Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "April 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
The WarioWare and Rhythm Heaven series cross over with each other very frequently for various reasons. As such, this wiki currently has some limited coverage of Rhythm Heaven games. I believe that this coverage should be slightly expanded. While our fellow NIWA member Rhythm Heaven Wiki is doing a great job documenting these things and linking to it when relevant works, it would still be nice for the Super Mario Wiki to have all the WarioWare-related Rhythm Heaven content covered within its scope.
To be clear, these articles would only cover these subjects to the extent that they are relevant to the WarioWare series, much like how the Rhythm Heaven Megamix article is written. This is not a proposal to annex the Rhythm Heaven Wiki's coverage into our own.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Create articles for Rhythm Heaven Fever and all Rhythm Games that feature playable WarioWare characters
Hewer (talk) While we do have articles for the Mario minigames in Nintendo Land, these ones are, from what I can tell, less substantial and reskins of un-Mario-related minigames, so I feel like giving articles to every one is a bit overkill and covering them like we currently do on the Rhythm Heaven Megamix page is neater and gives more purpose to those pages. Having a Rhythm Heaven Fever article but covering the main thing connecting it to Mario on a separate page would be like if we split the Super Mario Mash-up from the Minecraft page. That said, giving Rhythm Heaven Fever guest appearance status seems reasonable.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes the most sense to us. While the Rhythm Game articles are a tad overkill (it'd be like making a Spleef "Tumble" article because of Minecraft's coverage on the wiki), given Rhythm Heaven Fever is retroactively the debut of Cicada, it seems only fair to at least give that game an article as a guest appearance. After all, if Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (our beloved) can have an article as a token guest appearance because you can use Mario items, why can't Rhythm Heaven Fever when it has the debut of a WarioWare character?
JanMisali (talk) Second choice, per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
Only create articles for the eight Rhythm Games in Megamix that have WarioWare versions
Do nothing
Super Mario RPG (talk) First of all, we have Rhythm Heaven Wiki, which you even mentioned in your proposal. We can still practically find ways to cover all of the Super Mario content in Rhythm Heaven without going overboard, otherwise we may find ourselves with a successor to the Super Smash Bros. coverage issue. Also, when you said in your proposal that you thought it would be "nice," that's vague and based on personal opinion, since one could swap out Rhythm Heaven for anything (Bayonetta, Shin Megami Tensei, Terraria, etc.) Wiki scope should be about practicality, not whether someone thinks something is "nice."
Comments
@Super Mario RPG: Obviously "nice" was being used to mean "preferable given the described circumstances", not sure what gave you an impression otherwise. One could not swap out Rhythm Heaven for any other franchise as Bayonetta, Shin Megami Tensei, and Terraria have not had frequent crossovers with the WarioWare series. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer, To be fair, there is precedent for giving Mario reskins of otherwise unrelated minigames dedicated articles, namely the Game & Watch Gallery series. I understand your point though, it might be overkill to have full coverage of all these minigames when they're already handled on the Rhythm Heaven Wiki. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 17:00, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
Removals
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki
The wiki currently houses a sizeable number of transcriptions of information from the 2015 Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, mainly the Japanese edition, in the form of character and enemy profiles. I stated my concern here that this practice may infringe Dark Horse/Nintendo's copyright over the product, since, to my knowledge, the book's entire selling point is to inform you on the stuff you find in Mario games through bitesized blurbs. In incorporating these blurbs within its knowledge base, the Mario Wiki, a free resource, is not just impairing the very purpose of the book, but, given that it's still in print, may negatively impact its sales. In fact, that second point is the reason this proposal concerns this book only and not similar publications like Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia, which has long been out of print and has been superseded by the SMB Encyclopedia, making it highly unlikely that some big wig will send Porple a DMCA strike over something like Fire (100m)'s profile. When it comes to the 2015 Encyclopedia, though, that has a reasonable likelihood of happening and it's best the wiki enforces good faith.
On a similar basis, one user who engaged with the topic in the above talk page has also questioned the wiki's need to feature scans of the book's mistakes in its very article. Given the small size of each blurb, the scans are essentially taking away substantial chunks of information in a way that cannot be conceived as demonstrative or transformative under US Fair Use law.
What this proposal aims to do is the following:
remove encyclopedia bios listed on various articles, regardless of their source's language. Here's an example. Here's another.
delete the scans in the "List of English translation errors and typos not from the Super Mario Wiki" section of the encyclopedia's article, as well as any other scans of the book's contents, unless said content has been displayed by Nintendo or one of their official distributors for the purpose of promoting the book. To exemplify: This, this, and this image should be deleted if the proposal passes. This and this one should also be deleted, since the content depicted in these images hasn't been used by Shogakukan, Amazon, or some other official distributor to portray the Japanese edition on their online storefronts. On the other hand, the artwork shown in the article's gallery, such as this one, shouldn't be removed unless they depict textual information that infringes copyright.
A few notes:
Paraphrases of the encyclopedia's information will be allowed under the proposal, so the book's article may continue to describe its mistakes until further notice.
Small quotes of the book will also be permitted (e.g.: "This text is translated from the Japanese instruction booklet.") if they do not violate this proposal's requirements, albeit it's entirely up to editors to decide how small a quote should be and whether it fits US Fair Use.
Subject names unique to the encyclopedia are not concerned by this proposal.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. Having scans as "proof" of mistakes is especially odd, just use the book and page number as a source.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, we don't want to get sued for 34 thousand dollars in the Federal Court of Malaysia now, do we? And we probably don't want a DMCA from Dark Horse/Nintendo either. Per all of yall (collectively)
Somethingone (talk) Per proposal (as someone who usually likes images like this), and I personally don't agree with the opposition. I saw plenty of DMCAs from scans like this before.
Oppose
Axis (talk) I genuinely don't see how use of limited material from the book on pages relevant to the subject in question is by any means problematic.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Until we know what the book itself says, I'm opposing. We can't just go, "Oh, here's this thing from 9 years ago, we can't use images of it because copyright blah blah blah." That would set a precedent that should not get set. Super Mario Pia was brought up in this proposal, as was The Art of Super Mario Odyssey in the linked talkpage, but what about others? I don't want any bad precedents being set.
#Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. On second thought, choosing to abstain, at least for the time being.
Comments
@Axis Put it another way: how legal would it be if you cut down a copyrighted movie in 30 second clips and uploaded all of them to your youtube channel? That's exactly what the wiki does, except with a book. -- KOOPACONCARNE 12:03, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
We're going to abstain from this vote (we're moreso concerned about citogenesis than we are copyright, admittedly, and dealing with the former generally implies dealing with the latter by proxy), but uh. We do kind of do exactly that, as policy, for audio. Like, we know that's not what you meant, you meant uploading the whole thing in segments, but like, we do just outright have max-30 second excerpts for audio as a policy where going over that isn't allowed... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:36, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
There is a pretty big difference, we're not compiling every bit of information into the same page. The information is scattered across the wiki pages, it's just not comparible. By the way, I'm not opposing to removing book scans from the wiki. Maybe the proposal should have more than 2 options? Axis (talk) 15:15, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Whether or not what the wiki is doing is 1:1 comparable to my example is irrelevant, what's relevant is that both practices are illegal and may net the owner of the site / YT channel a DMCA strike. You can theoretically read the entire SMB Encyclopedia just by using the search function on the wiki to look up each enemy's bio, and there's a chance far larger than zero that someone would be choosing to go that route instead of buying the book if the wiki actually had complete coverage of it, which is where we're headed now. -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:07, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
I'm still not convinced, sorry. Axis (talk) 00:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm with Axis here. We're not having 100% coverage, just the bios, mistakes/errors/plagarism, and a gallery. Not a FULL ON EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK IS HERE! thing. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, April 24, 2024 (CST)
"We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents" -- KOOPACONCARNE 11:59, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The things actually listed on the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia article itself (to be as exceedingly unambiguous as possible, we are referring to the article we just linked to, the one where a Ctrl+F for "MIPS" currently yields no results) are literally just the errors/instances of plagiarism. We sat down and counted that, if you don't include any of the pages with overlap (e.g. Page 241 having both an error unique to the book and born out of citogenesis), we only discuss 67 of the book's 256 pages, plus or minus 4 that lack a page number and we thusly cannot verify, or roughly ≈27.5% of all pages. Many of these are only single-sentence aspects of the pages, and much of these come from the citogenesis examples--it is not "the entirety of the book's contents" (the fact we can't actually prove the exact quantity alone should be proof of that). And given the majority of these are about the plagiarism anyways, we don't exactly feel like humoring the idea that we should just kind of remove these acknowledgements that the book copied from us just because the book is still being sold--that's how you get things like newbies randomly moving articles back to their conjectural titles because "the book said so", even though the book only said so because it copied our work in the first place. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:08, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal has nothing to do with what you wrote. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:20, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Admittedly, we misread on the whole removing things outright thing, that one's on us, oops. we're so tired after last week y'all, this aside is entirely unrelated to the proposal. However, we do feel like it is worth pointing out that the statement that we cover "the entirety of the book's contents" is inaccurate, which given that statement is directly meant to counter-act Axis' own vote, we think that is reasonably related to the proposal. And, as we mentioned earlier, we're far more concerned with the whole "risk of citogenesis courtesy of the book itself having copied various names that were meant to be conjectural" aspect of that article than we are if we should include images or not, hence why we've abstained from voting. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:26, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The profiles concerned by this proposal are mainly from the Japanese version of the book, which of course didn't use names from the wiki. This proposal is completely unrelated to the English version having taken names from the wiki (as rare as that is for a discussion about this book). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:31, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
...We may be stupid (as we mentioned, uh, we're a little tired from the Everything. apologies for just kinda barging in and evidently getting tied up in an entirely unrelated article's business... ;P) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:36, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like our argument is getting semantic. Perhaps I have my large share of blame for framing the issue in absolute terms, but whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:41, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
I didn't say anything of this sort. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
""We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents"". "whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full." Does that not sound like "no Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:39, April 24, 2024 (CST)
No? "The wiki shouldn't copy so much from the book" is very different from "it should not contain even a single mention of the book". -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:42, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Do you wanna get sued? Including all the bios from that book, which is the entirety of said book's contents, while it is still on the market, is still justifiable grounds for a copyright strike. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:27, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Entirety? As in "Let's ignore the other stuff in this"? And what does the book itself say? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 17:07, April 24, 2024 (CST)
Literally what "other stuff" in the book? That's all there is. Little pictures (some of the artwork I do want us to have), and bios. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:12, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Genuine question: why are we thinking about this nearly a decade later? This is one of the reasons why I always made it a point to keep citations to their earliest instance. However, there are still plenty of things that are unique to the book to our knowledge, like the tidbit of MIPS being Peach's pet. What happens to that info if the proposal passes? Not to mention, Super Mario Pia was released around the same time as Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. - do those profiles not count because they don't have the same global reach? I think maybe a cutoff date needs to be established. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:52, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal isn't about how the book is cited. The MIPS tidbit and citation can stay; the quote is supplementary, and if it constitutes the entirety of MIPS' description in the book, it can be handily removed with little impact on the subject's coverage and how its info is sourced. I omitted Super Mario Pia out of sheer oversight, admittedly, though given its anniversary nature I'm not sure if it's even sold anymore, and I believe official availability should be our primary cutoff, rather than the publishing date. I'd have Pia handled in another discussion. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:11, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Changes
Overhaul titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages
With the recent release of the Nintendo Switch remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong, we have already seen the introduction of two new worlds - Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit, as well as their plus variants. However, while I was documenting levels for the remake, I have noticed an issue - since these worlds also change the numbering for Spooky House, Mystic Forest, and Twilight City's level pages, this causes several concerns for me in regards to naming level articles with generic-named stage numberings in games where worlds are named:
Right now, the level numberings for the various levels in Mario vs. Donkey Kong are correspondent to the GBA version. If I attempt to move those pages to match the Switch numbering (for example: "Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" (Spooky House 4-1) to "Level 5-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" (Spooky House 5-1, Switch version)), this can cause several issues with us cleaning up all the links to other level pages, and is especially the case for links to various Mystic Forest (5-x > 7-x) and Spooky House (4-x > 5-x) pages.
As a reminder: nowhere in any circumstance has the remake been titled "Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch", it is simply titled "Mario vs. Donkey Kong". It could be seen as confusing especially as there are some reissues of games that are officially titled the same way too (like Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS).
I attempted to get around this by initially naming the title of the article as "Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch))", but it caused issues with rendering the title on top of the page.
What I wanted to propose is to overhaul the titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages. Level articles that fall under this description are:
Levels with generic numbering identifiers in worlds that are not named in any circumstance (including in-game and supplementary material like Nintendo Power). Example is World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros..
Given that there are a lot of generic-named level articles that fall under this jurisdiction, this is a very large-scale proposal, and may affect most, if not all "x-x" level articles. This will require help from the wiki's higher staff, especially an administrator who can handle several article renames and moves at large. Due to this, please note that the effects of the proposal may not be always guaranteed to be immediate even if it is already passed, but I hope to get this done with everyone as soon as possible.
After brainstorming for a while, these are the possible formats we're going to aim for when making level pages, see below.
This makes it easier to update a level's numbering designation should any circumstances of adding new worlds in-between happen again (like how Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit were handled in the Switch version of Mario vs. Donkey Kong). It can also make it easier to identify levels from each other easily without having to look up the name of the world first. This will also ensure moving articles if new worlds are added in remakes are made easier as well. Additionally, this will prevent game name confusion from occurring, specifically my issue with the Merry Mini-Land stages using the identifier "Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch".
With this format, this is how it will work:
For levels that use generic numbering (1-x) and are from a named world, they will be named "(World Name) - X-X". For example, in the Switch version of Mario vs. Donkey Kong, we can call Level 5-DK and Level 8-2 as "Spooky House - Level 5-DK" and "Twilight City - Level 8-2".
As a side note - if two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently. For example, in Hotel Mario, levels are named as "Stage #", and Super Mario Wiki refers to their level articles with the title ("Stage # (Hotel Name)"). It can be changed to be something like "Lemmy's High-ate Regency Hotel - Stage 1".
For levels that use generic numbering and are in unnamed worlds (eg. Super Mario Bros.), they will be named "(Game Name) - X-X". For example, take World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros.. This can be named as "Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1" instead. The "world" designator can be renamed to "Level/Area/Stage/Course" depending on how the game calls it.
Some of you might be concerned with it conflicting with a certain job name in Super Mario Maker 2 - "Super Mario Bros. W1-1?". It shouldn't conflict at all - the format of the title is seemingly close but in the end it's fairly different.
Redirects can be made based on the original names of the articles. For example, if "Level 6-3 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" is moved to "Twilight City - Level 8-3", the former can be turned into a redirect that leads to the latter new title of the article itself, to make it easier to search for wiki readers who are more used to the old format. Another example is if "World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)" is moved to "Grass Land - World 1-2", where typing in "World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)" still leads to the article with the new name.
Levels with names are already kept as is. If some level names from two or more games conflict due to them being the same, the name of the game should be placed in parenthesis for the associated articles, while the level of the game that is released first chronologically will keep its name as is (no game title in parenthesis after it.)
If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.
This is a variation of the first option which incorporates itself with the old level article naming system to make it more flexible to some situations especially for tackling commonly-searched terms like "World 1-1". This is how it will go:
If two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently, whether it would be "Stage X-X", "Area X-X", or even simply "X-X".
For redirects, the original names of the articles may serve as redirects, however this may be handled differently depending on certain circumstances (shifting of world number for various worlds in the Mario vs. Donkey Kong remake, for example).
Levels that use generic numbering and are from worlds with no names will follow this format: "World X-X ('Game Name')". Examples of such are World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.) and World 18-1. The game name is used to differentiate the level from other games featuring a level with the same name, as per usual.
Levels with names are already kept as is.
If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.
I believe that identifying generically-named levels with numbered coding from each other should be made easier, especially if we need to look up information quickly for a friend struggling to find a level or its information. Right now, the current method of using game titles in parentheses makes it hard for such information to be easily looked up, and it has become more of an issue when we tried to fix up the level number coding and the articles for the new levels when documenting the Switch remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong. I hope this proposal serves to change this for the foreseeable future.
Proposer: EleCyon (talk) Deadline: April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Super Mario RPG (talk) - This could help solve some level naming discrepancies.
Keep as is
Hewer (talk) I don't really get why the problem of a few worlds in Mario vs. Donkey Kong getting their numbers changed warrants a massive change to how we name levels that forgoes our usual naming and identifier rules for no apparent reason. There was never a level called "Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1", it's just known as "World 1-1". I'd compare this to the case of Mario Kart tracks: for example, we have Wii Rainbow Road, but Rainbow Road (Mario Kart: Double Dash!!). We could rename the latter "GCN Rainbow Road" to be more neat and consistent, but it's never been officially called that, so we don't. I'd rather use that same logic and stick to official naming instead of enforcing our own version. And I don't see why only newer games should get identifiers for their titles - I feel like having both get identifiers, similar to the current system where identifier-less World 1-1 is a disambiguation, makes more sense.
Jdtendo (talk) Per Hewer, changing our entire level naming system just for disambiguating some MVDK worlds is overkill. However, I could see the merits of using the world name as an identifier specifically for disambiguating worlds 4 and more of MVDK (e.g., Level 4-1 (Merry Mini-Land)) and only in that specific case.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. The MvDK (Switch) situation is overwhelmingly the exception, rather than the norm, so accounting for it on the levels for every single game that doesn't have this problem (so... basically every other Mario video game that has level articles) is extremely overkill.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. The proposal as written would be a lot of work for very little benefit, but implementing this for exclusively the relevant Mario vs. Donkey Kong stages would make those titles both less cluttered and more descriptive.
Personally, I fail to see how this makes it any easier. With longer titles especially, the search dropdown's just gonna get cut off and you'll have a bunch of identical copies of the game title without being able to tell which is which (unless the functionality of it has been updated without me realizing). Also, I disagree with prioritizing remake over original with this. I'm not voting right now because I consider myself too tired to do so reliably, but those are my thoughts right now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
I'll point out that "(Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)" as an identifier is supported by MarioWiki:Naming: "If two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them, the game name and console are used in this format: ({game name} for {console}). For example, Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii)." And you can tell the difference from something where it's part of the actual title like Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS thanks to the placement of the italics. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
Given the problem is exclusively present in the MvDK levels, I feel like it makes more sense to simply use a format like Spooky House-5 and Merry Mini-Land-mm for specifically that game and its remake, and leave the other courses and levels alone. This seems at least like an acceptable choice, given that the New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U courses Stone-Eye Zone and Spike's Tumbling Desert are both being alternatively referred to as Layer-Cake Desert-1 in their respective articles; meaning that, if these NSMBU and NSLU courses hadn't gotten exclusive names, the wiki would've most likely went for the Layer-Cake Desert-1 format. rend(talk)(edits) 11:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
This seems like the best solution to me. Relying solely on parentheses for this leads to, I believe, everything after world 4 needing them because the numbers desync. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:00, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Jdtendo does make a good point, however. Using the world's name in parenthesis for the Mario vs. Donkey Kong worlds might be a better idea to go than mass renaming all the worlds to match what we're going for in the proposal. I might consider this should the proposal not pass at all, especially as I'm about to start documenting Slippery Summit levels soon. --EleCyon (talk) 21:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
(talk · contributions · edit count) 16:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
rend (talk) (edits) 11:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)