Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. 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}}.
Rules
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (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 two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
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 "(blocked)" 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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
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.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member 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. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
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 formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal."
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 20 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT
;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.
So, if you don't know, we have a policy which prevents audio files from being more than 30 seconds long, and must have fadeout. Right now, there is no reminder template. However, for many other upload issues, we have a reminder template. This reminder could also be given through {{Reminder}}, but all other case-specific reminders can also be given through {{Reminder}}. This could be good because these reminders usually tell the reciever how to follow these policies. The following will be what the reminder will look like:
Dear Proposals.
Thank you for your recent uploads. When uploading audio files, please trim the audio to 30 seconds long and apply a fadeout. If you don't own software capable of preforming these actions, go here to install a tool capable of doing this. If these actions continue, you will recieve a warning.
Proposer: Conkdor (talk) (blocked) Deadline: November 1, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to November 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Sorbetti (talk) Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it can't happen. This saves time from having to create a specific reminder, and I'm fine with that. This brings a benefit, a very small one, but it does. Why would it be beneficial for the wiki to oppose this benefit?
GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal. I used to upload audio file for the Score theme from Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3, but the file ended up being deleted due to a copyright violation.
Conkdor (talk) Per proposal. (Proposer's note: I give full rights to the user implementing the proposal to modify this template in any way.)
Oppose!
Altendo (talk) Admittedly, this does come down to personal preference, but I don't feel like a notice template is necessary for every infraction. I feel like {{reminder}} (or other warning templates, seeing how this infraction counts as most unlisted ones that constitute a {{warning}}) with a brief description is good enough for these types of notices. The other issue is that the template shown here isn't as sophisticated as the other upload templates (admittedly, it doesn't have to be), which further adds to my point about how just a warning (of some sort) template and a short message afterwards should be enough. This last point is admittedly a nitpick, but I also don't think that a fadeout is required; it's just recommended, and only the 30-second maximum length is required.
PanchamBro (talk) Honestly the fact that a scenario like this doesn't occur frequently, not to mention that this isn't much a serious infraction than say "creating three sockpuppet accounts" makes me question if this is necessary at all. Illustrating my point further, I've checked the logs for the past month or so, and none of the uploads indicate that they needed to be replaced due to being over 30 seconds. There is some awareness of this rule, even if you think there isn't one. Not to mention I'm put off by the wording of this template, indicating that you "will receive a warning" when on some user notice templates say that "a warning will be issued", a tonal difference that just screams aggressive compared to being fairly neutral. I know you said people could change this template to fix the wording, I understand this. But at the end of the day, this feels like newbie biting. From my experience...or anyone who had to deal with Template:Userspace before its repurposing, a informal reminder about audio trimming is better than a template itself.
Camwoodstock (talk) Especially now that the to-do bar exists to basically fire a signal flare anytime someone fails to properly trim audio so somebody can quickly open Audacity and fix it, we're not quite sure if this is a common enough occurrence to warrant a whole template just dedicated to telling people not to do it. As the ones that watch said to-do bar, you usually only get an incident like this once every other month, and it's only like, 1-3 files anyways...
Mario jc (talk) From what I've seen, this hasn't happened too often; in fact, almost every new upload I've seen has been 30 seconds or less (at one point I even wondered if there was a system in place that prevented media files from uploading if it went over). I've also viewed these notices as quick ways to point the user to certain rules/guidelines without having to manually type a message out; I don't see them as something formal in place of a {{reminder}} and that they should go straight to a {{warning}} if it happens again. Excessive account creation, on the other hand, does happen often and there's more information that needs to be communicated to the user about it, hence the template.
Mari0fan100 (talk) A lot of new users may not know that audio files can only be 30 seconds long. Plus, a user uploading an audio file for 31 seconds isn't a huge issue. Also, this is not an issue I see occurring a lot. We've definitely made new reminder templates for things that occur often (such as edit flooding and using italics), but uploading an audio file that's too long isn't notable enough for a template dedicated to it yet.
Ihavenoideaboyo (talk) I don't really see the urgency; this seems like a well established rule that newbies would easily grasp after seeing most songs be 30 seconds long. If there's a slip up, a simple audio trim and casual user page notice should do things just fine.
@Camwoodstock no, this is the reminder for uploading untrimmed audio files. Conkdor! (T|C) 16:41, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
I think the idea is for this to be a user notice, to be put on the talk pages of users who upload untrimmed audio, instead of using a generic reminder template. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:06, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
Has this been a recent recurring problem we need to address, or will this be an anticipated problem in the future? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
@Mario A problem that actually just happened today. It doesn't happen very often, but neither does people making 3 sockpuppets. Conkdor! (T|C) 18:49, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
@PanchamBro What do you mean "it's not as serious"? If we don't quickly trim untrimmed audio, we could get sued! Conkdor! (T|C) 07:22, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
A simple audio gaffe (one that is over 30 seconds) might be a copyright issue, but can be easily addressed by anyone. A sockpuppet on the other hand can be a major hurdle. From new accounts made numerous times for some reason, to some socks not even making themselves known until they reveal themselves or someone eventually finds out who they are. Of course, an easy way to tell is to see if their editing patterns match, but I find the issue of sockpuppets way more serious in terms of conduct compared to someone not trimming the audio and posting the full music. This, by the way, is in your response to your comment about how infrequent "making 3 sockpuppets" are in comparison to "not trimming audio correctly", but the former is much, much understandable to warrant a user notice. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 10:57, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
Split the image quality category 2: Artwork Boogaloo
Earlier this year, I proposed splitting the image quality category to give screenshots and game assets their own spaces for the sake of navigation and usability. It seems to have worked fairly well, at the time of writing less than half of the images that have been tagged for reuploading are in the main category. There's still well over 1,000 images in there though, so perhaps we ought to take this a step farther and split artwork next, which seems to be the largest category in there now based on a cursory skim. Like the previous proposal, this will create an "Artwork to be reuploaded with higher quality" subcategory and add a parameter to the image-quality template for categorizing it appropriately.
I've also noticed that some users haven't been using the subcategories when tagging images, so screenshots and assets are starting to pile up in the main category again. I'm hoping that by introducing some additional organization, it'll be easier to notice when something is in the wrong place and correct it.
Proposer: Waluigi Time (talk) Deadline: November 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Altendo (talk) I don't think this needs a split based on how many unsubcategorized files there are; while there are 1,219 as of this vote's addition, there are even more screenshots than unsorted files, 2,168 to be exact, and to quote the proposer, "screenshots and assets are starting to pile up in the main category again", meaning that the amount of files minus those are even less than 1,219. I do understand that some things are meant to be kept consistent, and I would support the idea of a full category divide, but only if the other image types (scans and photographs among others) are also made into subcategories; it doesn't make sense to separate artwork but not other image types, especially when there are more sorted screenshots than unsorted files, of which some screenshots are included. EDIT on 20:49, October 21, 2025 (EDT): I also just noticed that the original proposal split those two categories because they required certain tools (screenshots for older consoles and asset rips) that are not available to every user, but artwork, often high-quality, can easily be found on official websites and social media and they can just as easily be downloaded onto most devices, and it is possible that older, low-quality artwork may be lost to time unless an official source is found, especially for pre-Internet era artwork; while there are some high-quality artworks, most of them are unsourced, making them unviable for the Wiki. EDIT #2 on 09:01, October 24, 2025 (EDT): I also don't see how this solves the problem with "categorization" that has been created by users not sorting images into the existing subcategories, so if one of this proposal's concerns are that users aren't sorting screenshots and assets into them, what makes the proposer think that adding a third subcategory for artwork (one that users could also ignore like the existing two) would solve this?
@Altendo Sorry for the delay in responding. To address some of your points, no, this won't fix the issue of users not using the categories on its own, but having a smaller and more organized category will make it easier for users scrolling through to find images that are in the wrong places and correct them quicker. I think the ease of finding better quality artwork is overstated, otherwise a lot more of these images would've been fixed already. A good amount of these also ask for improvements that may not even be possible (e.g. asking for a full version of cropped artwork, or removing extraneous elements partially blocking it, when it's very possible that Nintendo never released it in those forms), which ought to be reevaluated as we go. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:11, November 1, 2025 (EDT)
I mentioned that "I would support the idea of a full category divide, but only if the other image types (scans and photographs among others) are also made into subcategories; it doesn't make sense to separate artwork but not other image types." In other words, I wouldn't be against an artwork split if the other image subtypes are also split, but I don't see a reason to separate artwork but not the other types (I don't think size really matters as, once again quoting me, "there are more sorted screenshots than unsorted files"). Altendo 09:34, November 3, 2025 (EST)
Distinguish more clearly between full British English localizations and simple English text differences in European versions
A while back, I challenged this wiki's inconsistent use of "English", "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes, and it was ultimately decided that when the English scripts were largely identical between regions, they should simply be listed as "English", regardless if they were still stored separately in internal data and which language files were loaded were technically still dependent on system region settings (or the regional copy of the game itself in many cases, particularly back when region-free releases were not yet the norm).
However, despite my previous efforts, it largely remains the case in practice that when the English-language versions differ at all between regions, they are considered separate "American English" and "British English" versions, even when the actual differences have little to nothing to do with the actual linguistic differences between American English and British English. Koopa Kid having a different name in European versions, including in English, from Mario Party 4 up to his final physical appearance in Mario Party 7 is seemingly enough to qualify all of those games as having "English (United Kingdom)" or "British English" versions, for instance. Mario Pinball Land, Yoshi Topsy-Turvy, Mario Tennis: Power Tour and Super Mario Strikers having different titles in Europe are also seemingly what qualifies them as having "English (United Kingdom)" as an available language, despite having little no significant regional differences between English versions beyond the title and, for the former two, the respective European or "British English" titles simply matching the Japanese one instead of the North American one.
The aforementioned examples I gave also notably predate when Nintendo of Europe actually started regularly doing "UK English adaptations" of Nintendo of America's US English localizations, or partially to wholly separate translations from Japanese into British English in the case of some games. That practice is believed to have been largely kicked off by a certain language-related snafu regarding Mario Party 8's release in the UK that ended up prompting an immediate recall. And while it ended up lasting well into the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U eras, this practice had largely stopped as a regular occurrence by the release of the Nintendo Switch. However, that hasn't completely stopped there from being some mostly arbitrary naming differences between English versions in North America and Europe (with Oceania also inheriting Europe's differences since their system regions are typically grouped together), such as Nintendo of Europe insisting on calling Toady "Magikoopa" in English in recent Mario Party games for some reason (to match the other European-language localizations, I suppose?). You also have NoE continuing to add the word "Football" into their title of the most recent Mario Strikers game, and seemingly changing a few instances of "soccer" to "football" in the English script to match, but that's not quite the same as the full UK English translation that Mario Strikers Charged Football got, is it?
So my baseline proposal is this: when those minor differences are present and need to be acknowledged, but the "British English" script is not actually in full-on British English, don't call it that. Call it something like "(the English script used in) the European version" (or "the PAL version", if you prefer, for older home console games that were released when that television standard was still largely a thing over there). I know this term makes many of us wince, but even "the European English version" or "the European English script" would be technically more accurate in a sense. Game infoboxes would also not automatically list "English (United Kingdom)" for simple naming or text differences between English versions; simply "English" would be the only listed language, as when there are no meaningful differences as all.
As for what still should be classified as "British English" or "English (United Kingdom)" specifically, I have three potential criteria in mind:
Only use "British English" when actual British English is used: The key determiner here would be a fairly consistent presence of British English spellings in particular in the European version when the language is set to English, even if the localization is otherwise rather similar to the American English one. Examples of this include WarioWare: D.I.Y. and the original Wii version of Super Mario Galaxy 2. More general vocabulary differences, such as the use of "football" instead of "soccer", as well as noticeable differences in things like punctuation placement between English versions that reflect differing American and British English norms may be used as supporting evidence, but should not be the sole determiner as there are cases where minor changes are like this are made to English scripts between regional versions, but American English is still predominately used regardless, like in Paper Mario, Super Paper Mario, the aforementioned Mario Strikers series apart from Charged and the Super Smash Bros. series apart from for Nintendo 3DS and for Wii U.
Only use "British English" if the above is the case or Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present: Since "English (UK/Australia)" is now a dedicated language setting on the Nintendo Switch 2, this would include all games (including Nintendo Switch 2 Editions) specifically for that system if there are any text differences from changing said language setting, as well as Super Mario 3D All-Stars since it's an in-game setting for all games included, plus any games that Nintendo of America lists as having British English as a supported language on their website, again, when there are actual text differences present between the two regions. This would also include games that specifically mention a "UK English" localization in their credits or have a "UK", "en-GB" or equivalent language code denoted in internal data (something like "EU_English" or "EUen" though, more common in recent Nintendo games, does not itself count as I will go into in a moment), as long as this reflects some text difference(s) between regions beyond date formatting, as per the de facto status quo. I was also considering counting when the in-game language selection menu in European versions uses the Union Jack flag to denote English, but I will currently omit this as criteria given how commonplace this was in the past (and the English language did of course originate what is now part of the United Kingdom at any rate), leading to as many false or misleading positives as there are currently. If you believe this criteria should be counted, please do let me know in the comments.
Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely: When it comes to actual linguistic differences in spelling and such, it can naturally still be referred to, but "European" and "PAL" will be preferred when referring to broader regional game versions and English script differences between them that don't strictly reflect the linguistic differences between American and British English. If the English-language versions in North America and Europe have any notable differences, "English (Europe)" will be used to differentiate the latter in game infoboxes instead of "English (United Kingdom)". This also reflects how Nintendo themselves list supported languages for their games on their Japanese website, as well as the most common label they use for "European English" localization data internally (typically "EU_English" or "EUen").
Edit: Added two extra variant options based on private feedback from CarlosYoshiBoi. "Common words and/or accents localized" would count things like changing "soccer" to "football" in Mario Strikers: Battle League or Wii Fit Trainer having a distinctly American or British English accent in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate depending on region as those games having both American and British English support. This would also include certain sensitive terms specific to British English being changed in the English script used in the European version of a game, like the aforementioned Mario Party 8 situation.
Proposer: PaperSplash (talk) Deadline: November 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Option 1: Only use "British English" when actual British English is used
PaperSplash (talk) First choice; it's the most straightforward and least misleading approach, even if it doesn't entirely match Nintendo's own.
Option 2: Only use "British English" if the above is the case or Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present
PaperSplash (talk) Third choice; the most consistent with Nintendo's (or rather, Nintendo of America's) own public-facing listings on their website and in language settings, but also the most arbitrary and misleading approach aside from our existing one.
Option 3: Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely
PaperSplash (talk) Second choice; it allows us to largely keeps our existing approach while using more strictly accurate terminology, and "European English" or "English (Europe)" is also more closely in line with Nintendo's own labeling on their Japanese website and in internal data.
Altendo (talk) There are cases when there are text differences between NTSC and PAL versions, but most of them don't actually change that much text, not even using British/European spellings (take Mario Finale for example). I think that replacing "British English" with "European version" or "PAL version" makes more sense, as these are regional, not necessarily linguistic, changes (I would support "PAL version" as these "British spellings" are also used in other PAL countries, as I showed here; NTSC is mainly used in East Asia and most of the Americas, while PAL is used in most other places, including Australia and New Zealand, making PAL the preferred prefix for me), and I would also like to mention that Nintendo of Europe is not based in Britain, which means that they might not be the only Nintendo subsidiary localizing games in PAL English, seeing how they localize for many different languages (Nintendo also has offices in Hong Kong and Australia that I can assume also localize into PAL English, alongside Mandarin and maybe Cantonese for the former). As such, I don't think "British English" or even "European English" is accurate given that these changes could be more widespread than Britain and even Europe, and I don't see these as a cultural or linguistic change, as the different texts for most games are likely just the results of Nintendo's different subsidiaries localizing games in different ways rather than sticking with language or culture.
Option 4: Option 1 but also counting any common words and/or accents localized to British English
Option 5: Option 2 but also counting any common words and/or accents localized to British English
CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I support this, partly due to changes of soccer to football in the Mario Strikers games (especially Battle League) plus the Wii Fit Trainers having British English voices in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate.
LadySophie17 (talk) I think this is the option I want? I believe any attempt by NoE to localize the game to a British English-speaking audience should count as the game having British English. In a best case scenario, this would consist of accurately changing American spelling to British spelling (color to colour) and American words to British words (soccer to football). Even if the localization isn't complete, like Battle League's, it still shows, to me, that they at least tried. On the other hand, games that have entirely different British scripts are not necessarily more British than games that just Ctrl+F the American script for changes.This Battle League situation reminds me of arguments about how other languages will sometimes use English names due to lack of localization, and if we should count them as names in other languages or not.
~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 
16:11, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
Conkdor! (T|C) 16:41, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 11:11, November 1, 2025 (EDT)
