into one. I mean, it's not like we're missing out on that detail. So until Nintendo starts to
LadySophie17 (talk) This makes the most sense to me, like other character pairs that have appeared in the series.
Seandwalsh (talk) Second choice. Only option that makes sense of the ones proposed. I would just oppose any change but nobody’s backing that horse.
Hewer (talk) Funnily enough I was planning on a proposal to get rid of the identifiers on the Yellow Toad and Blue Toad articles before this one started. Anyway, the two always appear together and seem to be considered the same character in NSMBU Deluxe, so a merge makes sense the more that I think about it.
Tails777 (talk) Secondary option. These two Toads normally appear in the same games at the same time with the same roles. I'd argue they're more deserving of shared articles than Ashley and Red were (even if they are split now)
Archivist Toadette (talk) Sure, let's do this. I'm not a fan of the "New Super Mario Bros. series" identifier anyways, since it's technically a sub-series, but that's a discussion for another time.
Waluigi Time (talk) They have enough of a significant role that I don't think we should just be burying them in the Toad species article, but there's not really anything you can say about one that you can't say about the other, so this seems reasonable enough.
7feetunder (talk) I had already suggested this on Yellow Toad's talk page previously, and would have eventually proposed the merge myself had this proposal not been made first. Yellow Toad and Blue Toad appear in the exact same games and have the exact same role in each one, so much so that some of their article sections are nearly word-for-word identical. The only thing that really sets them apart is their color.
Clarify and expand coverage of recurring musical themes
passed 10-2
Before we get into the proposal, let me lay out some helpful definitions for terms I will use.
Definitions
Another Game: A game that is neither the original game nor a remake of the original game.
Any Form of a Theme: The original version, an arrangement, a past arrangement, a remix, a past remix, a vocalization, or a past vocalization of a theme.
Appearance: The inclusion of any form of a theme in a piece of media, either in its entirety or only a part.
Arrangement: A new rendition of a theme that features different instrumentation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, or timbre than the original version. It can be a rendition of the theme in its entirety or a rendition of only a part of the theme.
Media: Games, remakes of games, movies, TV shows, albums, official live performances, sheet music books, etc.
Original Version: A theme as it was originally heard in its very first appearance with no audible alterations. It can be the original version in its entirety or only a part of the original version.
Original Game: The game in which a theme appeared for the first time.
Past Arrangement / Past Remix / Past Vocalization: An arrangement/remix/vocalization that debuted in a previously released piece of media.
Remix: The original version of a theme that is modified by changing the tempo or pitch or adding new percussion/beats, but it can still be recognized as a variation of the original version and not an entirely new rendition.
Remake: For the purposes of this proposal, a "remake" refers to a remake, port, re-release, or remaster of a game.
Theme: A recognizable musical idea that encompasses melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, or timbral elements. Can be either a musical composition or a sound effect.
Vocalization: A rendition of a theme that is hummed, sang, or otherwise vocalized without instruments. (Includes a cappella renditions)
This proposal that passed back in 2018 created the groundwork for the creation of articles about recurring musical themes. I think that this was a great first step in establishing coverage of a very important aspect of the Super Mario franchise. However, I feel that the standards it set need some improvements and clarifications. This proposal set the following standard for what qualifies a theme for an article: “the theme must be renditioned in at least 8 games, not counting remakes or reissues.” The term “renditioned” has been interpreted to mean that the game includes an entirely new arrangement. It doesn’t make sense to limit what counts as an appearance to entirely new arrangements, because whether or not a theme is “recurring” has nothing to do with it being an arrangement, a past arrangement, or the original version. For example, a theme that has been included in exactly 8 games, each featuring an arrangement, would qualify for an article as a recurring theme. However, a theme that has been included in 20 games, but only 6 of those feature arrangements, would not receive an article as a recurring theme. It doesn't make any sense to say the the first theme is recurring but the second one is not. Additionally, I think that we should include appearances in other pieces of media, such as The Super Mario Bros. Movie, rather than just limiting it to strictly games.
For these reasons, I propose this new standard to be used going forward: For a recurring theme to qualify for an article, it must appear in at least 8 pieces of Super Mario-related media. Appearances of the theme in retro services do not count towards the threshold requirement.
Appearances that do not count towards the article creation threshold should still be noted that within the recurring theme's article, such as appearances in retro services and non-Super Mario-related media.
Here are examples of what would and would not count towards the “8 pieces of media” threshold under this framework:
Counts towards the threshold:
Any form of a theme in the original game.
Any form of a theme in a remake of the original game.
Any form of a theme in another game.
Any form of a theme in a remake of another game.
Any form of a theme in any other type of Super Mario-related piece of media.
Doesn't count towards the threshold:
Any form of a theme in a retro service.
Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media.
Proposer: ToxicOJ (talk) Deadline: November 10, 2023, 23:59 GMT
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) I agree. Then again, there are 1-ish things that don't make sense. If remakes aren't counted for the "8 pieces of media" threshold, then shouldn't Super Mario All-Stars and/or Super Mario 64 DS not count? (NOVEMBER 6 2023 EDIT: I looked at the revised version of this proposal, and I still support.)
MegaBowser64 (talk) Sounds good. Sonic123's remark makes sense though, there should be a very clear-cut line for remakes.
Camwoodstock (talk) You could probably also change the whole "8 instances" line to say "8 unique instances" and then define what counts as a unique appearance of the song, rather than trying to mesh it all together like this (our brain kinda melted trying to read this at first... we blame a toothache ;P), but we definitely think cleanly defining what counts as a new instance of a song rather than just it appearing in another port is very handy to have, and is something sorely missing.
Conradd (talk) Per proposal. However, I have a question regarding Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros. Are the original themes played on this GBA port streamed, or remade with samples recorded from an NES, or were they remade from scratch to sound as close as possible to those played on NES with the GBA soundchip (like the Game Boy with Super Mario Bros. Deluxe)? If it's the latter two, shouldn't those technically be considered rearrangements? Super Mario Bros. Deluxe was clearly aiming for an authentic NES experience but was limited by its hardware, yet we still consider what came out of it as rearrangements and not reuses). I guess I'm arguing about the degree of sound fidelity here. Should music (game program instructions) played on different revisions of a soundchip be considered a rearrangement? (For example the NES with the Ricoh 2A03 (+ revisions) for NTSC regions and the Ricoh 2A07 (+ revisions) for PAL regions)
Hewer (talk) Now that the consistency problem seems to have been fixed, per proposal.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) I'm personally fine with the whole "remakes shouldn't count" rule because of my personal belief that it's not really evidence of a theme being "recurring". I feel if it's in a non-remake, it does indeed speak more to how Nintendo and other developers treat the song. Also, if we were to give articles to themes with like, three unique arrangements (like Mega Mushroom for instance), it'll just be a stub article. Also, the "Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media." sounds good on paper, but sounds rather vague to me. If we are talking about "cameo" games on the wiki (LEGO City Undercover using the Super Star theme), that's fine, but does that also reach full coverage crossovers, selective coverage crossovers, guest appearances? If I was making this proposal, I would've only counted games we cover on the wiki because we actually gave these games articles. I do understand wanting to cover some themes because yeah, I do agree that are recurring to some degree. Part of me kind of wants to see a List of recurring themes for themes that we don't give full-fledged articles but do acknowledge for those that want to see what theme has appeared more than one time, using your idea. It's the same idea that the SuperSmashBros.listpages.
7feetunder (talk) Remakes shouldn't count. Game A gets remade 7 times, so we give every single piece of music in that game an article. Alternatively, music from Game A returns in Game B, then Game B gets remade 6 times, so we have to give that music an article now. Not a great deal. There really should have been a discussion first instead of jumping straight into a proposal - having to completely overhaul a proposal mid-run is generally a sign that more thought should have been put into it.
Regarding SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk)'s point, the standard regarding remakes is that the only appearance that doesn't count is when original theme is in a remake of the original game (i.e. Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.). This distinction only applies to remakes of the game where the theme first appeared. Appearances of the original theme or arrangements of the theme in remakes of subsequent games does count (i.e. Super Mario 64 DS or Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury). The intention behind this is to ensure that a theme does not end up qualifying solely based on the game of origin being rereleased in its original form over and over again. In other words:
Original theme in original game (Counts)
Original theme in remake/port of original game (Doesn't count)
Original theme in other game (Counts)
Original theme in remake/port of other game (Counts)
New arrangement in other game (Counts)
New arrangement in remake/port of original game (Counts)
New arrangement in remake/port of other game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in other game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in remake/port of the original game (Counts)
Reused arrangement in remake/port of other game (Counts)
Any type of appearance in a Virtual Console/Arcade Archives/Nintendo Switch Online game (Doesn't count)ToxicOJ (talk) 14:34, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I get why a new arrangement makes it enough to count, but I don't understand the logic behind counting reused arrangements in ports of games other than the original. If reused arrangements in ports shouldn't count, then I think we should be consistent about that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:43, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
Under this framework, reused arrangements in ports would count. The only thing that wouldn't count are inclusions of the original version of the theme in ports of the theme's first game of appearance. ToxicOJ (talk) 14:46, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
And that's what I have a problem with. Why is that the case? What makes reused arrangements in ports of other games more valid than reused arrangements in ports of the original game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:53, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
When you say "reused arrangements in ports," does that include the very first version of a theme (Super Mario Bros. original version of the "Ground Theme" in Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros.), or just reused arrangements in ports (Super Mario All-Stars arrangement of the "Ground Theme" in Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition)? ToxicOJ (talk) 14:58, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I'm saying that neither of those cases should count. For example, Super Mario 64 DS reusing the arrangement from SM64 shouldn't count, for the same reason that ports of Super Mario Bros. that use the original theme shouldn't count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:12, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
The only reason I make the distinction between ports of later games and ports of the original game is to prevent a situation where a theme could be considered "recurring" without ever either changing its arrangement or being included in a different game from the original. If a past arrangement is reused in a port of another game, then that problem has already been avoided so there's no need to exclude that appearance. To be honest I'd rather count both of these situations towards the threshold than neither of them, but I thought that this was the best compromise standard. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:19, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
I wouldn't mind counting both either, I just have a problem with the inconsistency of counting one and not the other. It feels much more simple and logical to either count or not count all reused appearances in ports. And if we want to fully solve the problem you've described then we'd need to not count both, otherwise it would still be possible for a theme with only two appearances and one arrangement to be considered recurring. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:00, November 3, 2023 (EDT)
In response to your question Conradd (talk), I define an arrangement as "a new rendition of a theme that features different instrumentation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, or timbre than the original version," and I define an original version as "a theme as it was originally heard in its very first appearance with no audible alterations." Under these definitions, if a game includes a perfect, 1-to-1 match of how the theme sounded in its original game, then it is considered a reuse of the original version of the theme, and if it is not a perfect, 1-to-1 match, then it is considered an arrangement or remix, depending on the nature of the changes. The distinction comes down to audible differences. If the "Ground Theme" sounds different in any way for another game such as Classic NES Series: Super Mario Bros. or Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, then that would be considered an arrangement. Regarding differences in soundchips between regional versions of the NES and Super Mario Bros., I've not seen anything to suggest that the theme was not directly ported as an exact match of how it sounds in the original Japanese version, even though different regions technically use different soundchips, so that would be considered a use of the original version of the theme unless an audible difference between regions could be shown. ToxicOJ (talk) 01:52, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Could the tempo difference between NTSC regions (60Hz) and PAL regions (50Hz) qualified as rearrangement? --Conradd (talk) 02:46, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Ok so I checked just to be sure and was surprised to see that in fact the PAL version of the game is faster than the NTSC version (I was sure it was the other way around, but there is a difference, at least in the tempo) I did more research and find that if you disable the lockout chip on your NTSC NES (mod) or play on an NES Toploader with a PAL cartridge, the music plays even faster. on the contrary, if you disable the lockout chip on a PAL NES and try to play an NTSC cartridge, the music is slower. So it's like this:
After looking into this situation a little more, I think that this is a unique instance that warrants an exception and would not count as a rearrangement, only because this 50hz vs. 60hz differences affects all PAL games universally, so I think it should be treated similarly to our policy on regional differences in naming, and we would use the NTSC 60hz version, but I'm open to different solutions. ToxicOJ (talk) 12:37, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Sorry, your response camed before mine. Is this universal across all games? Now we know that PAL SMB plays faster than its NTSC counterpart, what about SMB2, SMB3 or any other Mario related games on the system? Are all NES PAL games faster than their NTSC counterparts, no matter what? What about SNES, N64, GameCube... is there any difference in music speed in different regions for those system as well? --Conradd (talk) 13:07, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I'm not sure. I definitely think that these differences should be mentioned in the themes' articles, but since we're dealing with regional differences between the same game rather than differences between two seperate games, I would say that this would not count towards the threshold. ToxicOJ (talk) 13:31, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I guess I'm bringing that up because we recently accepted the SMB3 theme in WarioWare: Move It! as different, which is a faster version of the original in this case, so I guess I want to make sure, but since WarioWare: Move It! is different game, that counts, right? (did i get it? lol) What about the Hurry Up! version of the originals, that should count too, no? For example: Ground Theme (Super Mario Bros.) and Ground Theme, Hurry Up! (Super Mario Bros.) --Conradd (talk) 14:09, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Correct, the SMB3 theme in WarioWare: Move It! and the Hurry Up! version of the "Ground Theme" in Super Mario Bros. would both be considered remixes since they are modified versions of their original themes. The difference between these examples and the "Ground Theme" in the PAL version of Super Mario Bros. is that the variation in the PAL "Ground Theme" stems solely from regional differences in the hardware itself and how that hardware plays the original theme. In this case, the whole game runs about 20% faster, including the music. I think that this is a unique circumstance that should not be considered a remix, nor should it count towards the threshold. Does that make sense? ToxicOJ (talk) 18:51, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Sure, but now I have a question. It's not just because of the hardware that the two versions aren't the same speed, is it? If that were the case, shouldn't the PAL version sound the same on an NTSC console and vice versa? I heard that the game was reprogrammed for the PAL regions. Would that explain why we have 4 different speeds and not just 2 depending on what you're doing with your console like I showed you earlier? --Conradd (talk) 20:16, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
At the end of the day, since the entire game is sped up due to regional differences with the NES, the theme is sped up too. I don’t believe that there is enough of a distinction for it to be considered a remix with this context in mind. It is still the original ground theme just like it is still the original Super Mario Bros. The wiki does not consider any aspect of the PAL version of Super Mario Bros. as entirely distinct from its NTSC counterpart, even if the entire thing was reprogrammed. We should not make a distinction (other than a quick mention within the article) in this case either. But again, this only applies to the very specific circumstance of regional game speed differences. An increase in tempo or pitch in any other context would be considered a remix. ToxicOJ (talk) 20:42, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I don't mean to be rude to you, Toxic, but I think you should have thought more about your proposal before making everyone vote. We now need to compare your old proposal with the rearanged one to see if we still agree with our votes, and I think it's annoying. Has anything substantial changed? If yes maybe we should reboot the counter. --Conradd (talk) 01:56, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I'm sorry, you're 100% right, that's my bad. Most of the change is general clarification, rewording, and adding a list of definitions of terms used. The one change in substance is that I now include appearances of the original version of a theme in remakes of the original game in order to keep a consistent standard. Both of these changes were in response to multiple comments addressing these issues, so I figured it would be best to make those changes less than 24 hours after I created the proposal. I am totally fine with resetting the counter if that needs to be done. ToxicOJ (talk) 02:04, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
I think the best thing to do is to reach out to those who have already voted and tell them to go check the new proposal to see if they still agree with theirs votes so that everyone is on the same page. I think It would be lame to start over. Do you want to change something first? --Conradd (talk) 02:46, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
That’s a good idea, I’ll reach out to them. I’m pretty happy with how the proposal looks now, so I won’t change it again. ToxicOJ (talk) 02:53, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
Popping in to say we saw and uh, we're still in support ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:43, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
To address your point TheUndescribableGhost (talk), "Any form of a theme in a piece of non-Super Mario-related media" refers to pieces of media that are not covered by the Wiki (such as Lego City Undercover). The other examples you cited, full coverage crossovers (like Mario + Rabbids), selective coverage crossovers (like Super Smash Bros.), and guest appearances (like Sonic Lost World) would all count as Super Mario-related media since they are covered in some form by the Wiki. ToxicOJ (talk) 12:50, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
@TheUndescribableGhost: Short articles aren't necessarily stubs if they have all the relevant information on the subject. I don't see a problem with that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:47, November 4, 2023 (EDT)
@7feetunder: What exactly is the issue with what you have described? The only games likely to have seven different remakes are old ones without very many themes in them anyway, and whose themes are likely to be recurring anyway. It's still repeated appearances of the theme at the end of the day. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:46, November 5, 2023 (EST)
The scenario I described is just hyperbole. Most games obviously are not going to be remade anywhere near six or seven times. I just see including remakes as a blatantly inferior option that has no reason to be lumped in with all the other changes this proposal wants to implement. The standard established by the previous proposal was to not count remakes, so why change that? Remakes are expected to include music from the original game by their very nature; it's more notable when a remake doesn't include music from the original (e.g. DKC3 GBA). It's like listing the original game in a remake's "References to other games" section. 14:41, November 5, 2023 (EST)
Remove conjectural treasure names from Wario Land stage articles
Remove Wario Land II names only 4-0
The Wario Land II and Wario Land 3 stage articles try to label every single piece of treasure with a unique name, even if they were never officially given one. Wario Land 3 at the very least makes some sense, since a good chunk of the treasures were given official names, and they are listed in a table on the main WL3 article. But for Wario Land II, every single treasure has a conjectural name, often originating from when the articles were created 14 years ago. These conjectural names serve little purpose, since usually conjectural names are given to subjects notable enough to have their own article, whereas here they are functionally identical collectibles tied to certain stages. Personally, I would just remove all the WL2 names to make it more consistent with the nameless treasures from Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3.
LinkTheLefty (talk) These ones have no official names as far as I know, and presenting it as such feels a bit like a relic of a bygone era. Keep the basic descriptions like "this resembles a Metroid" or "this looks like a Game Boy", but otherwise, these "names" don't have to be listed in the sections. Wario Land 3 is a little different since those ones all have names and fulfill other gameplay functions. Basically, just treat them like the first game and it's fine.
#MegaBowser64 (talk) After viewing the conjectural names, most of them seem to be very straightforward descriptors, they don't seem to be doing much harm there.
Comments
I'm a little confused with what the second option aims to do. Is it just the remaining few conjectural Wario Land 3 names? Because I can get the rest of those from the Shogakukan guide. I can also double-check the Shogakukan guide of the second game, but I'm pretty sure the treasures are still unnamed there. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:09, November 12, 2023 (EST)
...Probably should've considered that. I didn't realize that the Shogakukan guide had any treasure names. Looking back, I'm not sure why I even added that option in the first place, so I removed it. Feel free to add the other names when you find them! DrippingYellow (talk) 16:36, November 12, 2023 (EST)
@MegaBowser64 The problem I have isn't that these all have unfitting names, the problem is that there's not really any reason to give them a name. It's like giving all the Stamps conjectural names: their uniqueness is purely attributed to their visuals, so if you want to give them identifiers, just... describe them. The treasure names being descriptive is honestly all the more reason why they shouldn't be there, since you can just refer to treasures as what they are, rather than as unique entities with Proper Names (e.g. "The hidden treasure, a goblet" VS. "The hidden treasure, theGoblet"). And as a bonus, the conjectural names also provide some awkwardness in assuming what something is when it is normally unclear, like with the Pearl Idol, the Tome, and the Cave Cone. It's not as if there's a standard being maintained by giving the treasures official-sounding names, either, since again, every single treasure has a conjectural name. Names made up for the sake of neatness just don't feel in line with the spirit of MarioWiki to me. DrippingYellow (talk) 23:57, November 12, 2023 (EST)
But in 3, a majority of them do have a distinct function for opening other stages and causing changes in their gimmicks. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:05, November 13, 2023 (EST)
Indeed, hence why I removed 3 from the proposal. Still, it seems weird to use Wario Land 3 as a baseline for Wario Land II's names, especially when, as I mentioned at the top, Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 doesn't seem to have named its treasures either. DrippingYellow (talk) 00:21, November 13, 2023 (EST)
Add tabbers to race/battle course articles
Add tabbers to articles 7-4
There is only one race/battle course image in the infobox on each race/battle course article. Perhaps there's a possibility to add tabbers to the race/battle course articles.
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: November 18, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Super Game Gear (talk) Pretty sure that a precedent has been set for this, but regardless, per proposer.
Camwoodstock (talk) We were honestly under the impression a consensus was already made on this front, but for the various Mario Kart tracks, this is definitely fine.
Arend (talk) I was also under the impression that this was generally agreed upon in a prior proposal, with many that supported for the Tabber using Mario Kart courses as an example. Since I voted in support of that option with the Mario Kart courses in mind, might as well vote in support here as well.
Tails777 (talk) I supported using Mario Kart as an example. That support still stands. Per all.
Pseudo (talk) Per my support of the previous proposal.
Oppose
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I want to point out that tabber does not work if JavaScript isn't working. As such, anyone who 1: is using an older system that lacks JavaScript functionality; 2: has JavaScript intentionally disabled; 3: has bandwidth issues and can only load basic HTML; will not be able to see anything but the default tab - or all the images stacked on top of each other awkwardly.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Doc. Also, Zelda Wiki does this en masse, and let me just say: ew, no.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all, we need to not be similar to Zelda Wiki at all, and tabbers can feel very clunky sometimes
Is this proposal about allowing the use of tabber template on those articles or setting a specific precedent for using them on said type of articles? The template documentation broadly says that it should not be used for anything other than infobox images. Super Game Gear (talk) 17:35, November 11, 2023 (EST)
Is this proposal really necessary? I thought this was already agreed upon in the minigame infobox talk page proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:50, November 11, 2023 (EST)
Yeah, literally all the votes for using tabs (aside from proposer's, RickTommy (talk)) suggested that this option is useful enough to be used for other infobox templates as well, and four of those five votes cited the Mario Kart course infoboxes in particular. The documentation for the Tabber template, which Super Game Gear already linked to, only specifies it shouldn't be used for anything but infobox templates; it does not specify that it should only be used for Mario Party minigame infoboxes: all infoboxes should be fair game, as long as it's used within an infobox. We've already seen the Tabber template being used on articles that aren't about minigames, such as Thwomp and Fire Piranha Plant, you'd think that would be enough green light to apply the Tabber template on Mario Kart courses without the need of a proposal. rend(talk)(edits) 09:53, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Dang, it's already on Thwomp uncontested? Like, "the article with an entire proposal just about what image to use for him" Thwomp? In that case, unless someone really, really objects, we could probably just cancel this proposal by proxy of it having technically already been allowed. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:49, November 12, 2023 (EST)
True. Personally, I think it'd be better to discuss on the template's talk page to clear up on where to expand the scope — and where to limit it — instead of going through countless of proposals like this to gradually decide which pages should be allowed to have the template, especially when the scope is technically already as broad as it can be. For instance, since the original proposal already decided this for Mario Party minigames, I think that means Mario Kart courses (and their maps), as well as WarioWare microgames, should be fair game too. But as for characters, species and objects, I believe the rule of only using the most recent image for the infobox should still be adhered. While using a Tabber template for enemies with multiple recurring appearances in modern day like Thwomp would be allowed, I think it's kinda silly if we used the same template for Mario's infobox, for example. I also think the Tabber template would be useful to show different regional game boxarts (like how WiKirby does it), but we should put a limit on which regions can be shown. rend(talk)(edits) 16:25, November 12, 2023 (EST)
I think tabber needs to be used within reason, like not adding tons of miscellaneous screenshots, for instance but definitely to avoid galleries with only one image, as I feel it defeats the whole purpose of a gallery. Super Game Gear (talk) 20:49, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Gonna be real here, we don't exactly think anyone's going to be cramming a full gallery's worth of images into these. If it's really that large a concern, we could always try to enforce a "maximum images allowed in an infobox" thing, but being real here... We don't ever see it exceeding 4 naturally anyways, and even then, 4 is an extremely rare case limited basically just to a select few Mario Party minigames. Unless you really want to do that for Gold Digger. But... Don't, those infoboxes are already split up for reasons unrelated to images. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)
I also want to point out that Porple, the proprietor, said he doesn't want to see tabber used on the wiki on its talk page. Granted, that was some time ago. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:11, November 13, 2023 (EST)
Being the proprietor shouldn't mean overturning a passed proposal for no reason other than personal preference (and Porple also happens to be the one who enacted the proposal). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:45, November 13, 2023 (EST)
I didn't say it did. But a lot of people here care about his opinion on matters like this regardless. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:51, November 13, 2023 (EST)
We mean... If it bothers Porple enough/if Porple's changed his tune at some point, he could always just. Vote on this proposal himself. We probably shouldn't be voting for him. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)
@Doc Von: So, we fired up our rinkydink Windows XP Virtual Machine, opened Firefox 52.9.0, and went to an article with a tabber (specifically, the version of Thwomp before it had its tabber stripped.) And uh, it worked. We... Genuinely were not expecting it to run--we had issues with that VM a few days ago and about a week ago went through a nightmarish program setup regimen on it that felt like it only worked by a hair, but this worked without literally any fuss whatsoever. We would wager any system too old to load tabbers are too old to connect to the internet at this point--pretty much only leaving severe bandwidth issues causing them to fail to load outright or devices specially configured to prohibit JavaScript in the first place as the only scenarios where tabbers wouldn't work. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:13, November 13, 2023 (EST)
@Koopa con Carne & MegaBowser64: Generally why I suggested earlier in the comments that we should probably discuss where to expand and/or limit the scope for the Tabber template. As I stated, using it for the Mario Party minigames, Mario Kart courses and WarioWare microgames is fine, and using it for video game boxarts (a la WiKirby) should also be fine as long as we put a limit on which regions should be shown, but using it for any character, object and species as well would be a bit silly. Aside from cases such as Thwomp and Fire Piranha Plant, the most recent artwork for those kinds of subjects should still be adhered IMO. I don't think any of us in support of the Tabbers would want cases like the Zelda Wiki, where literally every iteration for literally any subject is featured in an infobox. rend(talk)(edits) 14:12, November 13, 2023 (EST)
I'm definitely in agreement that tabber on major recurring subjects would definitely be going too far, unless this wiki were to be entirely overhauled to have Zelda Wiki's format, then I might reconsider. I'm generally in favor of using Tabber for content with minimal appearances, such as like something that only appears in one, two, or three games, as this can help avoid some annoying single-image galleries. And for if others want to see all images at once, they can create a gallery page to showcase that. Super Game Gear (talk) 14:22, November 13, 2023 (EST)
On merging and/or splitting Super Paper Mario's implied characters
merge Croacus rulers into one article 5-3-1-0
Pictured: Someone too cool to share an article (maybe.)
First and foremost, our sincerest apologies if the following proposal is a little scatterbrained in its initial descriptor: we are writing this at Literally 2AM.
So, we were reading random Wiki articles before bed (as we are want to do), and we stumbled upon this, and it jogged our memory, because this is something that's always confused us. In Super Paper Mario, in the leadin to the bossfight against King Croacus IV, you get little glimpses of the prior Croacus leaders. Now, this is a cool detail and all, but these guys never... Physically appear, in the flesh. Because they're dead and all that.
Usually, when there's just a minor character whose presence is only implied, they just get clumped in to the List of implied characters--we do this with a few characters in SPM that only hold worldbuilding relevance and never get to appear in-game already, namely King Sammer I and the Legendary Pixl.
...And then there's the Tribe of Ancients. Merlimbis, Merlight, and Merloo all get lumped into this article whereas only Merlumina (the only one to appear in-game) gets her own article all to herself. Now, granted, the Tribe of Ancients are extremely important to the game's overall backstory. But the other three just get one article together, whereas the three prior Croacus leaders all get unique articles?
So, like, what's the right way to handle this, and why is (are?) the other article(s?) wrong? This has been driving us batty for a little bit, and we feel like it's about time to do something about it. We can think of a few ways to handle it:
Merge the three former Croacus royalty to a "Floro Sapien Royal Family" article: This feels self-explanatory, just make an article analagous to the Tribe of Ancients but for the Croacus royal family. Yes, King Croacus IV would get his own section with a "Main article:" at the start similar to Merlumina as well.
Split the Tribe of Ancients entirely: We would create unique articles for Merlimbis, Merlight, and Merloo to go alongside Merlumina's. To be honest, though, we feel like there might not be enough unique information on the other three to warrant a full article, so this might be difficult, though that's not to say there's zero substantial information at all.
Merge ALL the articles!: Why should SPM get to be so special with all these Implied characters getting full articles? ...This is kind of a "first thing you'd think of" solution, however, and that's quite a bit of information to just merge into one article. For consistency's sake, we would also merge in Squirpina XIV, seeing as she is similarly only implied yet gets her own article for story prominence. It's worth noting that King Croacus I and Squirpina XIV have multiple images on their articles--which doesn't sound all that important, but currently no Implied character has more than one image in their section, so we don't know how best to handle that.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: November 19, 2023, 23:59 GMT
Merge Croacus royal family into one article
Camwoodstock (talk) To us, this makes the most sense. They're plot-relevant characters that serve as key portions of a character's backstory, and even if they're admittedly less so than the Tribe of Ancients (being only really relevant in Chapter 5), being relegated to just a chapter didn't stop Squirpina XIV. If we're going to give them all an article separate from the List article, we may as well keep things neat and merge them all into one like we already did for the Tribe of Ancients.
7feetunder (talk) Having these chapter-specific backstory-only characters all get their own articles seems generally unnecessary.
Pseudo (talk) Per all; this is far better for organization and readability considering how minor these characters are.
Split Tribe of Ancients into three additional articles for missing members
Camwoodstock (talk) Our secondary option would be this--while these articles do risk being rather slim, we don't see them being any stubbier than, say, Queen Croacus II or King Croacus III already are. It's also just generally a lot easier to expand information, rather than contract it, and while we definitely think it'd be worth it in the case of the "merge to a Croacus royal family article" case, we can't say the same for the "merge all" option. So, secondary option it is.
LinkTheLefty (talk) The problem I have with the first option is that I'm fairly certain it's going to need a conjecture tag, and that'll just look silly.
Merge the Croacus Royal Family, Tribe of Ancients, and Squirpina XIV into List of Implied Characters
LinkTheLefty (talk) Of course, having the background royals in one spot would be convenient, and you can argue that these all still fit the "implied" scope since only their likenesses are seen.
Do Nothing
Comments
I can see where you're going with this. All of these characters mentioned do not physically appear in the game, but they have artwork that is found during the story. As someone who has completed Super Paper Mario, I can safely say that all of these characters have such little information on them to give them their own articles. King Croacus's family all should have their own article to share, or they could be moved to the list of implied characters just because they do not physically appear in the game. For Merlumina's case, she appears as a spirit to Mario to give him one of the Pure Hearts, so she actually appears in the game. The rest of the Ancients do not though. For Squirp's mother, a statue of her appears in the game, but she herself does not. Seeing as there's too little information for King Croacus's family, I think giving them an article to share would be the best idea. The list of Ancients already has their own page and to me that makes sense. Squirp's mother I think should be moved to list of implied characters just because she does not physically appear in the game. I have a suggestion to add in an option where only Squirpina should be moved to "List of Implied Characters". As for now, I think merging all of King Croacus's ancestors is the way to go. Sparks (talk) November 12, 2023, 7:58 (EDT)
It should be noted that there is some precedent for splitting any characters who visibly appear physically or otherwise, even besides Super Paper Mario, for example Jack. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:40, November 12, 2023 (EST)
Thanks, the Croacus royalty vs the Ancients seen in the gateway between Flipside and Flopside having, erm, lopsided coverage always bothered me... I just always forgot to make a proposal about it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:56, November 12, 2023 (EST)
It just occurred to me that this proposal is missing the do nothing option. Isn't that mandatory? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, November 12, 2023 (EST)
I think so. What if no one wants these changes? Sparks (talk) November 12, 2023, 13:21 (EDT)
...Your honor, it was 2AM. (We have added this, our bad!) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:27, November 12, 2023 (EST)
@LinkTheLefty (and we guess pretty much just everyone): Having looked at the text at Not 2AM, we can say that a better article name for option 1 would probably be "Flora Kingdom royalty" seeing as it's expressly called the Flora Kingdom in at least King Croacus I's in-game painting text. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:23, November 14, 2023 (EST)
Add playable appearance of a character in their infobox
include neither 1-0-4
One of the most important aspects of a wiki is knowing what is "first" for a particular subject. In the Super Mario franchise, there have been multiple instances of a previously non-playable character becoming playable for the first time. For example, Peach's first playable appearance was in Super Mario Bros. 2, Yoshi's first playable appearance outside of a mount was in Super Mario Kart, Piranha Plant's first playable appearance was in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and Bowser made his first playable role in Super Mario Kart, a fact that the wiki ignores. And I nearly forgot this one, but you know what is Donkey Kong's first playable appearance? Donkey Kong Circus. Granted, as the original DK, but still. This proposal aims to have character and species infoboxes list a character's first playable appearance in the Super Mario franchise. I wish to show an example of what that can look like, but I have no idea how to make a custom template that slightly edits another one. So for Bowser's article, we'll list this:
Here, an onlooker will be able to find out the first playable appearance of the Super Mario character within their franchise. For crossover characters, the article will list their origin playable role, alongside their first appearance in a game we cover on the wiki. For characters whose debut appearance is also their playable appearance (Mario in Donkey Kong), only their first appearances will be listed, as it would be redundant. For crossover characters, rather than listing both of their first appearances (non-Super Mario and Super Mario appearances), it'll only list their Super Mario appearance. We only need their first playable appearance, but there is another option to include their latest one.
Include both their first and latest playable appearance
Include neither
Hewer (talk) This will inevitably lead to headaches about whether a given appearance counts as playable - even in the proposal, you mentioned that Yoshi was playable as a mount before his first "full" playable appearance. And there's other similar cases too - in a capture, are you playing as Mario or the thing being captured? In Dr. Mario, are you playing as Dr. Mario himself or the pills he throws? In Minion Quest, are you playing as the units you have partial control over? etc., etc. Not to mention this will be entirely irrelevant for the many characters who appear not in games but in other media. We do sometimes note in history sections and such when a game is unambiguously the character's first playable appearance, and I feel like that's sufficient. Also, the proposal seems to contradict itself on whether the original appearances of crossover characters count.
Swallow (talk) Per Hewer, just listing what game the character first appeared in regardless of role is enough. This can also clutter the infoboxes and could lead to others trying to add first/latest appearances of other kinds of scenarios.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. What counts as "playable" is a little too ambiguous for this to feel like a comfortable addition--especially since there doesn't seem to be a a specific definition of playability in this proposal.
@Hewer: You are right; some people can interpret what is playable quite differently. I knew I would get something in the comments about the Yoshis being playable in Super Mario World, which I did state, which I was I mentioned that Super Mario Kart was the first game where Yoshi was playable without anyone riding him. You could make an edge case on whether Yoshi is a playable character in Super Mario World because you can technically control his tongue. The captured thing is another excellent point, and my initial response was that Mario/Cappy controls the entities, so it could technically not count. The Dr. Mario one is probably the most headache-inducing since you can go either way on that debacle. Dr. Mario 64 addresses this, as playable characters can compete against each other. I don't play the RPGs, so I can't answer the question on Minion Quest. Even if I did, I will admit that one got me perplexed. Also, what I meant for the crossover section was if the first appearance tag would be redundant. For example, Link appeared in The Legend of Zelda, his first playable appearance. Since we have two separate sections for both his first Super Mario appearance and his first playable one, we would format it like this:
And, of course, that opens a new rabbit hole on whether or not we should even consider guest appearances to count. Thanks a lot, Hewer; I do appreciate your feedback on this! TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST)
@Swallow: In what way would it clutter the infoboxes? It's the reason why I suggested including just the first playable appearance. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:27, November 15, 2023 (EST)
Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title
rename articles to use shorter identifier 8-4
Now that the Nintendo Switch remake is out I think it would be a lot easier for pages like Spikey, Pinwheel and many other like them to have their page titles to be shortened down to just Super Mario RPG. I think it would not only make navigation much easier but would also look a lot nicer.
Proposer: Annalisa10 (talk) Deadline: November 25, 2023, 23:59 GMT
LadySophie17 (talk) Easier, prettier, more recent and therefore more accurate.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per all. I don't think anyone takes or should take "Super Mario RPG" to refer strictly to the remake just because it lacks a subtitle, especially since the phrase had been used for almost three decades as a shorthand for the original game. In fact, Nintendo themselves have referred to the two versions fully interchangeably (nintendo.com: "the Paper Mario™ and Mario & Luigi™ series of games drew some inspiration from Super Mario RPG!")
Arend (talk) Per all; besides, the Japanese version for either game had always been called just "Super Mario RPG", without any subtitles.
LinkTheLefty (talk) As someone who's disappointed that Ted Woolsey, Aiko Ito, Rika Maruya and Noriko Wada were not directly credited in the remake despite the text largely being their handiwork (though it was to be expected that something like "Based on the Work of the Original Development Staff" would cover it) - I prefer keeping the originating version's subtitle, as we do with other identifiers. Removing the subtitle is more concise, but now, it can easily be confused with the remake of the same name, and give the wrong impression that the subject name originated there. (Of course, we could go the other direction per KCC's latest suggestion here, but that's out of this proposal's scope.)
Camwoodstock (talk) For whatever reason, Nintendo seems keen to use simply Super Mario RPG to refer to the new Switch remaster, and the subtitle is stuck on the original release on SNES. To be honest, we're not quite sure what is best to do in this case, since no matter what it's likely going to sound at least a little clumsy. In lieu of a more elegant solution for disambiguating what belongs to the game as a whole and what's remaster-exclusive beyond simply putting a "(Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch)" in the page title, like what we do for the aforementioned scrapbook article, we feel like we should probably just stick with that, as even if it is a little tacky, it's at least up-front and easily understood.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per all. I think we should address the way KCC suggested at the same time as this.
Comments
So if this passes, would it also be applied to Donkey Kong Country 2 and 3? They similarly have subtitles for their original releases that later got ditched for their remakes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:02, November 23, 2023 (EST)
I suppose it would make sense to do it for those as well. rend(talk)(edits) 11:43, November 24, 2023 (EST)
No, because this proposal does not cover or even mention those games, and they're not the exact same case. Super Mario RPG is a Japanese-made game that had a subtitle tacked on for it's English release, while DKC2 and 3 are English-made games that had their subtitles from the start. That would require a separate proposal. 13:55, November 24, 2023 (EST)
I was wondering if they could be changed because of the precedent that this would set without requiring their own near-identical proposal, which I don't think is unreasonable. And I'm not sure why language of origin matters here - as far as article titles are concerned, English names are always prioritised anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:12, November 24, 2023 (EST)
Precedents established by a single proposal generally are not sufficient to justify making similar changes without so much as even a discussion. I've lost count of how many near-identical proposals we've had for merging Mario Party minigame modes. That's an extreme case that probably could have been handled more efficiently, but this is just a single proposal with a relatively small scope. 15:44, November 24, 2023 (EST)
I'm gonna echo Hewer and ask you to argue how language of origin is relevant here. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:57, November 24, 2023 (EST)
Move certain articles and galleries to subpages and create new disambiguation pages consisting of subpages
vetoed by the administrators This proposal violates MarioWiki:Lists, our subpage policy. Passing this proposal requires a policy change, so this discussion should instead first focus on the general use of subpages, such as MarioWiki talk:Lists. The resulting proposal should be considered a writing guideline one (something like, request a change to how we generally deal with subpages), which lasts for two weeks.
The Super Mario Wiki needs subpage articles and subpage galleries. I was wondering if there's a possibility to move certain articles and galleries into subpages. Here are some good examples:
Koopa con Carne (talk) Most pages concerned in this proposal quite literally act as extensions to some bigger page, whether their title suggests it or not--reminder that List of Yoshi names in other languages was split off of the Yoshi article. Policy merely makes excuses for a reason I can only assume to be the continuation of this wiki's old practices or blind following of Wikipedia. With this premise in mind, I've got to ask how could one find the current titles more "natural and readable"? They contain superfluous words and may necessitate awkward and cumbersome phrasing to be able to get the message across under current policy, e.g. "List of Mario Kart Tour action names in other languages". Imagine if file addresses on your PC were identified with verbiage the likes of "This file is located in this folder on D drive of Mr. Chucklefuck's system" instead of the more elegant "C:/folder/file".
Super Game Gear (talk) I gave this some thought, and I think I'm going to have to agree with this proposal. Some of the list names are very long, and can be more annoying to type on certain devices, such as mobile. When it's subpages, it's also a better way of expressing that any list pages focused on a certain subject in particular goes with that subject, and by extension is giving you more information on that subject in particular. This could definitely solve an issue where the information would otherwise be scattered all over the place.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ <- What's the difference? Slashes are always more trouble than they're worth. Just like this change.
YoYo (talk) talk about overcomplicating things. not just is this an issue that doesn't need fixing, but the solution is also not that much more efficient. Also define "certain" because that heavily implies only some articles would be affected by this - creating an inconsistency as well. in the end, this creates more problems than it fixes.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per YoYo. The oddly specific applications across only a few articles makes this extremely confusing, especially since it seems like this will only cover the aforementioned articles, rather than just all bestiaries, or all lists of music, or all lists of glitches, or all history articles (haven't those things suffered enough naming issues??), or all pre-release content, or... well, you get the point. And, on top of that, the fact that some of the examples, such as the Mario Artwork ones, require nested slashes, is... Grody, to say the least.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per everyone, and myself: "There is no point in change for the sake of change."
Mario jc (talk) Per MarioWiki:Lists: "The Super Mario Wiki does not use subpages in the main article namespace. This is because: Article titles should be as natural and readable as possible. Articles should be able to exist on their own merit and not just as an extension of an existing page."
Swallow (talk) Subpages should be for userspace only.
Axis (talk) I never liked the idea of subpages in (Main). They're always more difficult to find, and the title doesn't look as good. Linking to them always felt off.
Hewer (talk) Not really sure why this is an issue that needs fixing (the proposal doesn't even argue the case beyond "This is a thing that needs to happen" with no explanation), and personally I think subpages are slightly ugly and more trouble than they're worth. I remember being very lost on WiKirby trying to find some information only to later realise it was hidden in a bunch of subpages with easily missable links.
Comments
My proposal is being declined because subpages are for user pages only per Super Mario Wiki policy. Can we cancel the proposal? GuntherBayBeee 12:13, November 26, 2023 (EST)
I don't think that's possible, seeing that there's already support for the proposal (me being one of the people supporting it). Super Game Gear (talk) 13:09, November 26, 2023 (EST)
Include primary Power-up sections for Super Mario Bros. Wonder courses
Many users on the Mario Wiki, including myself have been creating articles for courses in the newest mainline Mario game: Super Mario Bros. Wonder. One thing that hasn't been noted is what power-ups are primarily featured in the courses (e.g. Elephant Fruit in Welcome to the Flower Kingdom! and Bubble Flower in Missile Meg Mayhem). And so, I have presented three options for users to vote in:
Option 1: Create a new section just for naming what power-ups are featured in the course. It would be listed under the "layout" section.
Option 2: Have the power-ups mentioned in another section. The most likely section would be "Layout". If anyone has any more ideas, please make a comment.
Option 3: Do nothing. Just do nothing. Simple as that.
Proposer: Sparks (talk) Deadline: December 13, 2023, 23:59 (GMT)
Create a new section for the power-ups featured
Sparks (talk) My preferred option. It will let readers know what the primary power-ups are without it being buried in another section.
Have the power-ups mentioned in another section
Do nothing
Comments
This proposal could easily apply to all Mario platformers, not just Wonder. Nightwicked Bowser 10:58, December 6, 2023 (EST)
Does it even need a proposal? A simple QoL feature can just be added. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:06, December 6, 2023 (EST)
Maybe it doesn't need a proposal at all. Maybe the power-ups can be put into the course template? Sparks (talk) December 6, 2023, 11:10 (EDT)
Probably just a list like the enemies get. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:12, December 6, 2023 (EST)
Very well! I shall cancel this proposal. Sparks (talk) December 6, 2023 11:15 (EDT)
Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters
do not change policy 4-16
We have an article for this one Toad with very little information. Why? Because they have a name. Yep.
What a mouthful of a title, but I don't know what to call this. This proposal concerns the articles Flaky, Jerry, and Chanterelle. I'll add more if users keep bringing in more. The gist is that these are minor characters based on theirrespectivespecies, which doesn't sound like a bad idea initially. Still, their articles aren't that useful. Flaky is a terrible article that is horribly padded on a minor Flurry and even explains things not relevant to them (I'm not even sure if the character has official pronouns). It also speculates that they appear in certain scenes, which is a bad sign. Jerry's article is three sentences long and could see a merge with the regular Magikoopa article. And Chanterelle is a briefly seen Toad who appears for a few seconds. The justification for these articles is that they are named characters and should get articles unless you're Johnson.
This proposal isn't concerned about merging all these characters at this very moment; that can come in many different proposals. Instead, I suggest a policy to prevent these articles from coming into play here. With this policy, some articles that feature a rather generic representative of a species with very few character traits that would instead get a merge with their species articles or at least in a list. Currently, there doesn't seem to some policy that is against the idea of having these characters aside from the Minor NPCs policy which really only covers conjecturally named NPCs and not characters who are named but only have very few traits and not even a unique design. However, their redirects will still have categories so that users can know the different members of their species when browsing them. In a perfect world, Flaky would get a mention in Flurry's article, we put Jerry in Magikoopa, and we would merge Chanterelle with Toad (species). It's worth noting that we have recently been creating history articles so that they can go there instead. An argument users may use is that they are named characters and, therefore, must get articles no matter what. So what I want to tell you is this: How helpful are these articles? Sure, they are pretty interesting one-off characters, but are people dying to see a whole article on them?
Imagine if one Goomba was named Bob in one cutscene and had no other traits in some random Super Mario game. Then, one day, we made an article describing him and mentioning his bare-bones character traits. I don't know about you, but I learned nothing from it. We even merged Koopaphobia, a fictional phobia, with Indiana Joe because he's the kingpin for that phobia, the entire thing is played as a joke, and nothing is getting lost by integrating it with him. Our lord and savior, Pink Donkey Kong Jr., is now merged with who his counterpart was, and not everything was lost through the merge. Cowboy Jed has a son who does not get a separate article, but we mention it in his article. And all three Luigi'sMansiongames have lists for each of the named Boos. We aren't missing much by merging these fellas; no offense to them, especially the pink little guy.
Note that we aren't merging these articles right now but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles. That way, we don't have to create concise articles that say nothing. After this, we can create proposals to merge certain articles that feature a named character with very little traits that make them unique from their species. It is worth noting that if they do return in a later work and have tons of new character traits, they can finally get their articles. It's the curse that set Ashley and Red free.
Hammer Bro captain: Uses a conjectural name. Even if this proposal failed, you can make a good argument for not even needing this article.
Private Koopa: Not too sure about this but the description doesn't convince me otherwise. Just a secret agent Koopa who doesn't even use a unique design.
The only one I did not include was Red Shy Guy and that's mainly because of his unique history section. Therefore, I don't think it's that big of a deal. That being said, the name is quite generic, so there's that. I admit I haven't played the RPG games, so there's that. I'm also not putting Izzy on here because he's connected to some event. Sure, his article is pretty short but to claim he's an incidental character is incorrect. At the very most, he could be merged with The Play Nintendo Show and at the very least, he could stay. On another note, I have finally made a conceptual policy for what it could look like if this proposal is a success. I'll occasionally update this when given certain suggestions.
Arend (talk) Per all; I've been wondering for a while why Gary from Super Paper Mario gets to stay when he's even less of a character than his unnamed Goomba friend that got merged with the prime Goomba article a while ago, also due to proposal.
#Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, but especially Arend--why Gary (Super Paper Mario) keeps his article but we have long since merged his unnamed partner that was more substantial than him is beyond us. It just seems kinda silly to have all these full articles for one-off characters with absolutely zero distinctions to them beyond their name, and while there's a few notable exceptions that hold key relevancy to part of a game's plot (such as, say, Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), a character where a lot of the point is that he is entirely indistinguishable but trying to be unique through his actions), they are absolutely few and far between and you can count them on basically one hand.#SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal. #DrippingYellow (talk) Makes total sense to me. Gary, come home... to the main Goomba article... #FanOfYoshi (talk) I've adressed Koopa Captain not so long ago, and this proposal pretty much sums it up, so definitely up for it. Per proposed. #Sparks (talk) These characters, especially Jerry are just articles of very short information because they are "unique" compared to their species. Per all.
Oppose
Mario (talk) Oppose mostly on technicality: there are too vague of provisions on this proposal. This proposal identifies an issue which I agree with. But it doesn't outline a clear method of action to take besides "delete articles of subjects that are too minor to justify a page". I believe deleting one-liner tiny pages of non-notable members clearly meant as a throwaway name to establish a world is already fairly standard wiki practice, but admittedly inefficient (you either hope your talk page comment gets enough replies to swiftly delete or you run a proposal that runs for two weeks that gets a pretty good consensus in like, under 24 hours). Also as this proposal mentions, several of these pages are being dealt with in talk pages more than a few times, such as named Scarescraper ghosts, "Koopaphobia", Pink Donkey Kong Jr., and whatnot. Enacting this proposal due to its vague provisions is going to be a challenge, and while the current examples are obvious, we may run into some articles that might bring up disagreements (Will the minor friendly NPCs in the Paper Mario games be affected? All? A few? Most? One example. People are already bringing up other examples in the comment section that just seems better off on case-by-case discussions) and we already have a bit of a backlog of these kinds of proposals. The proposal ends with "but rather coming up with a policy that allows us to integrate some generic representatives of a species with their species articles." What policy? Can we see a draft of it? Where will it go? I'd like to see what this policy entails in before the proposal is made.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per Mario. I don't have a problem with these types of articles myself, but I'd rather have an addition to MarioWiki:Minor NPCs that would allow for discretion that we can then address on a case-by-case basis instead of a blanket proposal like this.
Axis (talk) Even with the updated proposal, I do not believe the guidelines for which character should or shouldn't have a page are clear enough, the current policy is consistent and understandable for everyone. Would we need to go through every character and individually discuss every single minor NPC from this point on? Would minor NPCs from the Paper Mario series be merged now, and which ones should stay? I believe consistency takes precedent over redundancy.
Hewer (talk) This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information. I think the logic behind the current policy that an individual name means an individual character is fine, and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion.
Tails777 (talk) I can agree to sorting out which minor, one-off characters deserve articles or not, especially with the meme in the examples, but I kinda have to agree with the opposition here. Per Mario and Axis notably.
Sparks (talk) I Changed my vote to Oppose. As weird as it is that these characters have articles, I can agree with the others here about which characters would be affected by this proposal. It's too vague and would cause a lot of confusion if this passes.
PnnyCrygr (talk) It would be tedious to redirect evry affected minor charatcer article to its "list of" section. Opposing.
Camwoodstock (talk) Joining the "changed our vote" club; as Mario pointed out, this is likely something we'd be better off addressing on a case-by-case basis first. Once we've gotten most/all the cases covered, then we can talk about a more generic policy to instate that fits with what we found. Until then, though, this just runs the risk of hitting way too much, way too hard.
Comments
BIS also has Kuribo, instead of logically redirecting to Goomba. In my opinion, it is hands-down the worst offender of this. Another thing all have in common is being throwaway names in group scenes, so no individual plot importance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:20, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Well, I guess there's no need for that BJAODN page! I agree with the idea of merging these incidental characters and thus choose to abstain rather than oppose, but we should look at them on a case-by-case basis rather than creating a policy with no cutoff point for notability. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:06, December 3, 2023 (EST)
Izzy actually co-hosted an official Nintendo show with a series of episodes, though. Socially Awkward Piranha Plant is just an obscure meme only posted on Nintendo's social media once. I'm for merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant, but Izzy can stay. Super Game Gear (talk) 16:41, November 30, 2023 (EST)
^I agree with you on merging Socially Awkward Piranha Plant. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 17:40, November 30, 2023 (EST)
Maybe Sunset Express Shy Guy too? His article is definitely more detailed than the others mentioned, so maybe he won't be affected by this proposal. He doesn't offer much to the story though unlike Bob-omb (Paper Mario: The Origami King), so who knows? Sparks (talk) December 1, 2023, 09:37 (EDT)
@Supporters: Thank you so much for the help I'm getting on the proposal! I wasn't expecting this one to get a lot of support. Special thanks to Doc von Schmeltwick, SolemnStormcloud and Koopa con Carne for helping me here. And yes arend, I would totally love a section like that. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 12:29, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Mario: Thanks for mentioning this as I may have not made it that clear. My intent is to enforce a policy that states that if a incidental character in question doesn't have enough traits to be notable on having a wiki article, they'll be merged elsewhere. Currently, there isn't a policy on this aside from a similar one regarding Minor NPCs which judging by its description, would pretty much allow instances if that character has a name. The examples I provided where characters who don't have that many traits as of now to make an article actually useful. Keep in mind we aren't doing anything to the articles right now; that will happen if this proposal ends up being successful. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 13:34, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Isn't the scope of this proposal just kind of the general aim for this policy page anyway? There's already an implicit guideline concerning potential conjecturally-named NPCs: "if a minor NPC can be shown to have importance to the game or story" There even is an old revision to the page that might've been made to deal with these kinds of articles (although insufficient admittedly)[1] but later removed to allow for user disrection[2] (and yeah individual discretion seems like my way to go with these kinds of pages). So would this proposal effect changes to this page? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:41, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Well, that policy only mentions Minor NPCs that don't have a name. Plus, I also brought up two character are from a TV show and a movie who aren't NPCs by technically because they aren't video game characters. The Minor NPCs policy is rather vague on this and only exists to make sure Goomba (Super Paper Mario character) doesn't happen. I guess I can look into what Waluigi Time suggested. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 14:08, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I do think that NPCs in standard gameplay of the first three Paper Mario games should be exempt, as they all have tattles that provide some insight into who they are. Not so much the ones from the glorified cutscenes in Castle Bleck. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:07, December 1, 2023 (EST)
All of the named minor characters you can tattle on the field in PM, TTYD, and SPM. For instance, the people of Flipside who all have their own little personalities despite just being "talk to" characters. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:06, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Axis Can you name character that you're confused about in regards to this proposal? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 15:36, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I'll have to address an error to one entry of the list of additional suggestions in your latest edit: "Johnson the Hammer Bro". Johnson is actually a Koopa Troopa, as stated in his article, and it's also made clear in the caption of the article image that Johnson is on the very right. The Hammer Bro on the very left of the same image is actually still the Hammer Bro captain (he's Johnson's captain, which is the reason for his conjectural name in the first place). rend(talk)(edits) 15:44, December 1, 2023 (EST)
@Hewer: "This only makes it harder to determine which characters do and don't get merged and generally has the potential to make it harder to find information." The proposal clearly mentions that it'll to be easy find certain information. For example, if one wants to find Flaky, they can type their name in the search box and be redirect to the section of the Flurry article. "and I don't really see what the problem is with having these articles, short or otherwise. Something being minor or obscure is a bad reason for it to not get a page in my opinion." The proposal is concerning articles that are so short, they aren't helpful in the slightest. Why is the Chanterelle article is totally fine to keep when they just say hi to Toad? If they were merged with the Toad species, nothing is getting lost here. Or Flaky in which the article tries speculating where they appear. I mentioned the hypothetical Bob the Goomba example. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 16:16, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Why is the Chanterelle article not fine to keep when they're a named character? If we were to merge Toad General with the Toad species, or Chef Toad, or Toad, no information would be lost. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best choice for organisation. I don't see what the issue would be with the hypothetical Bob the Goomba - there not being much to say about a subject doesn't make it an invalid subject to have its own article. And Flaky's article should be improved to not have speculation, that's not really an argument for or against this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:31, December 1, 2023 (EST)
Toad General is fine to keep because he actually has some unique characteristics. Ditto for Chef Toad. Really, I can't make more arguments since you think it's perfectly okay to have these articles which is fine; I just can't really refute these points. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 17:48, December 1, 2023 (EST)
I'm going to try to review the proposed policy page User:TheUndescribableGhost/Incidental characters. I'd like to add that if an incidental character/object is recurring despite of a meager role and a simple subject of a running gag (say for instance, some Toad is called Sam in a random joke and then you see someone refer to Sam again in the ending of the game, or you see Sam being mentioned again in a sequel; this is like Johnson but you see "Sam" the couple of times he's mentioned) it probably should be also worth an article. Try not to be too disappointed if this proposal fails, okey dokey? Even if this doesn't pass, it's probably worth keeping these "notability" guidelines in mind and still attempt articles for deletions and whatnot with that framework. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:30, December 1, 2023 (EST)
It's fine, Mario; I think it's really cool we're having these discussions and I can sorta see why people are hesitant because it's hard to draw the line. The Sam example I do agree with to some degree. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 10:52, December 2, 2023 (EST)
An idea just dawned upon me. Why don't we have a page titled "List of named incidental characters" or something like that where we can put the content of all of these pages, like what we have for implied characters? There wouldn't be any information lost, and the content of a named character wouldn't be awkwardly merged with the species article if it caused any problems. DrippingYellow (talk) 00:11, December 3, 2023 (EST)
Because the line between incidental and not is much harder to draw than the line between implied and not. How minor does a character have to be to be "incidental"? There's no real metric that can be used. Not to mention it may end up being a very big page depending on where that arbitrary line gets drawn, especially since these characters all have images unlike most of the implied characters. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:46, December 3, 2023 (EST)
I did make it a point to specify named "incidental" characters, which I don't think are nearly as numerous as you seem to worry. And I think this proposal already provides a good guideline for what characters could be considered incidental. Heck, I'd argue that an "incidental" character list would be more clear-cut than the implied characters list, which includes characters ranging from King Croacus IV's predecessors, which actually have visible paintings of them, to a name-drop of Mr. Bean clearly intended as a throwaway pop culture reference, and even Johnson, who isn't "implied" at all; he actually appears in-game, more like the "incidental" characters we're talking about if anything. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:52, December 3, 2023 (EST)
I've thought for a while that Johnson (and also King K. Rool's wife) should be split from the implied characters list since they aren't implied, and I'm not sure what the Croacus rulers are doing there seeing as they have their own page. In theory, though, "is never seen" is a much more objective definition than "is minor". The number of "minor" characters could vary greatly depending on where we arbitrarily draw the line (there's a reason we have a policy page on them, after all). You specifying named characters doesn't really help, it just makes me question what the fate of any conjecturally named NPCs would be if we deem them too "minor" to stay. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:56, December 4, 2023 (EST)
Doesn't the Mario Wiki already "draw a line" by merging generic characters into the species article simply based on whether they have a unique name or not? I'd argue that throwaway characters like Chanterelle are due for a merge/deletion by most of the same reasoning used for Goomba (Super Paper Mario character). Sure, maybe using the name as a base isn't "arbitrary", but I think the "arbitrary" drawing of a line would make for a better wiki. I don't see how these short articles being compressed into a list is a bad thing, either. It's more convenient, and if anything being taken to a four sentence-long page can be annoying. This is a sort of Mario Wikipedia after all, and Wikipedia itself seems to have restrictions against making individual articles that are niche from a global perspective. And as for conjectural NPCs, I don't see how making a definition for "minor" characters would change anything. Arguments about when conjecturally titled characters stop becoming notable have been happening since the dawn of the wiki. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:51, December 4, 2023 (EST)
I'd say having an individual name is a pretty good way to determine that it's an individual character, and disagree that being redirected to a big list page is more convenient than having an individual, non-implied character get an individual page. I just generally don't see what the problem is with having articles like this or why the policy should be changed. And you can't compare the policies of Wikipedia, which needs guidelines on how notable things have to be to get covered, with the policies of a wiki intending to provide complete coverage of everything in the Mario franchise. The two wikis have different policies because they have different goals. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:18, December 4, 2023 (EST)
Characters being "individual characters" isn't the main factor that gives them their own articles. Just look at the implied characters list: Chief Quimby very much is an individual, and he also contributes to the plot of Defective Gadgetry by calling Inspector Gadget. I think the main reason he doesn't have his own article, aside from the fact that the implied character list exists, is because he has a one-time role in the Mario series, and has basically no information given about him in the Mario franchise. Though with that said, a couple of the examples given above do have a notable amount of information (namely Jerry, Gary, etc.), an amount of information roughly equivalent to that of a Paper Mario NPC like Bozzo, so I guess I've kind of come around to opposing the proposal. Now, Kuribo and Chanterelle? I don't agree with those, but they will likely be handled in a talk page proposal. DrippingYellow (talk) 16:03, December 4, 2023 (EST)
Stop separating alternate -VISUAL- media artwork in image galleries
Keep them separated 5-8
Something that's been bothering me for a while is that singular character/species/item artwork for non-game -VISUAL- media (for instance, The Super Mario Bros. Super Show and The Super Mario Bros. Movie) are separated from game artwork and usually awkwardly crammed into a "miscellaneous" section for stock images (another issue for later) and random things like concept art, icons, and official memes. I see no reason why these pieces of artwork created for a defined piece of -VISUAL- media should be shunted below the others just because of the medium used; after all, computer applications like Super Mario Bros. Print World do get to be included among the games.
Clarification: NO MERGE: Screenshots, sprites/models/cels, full scans - including game cards reusing pre-existing stock art, generic-nonspecific-promotional artwork, box art, photographs DO MERGE: Promotional artwork for characters and objects specifically made for and associated with a particular show/book/movie/non-video-based game
Camwoodstock (talk) While you could argue there are some edge cases where a case-by-case basis is warranted, in general there isn't really a case where these things exceed enough appearances for their own subset of the gallery except for like... Maybe Mario and Bowser, who already have parts of their galleries (namely the screenshots) split off into entire media categories because of stuff like Bowser's copious amount of alternative costumes in the cartoons or Mario being the titular character of a multimedia franchise; in the case of galleries where this ratio is a lot slimmer, however--like, say, Bowser's character art in specific only having one image for DiC King Koopa instead of a notable percentile of the page, melding the non-game media in with their overall game appearances rather than into their stock art sections would make more sense to us. And, as we mentioned, in any sort of edge-case, we can pretty easily handle that in the future; especially since said "edge cases" most likely pertain to the largest galleries on the site, which are generally impacted the least by already having the multimedia split for different reasons.
LadySophie17 (talk) Cramming them into the often much larger game installments section isn't much better either. They are not games, so I think they are fine where they are. If anything, an option to separate them from both games and miscellaneous would fare better.
Okapii (talk) Per LadieSophie. I wouldn’t be opposed to creating a separate gallery section for more prominent non-game media, but shoving them in alongside models and renders from the games would be messy.
Mario (talk) Concerns here. Are we going to organize Fake Mario Show by episode or by when the show launches? Are there instances where game installments have been released in between episode windows? Should we try to fill every episode for the show? Is it a good idea to apply this proposal to all character galleries or only particular ones (like Mario's gallery vs Paragoomba's gallery); this has been brought up in a support vote by Camwoodstock which should be a provision in a proposal first. How is "alternate media" or "nongame media" defined? Are we going to also merge scans and merchandise images? Is promotional art in general gonna be merged? Will the group art in Mario's gallery be merged? There's definitely something pictured in the proposer's head like cartoon screenshots, Mario Supershow individual art, and comic book scans, but it's not defined in the proposal. As I said with "Have stricter policies for one-off generic species characters", this proposal has an issue that I think brings up valid points, but the solution outlined is too vague. Enforcing this can end up creating unforeseen problems. It doesn't help that this proposal's title is "Stop separating alternate media artwork in image galleries" which suggests that all alternate media artwork should be merged (such as group art taken from a photograph of an airport; File:MarionFriends NintendoCheckin.png; good luck trying to arrange that chronologically with the rest of the page) but seems to concern with "singular character/species/item artwork" rather than all sorts of media, which can be easily misread in archives.
I emphasize that getting wiki discussion first is important before creating a committing to a proposal like this and then suddenly people are deciding on something and agree to a proposal (and sway the vote that can happen literally overnight; everyone has different schedules; they're not going to know when an proposal has cropped up and then like 7 people already support it) that has a lot of unanswered questions that need to be addressed within a week time span. That being said, and to be fair for the authors of proposals I've been criticizing, MarioWiki seems to not have a lot of places to do this. Proposals generate discussions more easily than talk page comments but can be daunting to subject your suggestions to a vote. I've tried to bring up a general discussion in Talk: Main Page regarding our editing field, and maybe that's the place to go for this sort of thing (it seems like the most logical place). It's just, again, a matter of who will respond to your discussion? I don't know if it's a prevalent issue of not having discussion until the proposal comes, but eh.
@Opposition I had thought of that, but a majority of subjects with non-game art have maybe one or two instances of it, which is too little to have a designated section of a large gallery. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:40, December 4, 2023 (EST)
For the record: my vote has been made after this comment. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:13, December 4, 2023 (EST)
When I bring up the cartoon, I mean stock artwork created for it
@LGM Considering we've been putting new/retouched Mario Portal artwork with the game it represents despite coming years after, presumably when the show first aired. I've been thinking through this for a while. As for the scope of "alternative media," things like TV, books, film. Scans of random merchandise and wall art would not count. I'm using "medium" by the definition of "able to tell a story." I would not count things like - say - full trivia cards, food wrappers, or action figures as "media" by any stretch, and I'm honestly not sure how we got there. Anyways, I'll amend the proposal by specifying that it is -VISUAL- media, which is generally understood to be animation/books/film/games; also, please note, this proposal is only for artwork, not for screenshots or standard scans. While I suppose animation cels could be counted as sprites, that is out of the scope of this proposal. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:11, December 4, 2023 (EST)
Can this be clarified in the proposal? Will this proposal merge only art from TV, film, and comic books? You can expand the scope later as needed. Also, on a tangent that wouldn't directly apply to this proposal; it's just a thought experiment: why should merchandise not be merged? I'm just curious. I don't think it should be merged either since it isn't immediately from a particular installment, but arguably there's a release date associated with these things, a particular portrayal of these characters, and there's perhaps even narrative to some of these. And it's not like game applications like Mario no Photopi or little basic digital games like Luigi's Hammer Toss have narratives tied to them, but let's say a hypothetical Mario DnD game comes around. It has a specific launch date, has a narrative, Mario plays a role, and Mario gets art of it. It has all the markings of a game like Fortune Street except it's a physical board game. This art would go on the merchandise aspect probably. But why not put it with the rest of the games? And if this one, why not Super Mario Level Up! or Super Mario Blow Up! Shaky Tower Balancing Game? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:25, December 4, 2023 (EST)
OK, clarifying above. Presumably art for toys would go with box art if we were merging all of that. Now, if'n a TTRPG were to come out and have artwork created specifically for it, I'd absolutely be fine with merging it, but most board/card games we do have on the site don't have isolated art unique from pre-existing video game art; any that do, sure, I see no problem with it (and on the Triforce wiki I include art from a Milton-Bradley board game in the standard image galleries). Now, for generic unspecified art used on a variety of products (and Mario Party: Star Rush), like, say, "promotional render of pink-colored Yoshi sitting down (not associated with any game)," I also want those merged at some point in the long run, but it's more difficult in figuring out when it was first utilized. I suppose the main reason I want the alt-media art merged is because it's ultimately irrelevant what the source media was; unlike a screenshot, a piece of artwork created for it makes no difference what the source media was. It's still just artwork created as supplement to something else. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:34, December 4, 2023 (EST)
