MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.
Previous proposals

Rewrite cited quotes into a new style

Do not change 4-7
It's been two years since the {{ref quote}} was deleted. This time, I was wondering if there's a possibility to rewrite the cited quotes into a new style to match the Wikipedia citation templates {{Cite video game}}, {{Cite episode}}, and {{AV media}}. Here are some examples: 

<ref>[[Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development|Nintendo EAD Tokyo]] (November 1, 2007). ''[[Super Mario Galaxy]]'' ([[Wii]]). [[Nintendo]]. Level/area: [[Bubble Blastoff]]. "'''[[Captain Toad]]''': 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'"</ref>

=

Nintendo EAD Tokyo (November 1, 2007). Super Mario Galaxy (Wii). Nintendo. Level/area: Bubble Blastoff. "Captain Toad: 'That Undergrunt Gunner is keeping us from exploring the area!'" 

<ref>Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "[[Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas]]". ''[[The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3]]''. Episode 1. "'''Royal Parrot''': 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'"</ref>

=

Shelly, Bruce; Shelly, Reed (September 8, 1990). "Sneaky Lying Cheating Giant Ninja Koopas". The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3. Episode 1. "Royal Parrot: 'You can't evict me! Braw! I'm the Royal Parrot!'" 

<ref>Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). ''{{wp|Despicable Me 3}}'' (Motion picture). "'''Bratt''': 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"</ref>

=

Coffin, Pierre; Balda, Kyle Balda (director) (June 14, 2017). Despicable Me 3 (Motion picture). "Bratt: 'It's on like Donkey Kong!'"

Proposer: GuntherBB (talk)
Deadline: January 27, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. GuntherBB (talk) Per proposal
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) standard good, disorder bad
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per both, especially if this allows us to have citation templates.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Y'know? Now that it's been brought up, it is kinda weird we just lack a template for stock citations... at all. We have a template for consistent inter-wiki links, a template for consistent ways to depict controller buttons, a template for consistent ways to put dividing dots into navboxes, but a template for consistent citations is just Not A Thing. This would certainly make it easier to create new citations for people not as involved in the process if nothing else, and so long as the template follows our citation guidelines (which, it looks like they do), there isn't really any harm in having a bespoke template for these.

#Hewer (talk) As long as it stays optional, per all.

Oppose

  1. PnnyCrygr (talk) As User:Wayoshi puts it, "We are not Wikipedia." Also, unnecessary.
  2. YoYo (talk) per PnnyCrygr.
  3. DrippingYellow (talk) I had to think about it, but I'll have to oppose. I'm OK with books, magazines, and external websites getting sufficient citations, but going this in-depth for quoting a Mario game just seems redundant. And yes, I'm aware this isn't a requirement, but why would I support the addition of a template for an extravagant style of references I don't think are necessary most of the time?
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I'm in an awkward situation here, because I do support having a more solid guideline for citations, but I feel like these specific guidelines are awkward for our purposes, especially the video game one. This level of depth makes sense for a generalist wiki that will usually be citing research papers and occasionally cites media, but we're a media-focused wiki. Half the time, the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me.
  5. Hewer (talk) On second thought, per DrippingYellow and Ahemtoday.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Normally, I'd be all for standardization, but implementing guidelines for citations is a delicate balance between the level of detail of the citation and the ease at which a user can add such a citation to an article. These citation formats are simply too complex for the narrower context of this wiki, and they include an unnecessary amount of arbitrary information beyond the quote itself, which is by far the most important part of the citation.
  7. Mario (talk) Proposal hasn't clearly outlined the issue nor does it explain how the effected changes will be an improvement. See comment.

Comments

Will this proposal allow for the aforementioned citation templates to be created? I'm not completely clear on what this proposal is aiming to accomplish, but I would support citation templates, to help create a consistency around the use of the references tags. Super Mario RPG (talk) 00:39, January 20, 2024 (EST)

Last time a template was proposed for citations (by some bloke named Bye Guy, I wonder how he's doing today), people were strongly (and I mean, strongly) against it for a reason I can't, to this day, grasp. It might have to do with the fact that people somehow misinterpreted that proposal as "let's make *this* layout a policy" when it was more so "let's make a template that could aid in making citations more consistent and allow for quick mass modifications if the used format is ever codified or changed". Someone even accused me of wanting to "enforce policy" because of personal convenience, even though the very point of templates is to make editing more convenient, but I digress--my points weren't too articulate either, so I have my share of blame. Problem was, I couldn't have proposed a template without a given format, so I guess my mistake was the misplaced priority: some standard formats should have been discussed first, perhaps leading to a proposal specific to that topic, and only when an agreement was reached between users would I have followed up with a template proposal. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:10, January 20, 2024 (EST)
There is a frightening amount of times when random users try to co-opt a template convenience into a requirement. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:15, January 20, 2024 (EST)
Looking at the revision history of MarioWiki:Citations, it seems a format had already been imposed by the time of that proposal. I still don't see how a template would've been such a bad idea. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:08, January 21, 2024 (EST)
I don't even think it is a bad idea on its own, it's just that the templates being proposed here are copy-pasted from Wikipedia, rather than being based on the sufficient citation standards we already have. To be fair, we don't yet have a standard (in the rules) for in-game and film quotes, but if there was ever going to be one, this is certainly not it. DrippingYellow (talk) 13:43, January 21, 2024 (EST)

The idea of making citations of all kinds more streamlined and standardized has actually been on my mind for a while now, but I haven't made a proposal yet because I don't know exactly how to go about it. Like I said in my reasoning for opposing this proposal, some citation formats are just too complicated for most users to bother following them, which is why finding the right format for a citation can make all the difference towards that format being agreed upon collectively as an improvement; that's why this proposal failed and this one unanimously succeeded. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 20:52, January 21, 2024 (EST)

So, why this proposal? Citations should follow a certain standard, which I believe is illustrated in MarioWiki:Citations ("What to put as references") but perhaps not clearly, due to information on how citations should be formatted just mushed in a paragraph with no citation templates to work off, only examples. That being said, the proposal aims to change the citation style for quotes, referencing a talk page proposal for a deleted template, see Template talk:Ref quote; why was this deleted? Some people interpreted this as a proposal to create a general citation template, which I don't believe so since this proposal seems to strictly concern with quotations from fictional characters.

If so, the comment by Ahemtoday is a reason to oppose: the stuff we'll be citing will have its own article, so things like listing the publisher and developer of a video game just to cite it doesn't feel like it makes sense to me." That being said, I think it's appropriate to cite some direct gameplay videos for evidence of claims in the articles. I've done this for Metal Mario's page, particularly the part where Wario yells when falling underwater; it's for my own sake in properly recalling something trivial (but amusing) and possible to forget later on. But this proposal aims to cite video games themselves for quotes, which I don't even think it's the best way to do it versus a time stamped video.

If not, questions remain. What's the issue with the old system? Are we currently not even citing quotes? How are we doing citations for quotes currently? What's even the scope of this proposal, is it fictional characters or quotations from publications? What examples are there to show issues of the current citation method that led to the creation of this proposal? What do the changes even look like; what's "before" and "after"? Why should we match Wikipedia's system? It's not clear from this proposal. I've re-read the thing a few times carefully. I'm still left with confusion. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:57, January 22, 2024 (EST)

Create two specific citation templates

Create one template for all types of citations 3-5-1
This proposal similarly deals with citation templates, but proposes the creation of a few not covered within the scope of a different currently active proposal.

I've seen inconsistently formatted citations all over the wiki (e.g. some add a comma, followed by "pg. 7" when it should be a period, followed by "Page 7.") and templates would be perfect for making sure the citations are formatted consistently all over the wiki.

I'm proposing the two following citation templates for the following purposes:

  • {{cite web}} - for anything that links to someplace else on the web, including PDF and digital documents.
  • {{cite book}} - for any books, including magazines and manga.
  • {{cite document}} - for any digital documents, such as PDFs, should there ever be a need to cite from those. (Edit: merged option into cite web)

I don't expect them to be strictly enforced, but should this proposal pass, MarioWiki:Citations and probably the Manual of Style should be updated accordingly.

Edit: Added an option for a single citation template (i.e. {{cite}}) that would cover for web links and publications alike, though I personally still prefer the two separately.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: January 28, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Create both

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Per proposal
  2. PnnyCrygr (talk) Supporting this because of greater convenience and in order to allow for less inconsistencies with citing references.
  3. DrippingYellow (talk) Per all!

#Hewer (talk) Although I don't see how optional templates that aren't strictly enforced are meant to make references more consistent (feels like they'd do the opposite if anything), I don't care much about consistency of reference formatting so I don't mind this being an option to potentially make it easier.

Create one citation template for all types of citations

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Secondary choice.
  2. ThePowerPlayer (talk) After dwelling upon this for a while, I've realized that citations for books and web pages ultimately share so many of the same parameters that different citation templates would be redundant. The easiest way to create a single template for both citation types is to include optional parameters, which I am confident that MediaWiki can support. On my sandbox, I've created an idea of what the template should look like in the editor, as well as explanations of each field. If either this option or the above option passes, I will make a proposal of my own with further details.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer. Besides, I think one singular template would be easier to deal with.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) We feel like this is probably simplest; besides, as people have pointed out, there aren't really that many differences between web and print citations as-is.

Oppose

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Even if I would agree with the idea, I can't approve the creation of a template when I don't know what it will look like. I'm open to changing my vote if that changes.

Comments

One template for all citations would do just fine, no need for three. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 05:04, January 21, 2024 (EST)

Wikipedia has them separate. I'm not sure how one template would work conveniently for all instances of citations. Super Mario RPG (talk) 06:56, January 21, 2024 (EST)
Okay, well I added a separate option for those who prefer a single citation template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)

I would like to know what each template would look like before voting on it. I'm confused by what the document one means, for example. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 07:10, January 21, 2024 (EST)

Yeah i think cite web can cover for digital documents, come to think of it. I'll strike it out. These templates would probably be the same as what we have, only in template form. Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:29, January 21, 2024 (EST)

As Sophie asked, what will these templates look like? Are we going to use content from Wikipedia? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:03, January 22, 2024 (EST)

No, it's going to be the same way we already cite links, just in template format. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:17, January 22, 2024 (EST)
What will the contents of {{cite}} look like? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:42, January 22, 2024 (EST)
It would somehow integrate the functionality of the two templates. I made that option because Koopa con Carne said that only a single citation template should suffice. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:46, January 22, 2024 (EST)
My question was not answered. What will you write in the template page to integrate this functionality? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:51, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Truth be told, I don't know. I originally intended the proposal to have only separate templates as an option or opposition, but since a user said there could be one that suits all, i added as an option. i wouldn't know how to design a template for all types of citations, as the coding, switch, and if expressions for that could be too complex, so if that option passes, I'll probably need someone to help. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:04, January 22, 2024 (EST)
Though I do know that consistent parameters would be like |last= (for author last name), |first= (first name), |title= (the work being cited). Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:26, January 22, 2024 (EST)
I agree with Sophie and Mario. At this point, it looks like the "Create both" option will pass, and two citation templates will be created; however, these templates will only be used if they're formatted in an easily accessible way, and the proposal currently provides almost no details about what the templates would actually look like if they were implemented. For this proposal to actually take effect, there needs to be consensus on how the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are implemented and used, not just the existence of the templates themselves. That means that this proposal either needs to be updated with specific formatting guidelines for the templates, or it must be followed up by another proposal detailing such guidelines. If you don't know exactly what the templates would look like, I'm willing to make a follow-up proposal of my own to settle that issue. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 10:45, January 23, 2024 (EST)
Sure Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:58, January 23, 2024 (EST)

The proposal is probably going to pass but I'm going to abstain from opposing because at least the community seems to agree on creation of the thing. The design of the thing is definitely another issue for another day, and it's something I think we can work with after the proposal. That being said, if you want more confidence for a support of your proposal, illustrate praxis. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)

That's exactly what I'm planning on doing the minute this proposal ends, but before that, I want consensus to be reached on making a template at all (and how many templates to make). ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 17:27, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Add minecraft.wiki as an interwiki link

Add 11-0
This isn't so much a "feature" rather than a simple quality-of-life addition to the wiki. This proposal proposes to add an interwiki link to minecraft.wiki (i.e. [[minecraftwiki:]]), especially considering the multitude of subjects in Minecraft's Super Mario Mash-up pack with Super Mario-themed reskins. At the moment, when linking to articles on a Minecraft wiki, it is the most convenient to do so by means of using the {{Fandom}} template to link to the Fandom wiki when there's a higher quality independent alternative available that a majority of the community has left to. I try to avoid adding direct urls into wiki articles in general. If there was an instance where someone added urls to minecraft.wiki throughout every article where it could apply, this would be a multitude of urls that one would have to manually fix, due to the Super Mario Mash-up pack existing.

Proposer: Super Mario RPG (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Super Mario RPG (talk) As proposer.
  2. MegaBowser64 (talk) Couldn't hurt, really. Per proposer.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per proposal
  5. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom Per all, if they split off from Fandom months ago, we should probably be linking to their independent wiki by now.
  7. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  8. Mario (talk) Considering that interwiki links are generally uncontroversial and I assume most of us hate that x-factorized spillway of an ad-infested radioactive dumpsite, I don't think a proposal is entirely necessary but it's still a valid way to request an added feature like that.
  9. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This makes a lot of sense to me, as it would let the wiki remain consistent when dealing with subjects that are not Super Mario-related. Per proposal.
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  11. OmegaRuby (talk)Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

If this proposal succeeds, I think we could as well try a proposal for adding the RayWiki (e.g. [[raymanpc:]]) next, due to the Rayman series' relevance in Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope via the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC. Casual reminder that we have interwiki for Kovopedia (even though the Magical Vacation series has little to no relevance to the Super Mario franchise yet, even while taking Super Smash Bros into account) purely because it's a NIWA affiliate, so adding a Rayman wiki as an interwiki link would only be fair, and that's double as much so for adding a Minecraft one. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Yes, I agree with this. Why not make the proposal now or do you want me to do it? Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I agree as well. We should definitely make a proposal for adding RayWiki interwiki links. It would serve the same purpose as the Minecraft wiki links, so why not? -- Artwork of Rosalina used in Mario Party: The Top 100, Mario Kart Tour and Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. FanOfRosalina2007Artwork of Princess Peach for Mario Party: The Top 100 (talk · edits) 14:39, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Allow staff warnings to be appealed

Allow 18-0
See MarioWiki:Appeals

Appeals haven't been widely practiced in the wiki lately, but I think it's better to act sooner and also gauge a consensus on this. Rule 1 states: "Reminders and/or Warnings given by an administrator or patroller cannot be appealed." The rationale behind the rule is likely to focus on admin backrooms to discuss matters pertaining to decisions by admins and minimize drama. However, this runs squarely against the spirit of the wiki. We establish very clearly in MarioWiki:Administrators:

In general, administrators are not imbued with any special authority and are equal to everyone else in terms of editorial responsibility. Staff members' votes and opinions are given equal weight to regular users in proposals, featured article nominations, or any other democratic process or informal discussion.

This sort of rule was likely intended to prevent users from causing a scene (see a discussion questioning the validity of it) but it squarely contradicts the above statement which makes our commitment to valuing all users questionable, if not insincere. This kind of rule instead potentially stifles good faith discussion made by users to staff and might help foster distrust in staff, something that won't work well for a collaborative wiki. Additionally, MarioWiki:Appeals already requires users to keep discussions civil, so possible bad faith appeals are already covered, and lengthy exchanges are already discouraged.

People should be allowed to openly critique our performance in good faith of course (bad faith ones will still be dealt with in our MarioWiki:Courtesy; that being said, I also have my eyes set on rewriting the corresponding policies concerning "undermining admin authority" to encourage constructive criticism). If we're supposed to treat admins as equal to everyone else, at least we should invite good faith criticisms for decisions that staff has made, not make some ultimately arbitrary delineation between who gives out a warning and then also proclaim staff isn't that special.

Affected pages (if there are pages I missed, please mention; they'll likely be dealt accordingly, however, since this is a simple proposed change):

  • MarioWiki:Appeals: Rule 1 will be removed
  • MarioWiki:Administrators: "While warnings given to users by an admin or patroller cannot be appealed, [T]he other staff members additionally have the ability to overturn any unwarranted warnings or blocks if they see fit."
  • Template:Reminder: "If this reminder was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this reminder was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Warning: "If this warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • Template:Lastwarn: "If this last warning was not issued by an administrator or patroller and you feel it was undeserved, you may appeal it."
    ⬇️changed to⬇️
    "If you feel this last warning was undeserved, you may appeal it."
  • MarioWiki:Warning policy: "If you were given a warning/reminder for discourteous behavior that you feel should have only merited an unofficial notice as outlined above, you can appeal to have the template removed. However, keep in mind that excessive impolite or disruptive behavior may earn you a warning right off the bat; if the administrators feel that you should have known better than to act the way you did even without an unofficial request to stop, your warning will not be removed. You cannot appeal a warning given by an administrator or patroller; if one is deemed inappropriately given, it will be handled within the staff team accordingly."
    • Q. I don't think I deserve my warning. What should I do?
      A. If you feel you don't deserve the warning, you have the option to appeal it as long as the warning in question was not given by an administrator. When appealing warnings, it is best to do so as soon as possible.

Staff will still have the ability to overturn any warning at any notice, and bad appeals toward staff (like any bad appeal in general especially to experienced long-term users who aren't staff) will probably still be archived swiftly and hopefully without too much drama. If this kind of clarification is needed, then please do state it and I'll make the changes.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) M.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yes, THANK YOU. After a certain recent incident, I'm also questioning the "don't give reminders to staff" rule.
  3. Koopa con Carne (talk) I honestly don't recall seeing a (formal) warning issued wrongly by an admin--if that ever happened, it was probably in the very early years of the wiki, when sysop responsibilities weren't outlined as well as today and the young'uns who achieved that position were obviously prone to mishandle it. For the past decade, the admins around here have actually performed their job quite commendably. That said, I very much agree with the principle behind this proposal that the administration shouldn't affect an air of mystique to bar regular users from questioning them; ensuring that users defer to a good conduct and a set of editing rules, a significant part of which was established by the community at large, doesn't mean that your judgement is impeccable and that your word is final.
  4. Swallow (talk) This is certainly a lot more fair.
  5. TheFlameChomp (talk) I do think this is the fairest way to handle formal reminders and warnings.
  6. Axis (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Drago (talk) Blocks can already be appealed to the rest of the staff via e-mail, so it makes sense for admin warnings to also be appealable. I do think successful appeals against admin warnings will be rare though.
  8. MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, you see, I think we should definitely make MarioWiki more equal for everyone. The people will run the wiki, everyone gets equal pay, free healthcare, etc. etc. This will be the way to achieve prosperity and happiness. It will be a people's wiki renowned all over the internet. Per all.
  9. Mario4Ever (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Ray Trace (talk) You can guess what my position is considering I was the highlighted comment in this proposal.
  11. Archivist Toadette (talk) Probably for the best, since abuse can and occasionally does happen at any level of the power hierarchy.
  12. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  13. Camwoodstock (talk) How has this not been done already??? Per all, sometimes people get misjudged and sometimes people change, so it's probably for the best we account for that rather than allow one warning to just stick around forever.
  14. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yes, we absolutely need to do this! Just because a warning is issued by a staff member and not a regular user, it shouldn't mean that you can't appeal said warning. It wouldn't be fair at all! Per all.
  15. Hewer (talk) Per all (this rule is probably a reason why the appeal system doesn't get used much).
  16. PnnyCrygr (talk) Equality counts.
  17. YoYo (talk) any site that has a "staff have final word and you can't say anything about it" rule is always a red flag.
  18. Glowsquid (talk) Per.

Oppose

Comments

Doc von Schmeltwick: The ability to give these notices to staff will probably require further discussion (this one is a bit more contentious to me). I think situations involving a staff member should be dealt with via civil criticism rather than warning/reminder templates (it's not like blocking can be really enforced on members who have blocking tools, so these warning templates toward staff have little practical use anyway; removing staff tools would require intervention by other staff ultimately). We did say the most appropriate venues for criticizing staff, usually through forum DMs or Discord DMs. You can bring it up in MarioWiki talk:Warning policy or MarioWiki talk:Courtesy. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 14:20, January 27, 2024 (EST)

Koopa con Carne, Drago: Yeah I'm not expecting appeals on these decisions to be successful, since staff members already have good judgement most of the time, but I think it helps to at least signal to users that we give them a chance for a fair hearing first. There is always a chance they have a point or so which would be valuable feedback. We don't want to bar opportunity like that. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:04, January 27, 2024 (EST)

You know, it's kinda funny: the policies keep specifying that you cannot appeal a reminder or warning given by patrollers or administrators, but for the longest time, I could've sworn that reminders and warnings could've only been given by patrollers or administrators anyway, because they have been given the authority to block you and thus should also know when someone is breaking the rules. I, at least, hadn't really noticed a time that a normal registered user has given a warning to another normal registered user before, even though the current warning policy states they can do so (a detail, I should stress, I discovered just today). ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 11:55, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Honestly their powers are more limited than you think. Warnings and reminders set a kind of record and then block is the final step. It would be easier for all of us if normal users can help advise others what rules they're breaking. I have noticed a few times normal users given out reminders and warnings, but I suppose some staff members are active really often and are keeping more dibs on other users so probably they're on the scene sooner and more frequently. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Hewer: There actually has been like several attempts from the past couple of years, but have been removed due to rule 1.[1] Sure, they probably should've read the warning templates first before proceeding but it doesn't mean the rule itself is valid IMO. If you were the one issuing the exact same kind of warning and reminder, these cases would've been heard and decided; kind of easily shows the useless distinction. Besides, I add: it would certainly help to get second opinion of another staff member too, like another perspective, so it would still be beneficial for staff if we removed Rule 1. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:52, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Create interwiki link for RayWiki

create 11-0
This is similar to, and inspired by the Minecraft.wiki interwiki link proposal above, but with the RayWiki instead. The Rayman series has gotten relevance in the Super Mario franchise thanks to the Rayman in the Phantom Show DLC campaign for Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. The DLC campaign harbors a multitude of Rayman cameos and references, and currently, we can only link to articles of the most relevant wiki for Rayman using external weblinks, which... doesn't look all too great on an article, IMO.

Since this wiki has interwiki link support to wikis that are part of NIWA, but which series otherwise have little to no relevance to Super Mario in general (e.g. Kovopedia, a Magical Vacation wiki), I think it would be fair to have interwiki link support to wikis about franchises that are relevant to Super Mario in some way.

As for the interwiki link code, it could be something like [[raymanpc:]] (from the URL domain, since the RayWiki is hosted by the Rayman Pirate Community), simply [[raywiki:]] (from the wiki name itself), or both.

Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Arend (talk) Per proposal
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Arend. There are plenty of Rayman references throughout the DLC. What better way than to link to RayWiki for more information?
  3. Super Mario RPG (talk) Thank you for making this. I strongly agree to RayWiki being added.
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) get bent fandom. again Per proposal--we should be acknowledging these independent wikis whenever possible, and Rayman has a notable enough presence for this template to make sense.
  5. Mario (talk) I like this idea (also again I don't think we absolutely need proposals to effect this but just in case)
  6. Hewer (talk) Per all, and also, RayWiki seems to fully cover the Rabbids series, so this could be useful for other Mario + Rabbids content beyond just that DLC.
  7. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per sticking it to Fandom (and per proposal).
  8. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Per proposal.
  9. Swallow (talk) Per proposal (though for some reason I'm getting error pages when I try to search anything in that wiki)
  10. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.
  11. OmegaRuby (talk) Very well written wiki that deserves to be linked from here. Hell, I even found a link to us in their Sparks of Hope article! Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Make a YouTube Disambiguation(!!!) page

Create YouTube category 1-8-0

Pictured: How we feel after trying to make a half-comprehensive list of YouTube videos by Nintendo.

Before you hit "Oppose (edit)" and scream "NOT AGAIN", hear us out here.

YouTube, as a whole, almost certainly does not deserve an article to itself. Unless we were to make a sweeping move to create pages for every Social Media page associated with the Mario brand, or every video distribution platform that's released a Mario video on it, it would be very silly to do that... But that's not to say YouTube holds zero relevance to the Mario brand, and that having a page of some sort for it is a doomed concept.

No, what we're thinking is more along the lines of a disambiguation page, a-la our proposal for Starfy. There are some things that we could be linking to via a catch-all YouTube article, and while we don't want to claim this list is comprehensive--Play Nintendo on its own is a massive rabbit hole--we do want to hopefully illustrate roughly what we could do with that, as well as acknowledge a few counter-arguments.

We make no claims that this is comprehensive, we know for a fact we left a few out, be it out of brevity, us not knowing about them, or good ol' fashioned laziness. But this is merely to illustrate just some of the YouTube videos with articles:

...Look, you get the idea. There's a lot of YouTube videos related to Mario that we have articles for, and even more that we, as of proposal, don't. This would be both a good resource for quickly finding these without having to plunder the rat's nest of Play Nintendo articles, as well as hopefully bring more attention to the videos that currently do not have articles. This list isn't even comprehensive, mind you, and the scope itself could honestly be increased to even include various promotional pieces that were hosted on YouTube for games like Wario Land: Shake It! or Super Mario Galaxy 2; though this is definitely something for a future proposal, so let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet and say we'll leave it exclusively to videos made for YouTube, by Nintendo, about Mario.

We're also hoping this could potentially instigate better preservation for these videos; already, stuff like Virus Vid is vanishing from YouTube, only existing via Twitter and unofficial re-uploads since Nintendo privated the videos after Dr. Mario World went belly-up. And on the one hand, we get it--Play Nintendo isn't exactly the zenith of Nintendo's marketing. But it also makes us a little upset knowing we might only have a limited time to cover these things, and what's more is that there's possibly even stuff we've already missed out on that's lost to time.

Addendum: As a few people have pointed out, a category may also suffice--so we've added an option for that as well. We think this'd also suffice, personally.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: February 4th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support (make a YouTube disambiguation page)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) - You saw that list. We wouldn't have compiled this if we didn't feel as though there was potential for this to be a disambiguation page.

Support (make a YouTube category)

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) - We think this is also fine as well, especially since as people have pointed out, there are a lot of videos that already have articles.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) If the idea is to just have all of this easily accessible from one place, a category makes more sense than a disambig that's not really a disambig.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per Waluigi Time, "disambiguation" feels like a bit of a misnomer here.
  4. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
  5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  6. Tails777 (talk) This is the truest example of the phrase "Let em cook" I've ever seen. Most of those streaming services kinda felt iffy, but a category for YouTube series feels like a better idea stemming from it all. Per all.
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per all.
  8. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Oppose

Comments

How would this be preferred over, say, creating a category for YouTube? What will this accomplish that Category:Videos cannot? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:05, January 28, 2024 (EST)

...Admittedly, we didn't think much of a category, which we realize sounds very unlike us considering recent events--we promise, we had this written before a lot of the category conundrums happened! We could potentially add an option to create a category over a disambiguation page if that'd be appreciated. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:06, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I don't think a disambiguation page is a good idea, but I'd be pro-category. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 22:16, January 28, 2024 (EST)
Seconding this. If we were to make a disambiguation page, and then proceed to have every noteworthy Mario-related YouTube video in said page, it would be too big to not be just a category. --OmegaRuby (talk) 09:23, January 29, 2024 (EST)

I understand why a list of videos like this might be useful to have, but I don't get why it's being called a "disambiguation" here. This wouldn't be a list of things that the term YouTube could refer to, it would be a list of YouTube videos. Why not make it an article called "List of official YouTube videos" or something along those lines? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)

We're a little less keen on a List article, if for no other reason than a lot of the videos have unique articles; we feel like it'd be a little silly to make a full "List of" article if almost every entry would have a "Main article:" tab at the start of it, y'know? We'd understand it more if these videos didn't already have pre-established articles, but as it stands, we feel a disambiguation just works better for a page. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:43, January 28, 2024 (EST)
I was picturing more something like this type of list article, with a table and links to the individual pages. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:47, January 28, 2024 (EST)

I see the new option. How will Category:Videos be affected? Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:18, January 29, 2024 (EST)

...That's a category??? And we thought we had seen everything. We think there could be potential to rework "video" as a category seeing as that's such a generic term, but also considering the current state of the category as well as the state for other non-web video categories (namely film and television series), we're not sure what the best course of action is. We could maybe convert Video into something like our baseline Games category is at the moment, but we feel like that might start leaving the scope of this proposal... ~Camwoodstock (talk) 16:09, January 29, 2024 (EST)


Broaden the scope of the {{promo-photo}} template

Broaden the scope 7-0
Currently, the licensing template used for photographs uploaded to the wiki is Template:Promo-photo, henceforth referred to as {{promo-photo}}. All photographs uploaded to the wiki are listed under the template's corresponding category, Category:Promotional photos. This template is supposedly only meant to be used for publicity photos "known to have come from a press kit"; however, a lot of the photos in this category, most commonly images of merchandise, were taken by ordinary people who have no relation to a formal organization for news or media distribution; to put it simply, many images with this template don't come from a press kit.

I'm convinced that {{promo-photo}} is simply the equivalent of Wikipedia's Template:Non-free promotional, which went largely unchanged when it was copied to the Super Mario Wiki. However, the wikis are significantly different in their media policies: Wikipedia is far more strict on usage of copyrighted media than this wiki, which is centered around a copyrighted franchise. More importantly, it just doesn't feel right that {{promo-photo}}'s description doesn't match the majority of images which use it. I was originally thinking of creating a separate template to address this, but I realized that the issue could be entirely solved without needing to update the template used by hundreds of photos: instead, just change the description of the existing template to more accurately describe the images which use it.

This is what the {{promo-photo}} template currently looks like: 

{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is '''known to have come from a press kit''' or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
Copyrighted promotional photo This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

If this proposal passes, this is what the template would be changed to: 

{| class="notice-template copyright"
| [[File:Copyright.svg|48px|Copyrighted promotional photo]]
| This work is a '''[[wikipedia:Copyright|copyrighted]]''' photograph of a person, product, or event that either '''originates from a press kit''' or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise '''illustrates a copyrighted work'''. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the '''person''', '''product''', or '''event in question''', in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as [[wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] under [[wikipedia:Copyright law of the United States|United States copyright law]].
|}<includeonly>[[Category:Promotional photos]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:File copyright tags]]</noinclude>
Copyrighted promotional photo This work is a copyrighted photograph of a person, product, or event that either originates from a press kit or similar source for the purpose of reuse by the media, or otherwise illustrates a copyrighted work. It is believed that the use of this photograph to illustrate the person, product, or event in question, in the absence of a free alternative, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

This description would be substantially broad enough so that the template could continue being used for photos of copyrighted merchandise, as well as photos illustrating miscellaneous copyrighted works that cannot be categorized by other templates, such as this statue of Mario (which is not a product, as it was never for sale), all while describing the content of the images truthfully. Please feel free to comment if you have a better idea for a new description for the template.

Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk)
Deadline: February 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Mario (talk) I like this idea.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
  3. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) I've wanted something like this for years.
  5. Hewer (talk) This is more accurate, per proposal.
  6. FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This looks a lot more clear than the existing template. Per proposal.
  7. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

Comments

Don't forget the parameters of you starting the proposal and putting a deadline for it. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:38, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Anyway I use promotional photo for some merchandise images because the recent images are official stock photos meant to be put in online storefronts or in catalogues and whatnot, e.g. "promoted". I wasn't aware there was supposed to be a stricter definition applied to it. Icon showing how many lives Mario has left. From Super Mario 64 DS. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:40, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Those types of official stock photos do fall under the current description from the template, and in my opinion, they should be used whenever possible; however, take a look at Category:Merchandise images. There's a distinction between promotional photos displayed on online storefronts that have the license to sell the product displayed (such as this photo of a Mario plush), versus a photo of no official capacity taken in someone's house (such as this photo). Sometimes the latter is necessary to use because the former doesn't exist, which is why the aim of the proposal is to broaden the template so it can cover both official and unofficial merchandise photos. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 21:41, January 28, 2024 (EST)

Is there a possibility to rename the template from {{promo-photo}} to simply {{photo}}, if this proposal passes? I'm all for broadening the scope of this licensing template, but if it's going to be about photos in general of a work or product, and not specifically about promotional photos, when what's the point of keeping the promo in the template title? It would only be misleading. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 08:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)

That did cross my mind, but I wasn't sure whether it was right to advocate for it. Given the unanimous support for this proposal, though, it should be straightforward for you to make a proposal to rename the template itself. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 20:59, January 31, 2024 (EST)
Wouldn't renaming the template affect every page the template is used in (which is specifically something the proposal tried to avoid)? If not, then I would imagine it's a no-brainer to just rename the template once the proposal passes, it's a natural extension of it. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 16:51, February 1, 2024 (EST)
The proposal was trying to avoid the need to manually go through every file with the template and decide whether to change it or not. Renaming the template avoids that issue since it would be doable with a bot, so I don't think there should be any problems there. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:29, February 2, 2024 (EST)

Decide how to format the {{cite}} template and update citation guidelines accordingly

Update citation guidelines 7-0
Now that this proposal has instated the creation of a single {{cite}} template for citations, it's time to decide how this template should be formatted.

In my opinion, for this citation template to be the most effective and convenient for users, it should match existing policy on the MarioWiki:Citations page as closely as possible. This is for two reasons:

  • The first reason is to avoid misguided claims of the template including excessive amounts of detail, leading to a feeling that an overly complicated format is being forced onto users.
  • The second reason is so that currently existing citations can remain as they are, without the templates needing to be retroactively applied to them.

Remember, the goal of this template in the first place is to make it more convenient for users to follow citation guidelines. That being said, to do so requires that such guidelines are outlined clearly, and the current state of the MarioWiki:Citations page is highly ambiguous in some places. For example, one significant issue I have with the page is that the first citation of a physical book (which is supposedly from the Super Mario Sunshine manual) is completely different from the later citation of a Super Mario RPG guidebook:

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed eiusmod tempor incidunt ..." ~ Super Mario Sunshine manual, page 9.

Miller, K. 1996. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide, pg 13.

I see this template as an opportunity to clarify these inconsistenties once and for all, so if this proposal passes, I'm imposing the condition that not only should the MarioWiki:Citations page be updated to include an explanation on how to use the {{cite}} template, but all of the citation examples on that page should be updated to fit the format described below, for consistency's sake.

Here's exactly what I think the templates should look like in MediaWiki code, as well as descriptions of each of the parameters: 

{{cite
| author      =
| date        =
| title       =
| publisher   =
| isbn        =
| page        =
| accessdate  =
| quote       =
| archive	  =
| archivedate =
}}

Parameters for all citations:
These parameters should always be included whenever possible.

  • Author: The full name in (Lastname, Firstname) format or the username of whoever wrote the content of the source. Separate fields for the author's first name and last name are too confusing, since users could easily fill out the template as (Firstname, Lastname) by accident, not to mention the exceptions of a username or if the author is a collective (e.g. the author of an article is listed only as "Nintendo").
  • Date: The date the book or page was published, e.g. "January 1, 2000".
    • If the format "YYYY-MM-DD" is entered, it should be automatically converted to the preceding format, but typing plain text should also work.
  • Title: The title of the source. If citing a web page, this field should also be a link to the page itself.
  • Publisher: The publisher of the book, or the website on which the web page was found.

Parameters for a specific citation type:

  • ISBN: For physical books only, the ISBN of the book.
  • Page: For physical books only, the page number on which the citation was found.
    • Formatted as a number in code, but should be displayed in plain English, i.e. "Page 12.", for simplicity.
  • Access date: For web pages only, the date at which the source was accessed, e.g. "January 1, 2000". This is to preserve the state of the web page at that time, since unlike physical media, web pages can change at any point.

Optional parameters:
These parameters should only be included if relevant to the citation.

  • Quote: A brief excerpt from the book or web page providing more context to the citation. Using quotes should be encouraged because it allows readers to see evidence behind a claim quickly and directly on the wiki itself, rather than needing to seek out the evidence in question in order to prove that it has not been fabricated.
    • I chose to use "–" to separate the quote and the rest of the citation, since I have never seen any quote citation on the wiki use the tilde (~), as is supposedly recommended by guidelines. If there is evidence to support using a different symbol, please let me know in the comments.
    • Also, I was originally under the impression that the excerpted text in the quote should be italicized, but that is seemingly not the case in e.g. the MLA style guide, so currently, the quoted text remains un-italicized. Again, please comment if you disagree.
  • Archive: A link to a web archive of an online source. Must also include the "archive date" field if used.
    • The beginning of the URL should be automatically analyzed to determine which web archive was used (Wayback Machine or archive.today), and accordingly append the archived link with either "via Wayback Machine" or "via archive.today", respectively.
  • Archive date: The date at which the URL was archived.
    • If given in the same format as a Wayback Machine URL (e.g. "20210309100159") or the string of text in the top right corner of an archive.today page (e.g. "13 Aug 2022 13:51:45 UTC"), it should automatically be converted to the correct format, and it should stay that way in wiki code after the page is saved, like the timestamp template ("~~~~").

Here is what the citations on MarioWiki:Citations should look like, with the template code followed by what is displayed on the page (note that an advantage of using a template is that as long as the parameter names are specified, they can be typed in any order): 

{{cite
|date=August 26, 2002
|title=''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'' North American instruction booklet
|publisher=Nintendo
|page=7
|quote=It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites.}}

"It's up to Mario to clean up the mess on Isle Delfino, solve puzzles, and defeat enemies in order to gather the scattered Shine Sprites." – (August 26, 2002). Super Mario Sunshine North American instruction booklet. Nintendo. Page 7.

(Note: I updated this specific citation to an actual, verifiable quote from the text, because the irony of using a fabricated quote for citation guidelines doesn't sit right with me.) 

{{cite
|author=Campbell, Evan
|date=July 17, 2014
|title=[http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/17/the-cat-mario-show-announced The Cat Mario Show Announced]
|publisher=IGN
|accessdate=July 22, 2014}}

Campbell, Evan (July 17, 2014). The Cat Mario Show Announced. IGN. Retrieved July 22, 2014.

{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=January 14, 2015
|title=[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L69Z39bgdU4 Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer]
|publisher=YouTube
|accessdate=April 26, 2015}}

Nintendo (January 14, 2015). Wii U - Mario Party 10 Trailer. YouTube. Retrieved April 26, 2015.

{{cite
|title=[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]
|publisher=Nintendo
|accessdate=June 14, 2010}}

Smash Bros. DOJO!!. Nintendo. Retrieved June 14, 2010.

{{cite
|author=Nintendo
|date=1985
|title=[https://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf ''Super Mario Bros.'' Instruction Booklet
|accessdate=July 28, 2021
|archive=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309100159/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/clv/manuals/en/pdf/CLV-P-NAAAE.pdf
|archivedate=20210309100159}}

Nintendo (1985). Super Mario Bros. Instruction Booklet. Retrieved July 8, 2021. (Archived March 9, 2021, 10:01:59 UTC via Wayback Machine.)

{{cite
|author=Miller, Kent
|date=1996
|title=''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide''
|page=13}}

Miller, Kent (1996). Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Nintendo Player's Guide. Page 13.

Here is what a citation that uses the ISBN parameter would look like, with the ISBN placed in between the publisher and the page number, in order to distinguish the book uniquely before stating the page number within that book: 

{{cite
|author=Wessel, Craig
|title=''Warioland 4''
|publisher=Scholastic
|isbn=0-439-36711-5
|page=63
|quote=I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!}}

"I hate sand, but what I hate even more was that there was no treasure in sight!" – Wessel, Craig. Warioland 4. Scholastic. ISBN 0-439-36711-5. Page 63.

I can think of one exception where standardized formatting beyond this may or may not be optimal, that being citing Twitter / X posts, but that warrants its own proposal; I have such a proposal in the works, but I'll only release it after a consensus is reached here.

When actually using this template in an article, it should be included within the <ref></ref> tags, to ensure that naming the references works as always per the "How to add references" section of the citation guidelines.

Finally, I want to conclude by emphasizing that this is not a required template; it's simply a method of making citations easier and more standardized. If this proposal passes, a disclaimer should be added to MarioWiki:Citations stating that using the {{cite}} template is encouraged, but not required, and if a citation is better expressed without the template, then just manually typing something within the <ref> tags is completely okay.

Please feel free to comment on this proposal if you have any recommendations of your own.

EDIT: Per Super Mario RPG's recommendation, added the ISBN parameter.

Proposer: ThePowerPlayer (talk)
Deadline: February 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Yes, thank you for making this follow-up proposal.
  3. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Mario (talk) I like this idea!
  5. GuntherBB (talk) Per ThePowerPlayer.
  6. Koopa con Carne (talk) per all
  7. LadySophie17 (talk) That looks very complicated but sure, I could work with that.

Oppose

Comments

I know it may seem unnecessary, but can an ISBN be added as an (obviously optional) parameter to the template? Super Mario RPG (talk) 07:10, January 29, 2024 (EST)

As an optional parameter, it sounds perfectly applicable - I've added it to the proposal. ThePowerPlayer Slug.png ThePowerPlayer 08:34, January 29, 2024 (EST)

Just realized that perhaps this template also state the language of the source if, let's say, we're citing Japanese websites. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, February 5, 2024 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/65&oldid=4133002"