Consider The Super Mario Bros. Movie as an installment of the Super Mario series
do not consider 0-9
Now this may seem like an unusual proposal, and I wouldn't be surprised if it does not pass, but there's something that could be worth considering: The Super Mario Bros. Movie actually being part of the mainline Super Mario series. There are homages to the Super Mario series (like the Training Course), Lumalee makes an appearance, and there's a scene where Donkey Kong uses a Fire Flower, and another where Princess Peach uses an Ice Flower; these two power-ups are most commonly associated with the Super Mario series.
One of the key factors of consideration is Shigeru Miyamoto's involvement in this film, as well as in the sequel. Breath of the Wild, developed around the same time as Super Mario Odyssey, had its proper sequel, Tears of the Kingdom (Zelda was also created by Miyamoto), released around the time when Super Mario Bros. Movie premiered in theaters and had home release. While there's no established connection between Super Mario Odyssey and The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the fact that Miyamoto co-produced this film, and will be doing the next, makes me think he wants to diversify the Super Mario mainline series with more media formats, no longer confining it to just video games.
Edit: Crossed out weak points irrelevant to the proposal.
Super Mario RPG (talk) Actually, since the movie is getting a sequel, the proposal could be its own series by then, or just another film within the Super Mario series.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Unless we're gonna consider the 1993 movie, the Valiant comics, the various anime and manga, and the DiC cartoons as part of it as well, I don't see why we should specifically do this one.
Hewer (talk) ...What? The Super Mario series is a video game series, none of Nintendo's official lists of entries have any non-game stuff, the entire franchise has homages to the Super Mario series (the Fire Flower has far more appearances than just the platformers), and Miyamoto wasn't involved in Mario Odyssey or either of those Zelda games as far as I'm aware (not that that's relevant anyway). And why did you vote for both options when that's functionally the same as not voting at all (and I don't think is even allowed for a two-option proposal)? Is this a month-late April Fools' proposal? EDIT: It's also telling that, now that the weak points have been crossed out, the proposal has pretty much no arguments left.
Camwoodstock (talk) - The Super Mario series of games is just that--a series of video games. This would make about as much sense as saying the Donkey Kong Country cartoon counts as a part of the Donkey Kong series of games.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per all. I understand why one would want to establish a more concrete classification system, but this seems diluting and unhelpful.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Yeah, no. We might as well take the stance of Sega on Sonic's canon, "Everything is canon". Then again, in the words of @janMisali, "How do we know what's mainline?" That only talked about video games, but also could apply to non-games, but I think we need to play safe, so oppose.
Uh, is Super Mario RPG allowed to vote for both options? Rule 2 states that "Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices." I think that implies that when there's only two options, you can only choose one of them. I could've sworn there was also a rule that states you're not allowed to choose for all options, even in multi-choice proposals where you're allowed to vote for more than one option, but I couldn't really find one like that quickly. Still, the implication that you can only choose one option in a two-options in a two-choice proposal would also imply that you can choose all but one option in a multi-choice proposal, I think. rend(talk)(edits) 11:57, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
There's no restriction on how many options you can vote for in a proposal with more than two choices, it's just pointless to vote for all of them because it doesn't change the ratio of how many voters each option has, so it has no effect (I guess besides adding to the minimum required votes to not get no quorum). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer No, it's a real proposal. It was something I had on mind for a while and wanted to get off of my chest to see if films really were being inducted into the series or if it was just my own headcanon. I crossed out my support and will let the proposal run its course. Super Mario RPG (talk) 11:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like we need to have a broader discussion on what criteria we even look for when categorizing subjects as siblings within the same "franchise" or "series". To me, it does not really matter how involved Shigeru Miyamoto is with a particular project because: (1) Miyamoto has a history of involving himself with a wide diversity of projects both within and outside of Mario just to provide development guidance or maintain brand integrity with external parties (like Illumination Studios); and (2) I generally feel like published works should be interpreted independently for their own criteria for classification. Nintendo did not always consider Super Mario Land a mainline Super Mario series game, a game that saw almost no involvement from Miyamoto, but I always considered it so because there are no objective reasons within the game itself for it to be excluded. It is nice to see that Nintendo themselves have come to that same perspective. Additionally, the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, in all languages, explicitly states that the remakes of mainline series games, like Super Mario All-Stars and Super Mario Advance, are not literal parts of the Super Mario series (pp. 238 - 255; note the star key on 238). Offhand, I am inclined to think a separation like that is very silly. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:50, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Miyamoto's involvement has never been considered as a factor in anything at all to my knowledge, not sure why this proposal brought it up. Whole development teams for games can change while still being in the same series, e.g. Donkey Kong Country. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:59, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Merge Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. into Main series
keep split 0-14
I think the Main series Ganes and Remakes, Ports, Remasters, Collections etc. should be merged. For example in the Super Mario series. But also for every other Mario Spin off series. Especially when those are considered mainline by Nintendo, like New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, etc. It would be way simpler to just make 2 categories. 1st Mainline (New Games and Ports, Remakes, Remasters, Collections etc. inclided) 2nd Other Games or Spin offs. It wouldn't matter if they are old or new games. Of course in would still be written in the description if its a Remake or a Port, a Collection, Remaster etc. Thank you!
Hewer (talk) This proposal is very poorly written and hard to understand, but I'm assuming it's about the way we list ports in series pages. I have actually been considering doing this with WarioWare, Inc. Mega Party Game$! specifically, partly because of the devs' continuous insistence over multiple sources that it's a distinct entry, and partly because I'm unsure if we should even be considering it a port so much as a sequel that heavily reuses from its predecessor (I haven't actually played it, so I could be wrong there, but the article certainly makes it sound like much more different than just a port - the only reason I see to consider it one is the reused microgames, but WarioWare Gold also reused its microgames from other games while being otherwise different). But besides that one specific tangent, no, per all.
Arend (talk) I assume the same thing as the rest here and believe this is only about how we list ports/remakes/other reissues on series pages, to which I have to agree with the rest of the opposition: it's best we do not treat these rereleases on the same level as a mainline franchise entry. Nintendo doesn't seem to do that either if the whole Mario Wonder being the first sidescroller entry in 11 years thing is anything to go by (New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe was released only 4 years prior). If we did, it would only look disorganized. (Also, I pray this proposal isn't talking about rerelease pages being merged to their original counterpart, which is even worse)
Don't misrepresent me. I did that solely because the SMA series - according to the official word on the matter - led straight into the NSMB series. I certainly don't think that should be done for every series page. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
(facepalm) I'm just doing it because the remakes are listed with the main games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
It should only do that if there's an organic buildup with it. For instance, how DK94 is listed on the Donkey Kong series page despite being ostensibly a remake. Otherwise, it gets bogged down. Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:33, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"Note how I didn't include SMAS+SMW or the Classic NES series." Not really a good argument, SMAS+SMW is a double remake (but SMAS 25th Anniversary Edition is a port of a remake), & the Classic NES series are just ports. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
It's not a "double remake", it's just a re-release of two games in a compilation together. That's like calling 3D All-Stars a "triple remake". And anyway, what does this matter? Doc's userspace isn't the mainspace, nor would it fly if it were just put on the mainspace as is (for instance, I don't think Doc intends for the "generation" headers to be put on mainspace, nor should they be). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:44, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Uhhh, no, I said SMAS+SMW is a double remake because SMAS+SMW is a remake of SMAS, which is a remake of SMB, TLL, 2, & 3. Plus, that was just an EXAMPLE! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
And I said that SMAS+SMW is not a double remake because it's not a remake of SMAS, just a re-release with another game added in as well (i.e. a compilation, like 3D All-Stars). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:49, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
But SMAS is also a compilation, which means it's not a remake under that logic. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
No? Whether it's a remake and whether it's a compilation are two separate things, they aren't mutually exclusive and they have no bearing on each other. Super Mario All-Stars completely recreates its four games, thus is a remake. Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World is a compilation that only features re-releases completely unaltered from the original release. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:00, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
And some stuff in 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy was changed in 3D All-Stars, doesn't make it a remake so much as an edited port. Anyway, this is (even by my standards) a pretty pointless semantic argument not really relevant to this proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Fine, Nintendo Switch Online Mario Advance 4 then, that has the e-Reader levels available without using the e-Reader. My point is that the changes are far too small to constitute a remake. Again though, what difference does this even make? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:10, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer, @SONIC123CDMANIA:
I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon. That's why I said Mainline games should all be in a category. Ports, Remakes Remaster, Collections included. There's also a special example. What about Bowser's Fury. ? It's a new Adventure, but it is listed under Ports, Remakes, etc. Other games or Spin offs should be in a different category. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 16:57, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I don't remember anyone saying anything at all about other games or spin-offs, or even remotely implying that "every Mario game should be in the same category", so I have no idea where you're getting that from. And whether something is "canon" is never a factor in anything on this website, regarding both this and the Paper Mario proposal I again strongly suggest you read MarioWiki:Canonicity. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Big Super Mario Fan: What has certain games not being canon have to do with ports and remakes of mainline titles? No one has said anything about which games are being canon or not in this discussion until you brought. Hell, no one in this discussion has even uttered the word "canon" before you did (and as you can see, you bringing up canon has brought on a whole different discussion that completely undermines the original topic of the proposal). Truthfully, bringing up canonicity in this discussion about regarding rereleases as equal to the originals (i.e. putting them in the exact same lists and categories as if they're standalone games), would imply that you view all ports, remakes, remasters, etc. as canon... which muddies the water even more on what could be regarded as canon or not, since certain remakes and rereleases actually provide different or additional content that isn't found in the original version, bringing into the discussion which version is canon and which version is not. See Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, for instance: the original Wii U version clearly precedes Super Mario 3D World, but the Switch/3DS rerelease precedes Super Mario Odyssey instead. Which version of Treasure Tracker is canon, then? That's not even saying about the DLC for the Switch version, which precedes New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, a rerelease of New Super Mario Bros. U that should be even older than 3D World and Odyssey. What is the timeline here? This is why MarioWiki:Canonicity states that there's no officially recognized canon. Everyone has their own interpretation of what is canon and what is not canon, and changes into rereleases of mainline titles make that matter even more complicated. rend(talk)(edits) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer: I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it. 1. Mario (Super Mario Mainline games + Spin offs) 2. Paper Mario (Paper Mario series) 3. Mario (Mario + Rabbids series) 4. Mario (Super Smash Bros. series) 5. Mario (Animated Movies) 6. Mario (Live-Action movie) 7. Mario (Cartoons) 8. Mario (Comics). There could be even more. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 19:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
The fact is, the canonicity article is how this wiki operates, period. There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe. Nightwicked Bowser 19:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
You know, the sentence right after the boldened one stating that there's no officially recognized canon (the sencence you're arguing against) states "Therefore, arguments over canonicity (canon vs. non-canon) are purely speculative, and are of no importance to wiki articles." Your argument about there not only being a definitive canon (which you haven't elaborated on yet), but there being at least eight different Mario universes in a Mario multiverse, is exactly that kind of purely speculative that the Canonicity page was talking about. I'm not even sure if Nintendo would currently recognize several of these as part of their franchise (throwing muck in that whole multiverse idea of yours), such as "live-action movies" (there's only one of those btw) or "comics" (there's the German Club Nintendo comics and the Nintendo Comics System of Valiant btw, I doubt these share a universe). They sure don't recognize Hotel Mario as part of it. Moreover, I'm not interested to, for instance, split the Mario page into several different articles that each describe a different incarnation of the character, if your Paper Mario proposal indicates anything. It'd be simpler and more organized to keep it all in one article. rend(talk)(edits) 20:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Live action? You mean the 1990's one? That's a multiverse in & of itself! The cartoons, comics, AND animated movies are also multiverses in & of themselves! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: I eleberate on the definitive Mario canon (the 1st, main Mario universe). It consists of:
Super Mario Mainline games (2D & 3D)
Mario & Luigi series
Mario Kart series
Mario Party series
Mario Tennis series
Mario Golf series
Mario vs. Donkey Kong series
Luigi's Mansion series
Yoshi's Island series
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
Super Princess Peach
It's not speculative at all. Those are all heavyly implied things. Some are even semi-confirmed. Comics and Movies are different universes than the Game universes. It wouldn't be good if it's all one one page. Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all. Also there is already a Paper Mario page. But just for Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. This page could be used for the Paper Mario series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"Because than people think there is only one Mario. Which is not the case at all." ...there. Is. Though. This is quite literally what the Canonicity guidelines mean when they say "baseless speculation"--Mario in Mario Golf isn't a different character from Mario in Mario Tennis. Even if we wanted to go along with this when we already moved away from the "Marioverse" term as far back as 2007, this doesn't factor in the dozens of lesser spinoffs and side-games--though to be blunt, trying to argue between the how Mario is in some way "different" between Mario's Egg Catch and Mario Super Sluggers is beyond an exercise in futility, and would be less than useless. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 20:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Well...not really? Do we consider Rabbid Mario the same as Mario? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
No, because he's not. We do, however, consider Mario from the Mario + Rabbids games to be Mario, because he is. My guess is that Big Super Mario Fan thinks Mario + Rabbids just features Rabbid Mario instead of normal Mario, but in reality they both appear in the Mario + Rabbids games as completely separate characters, so it's more comparable to Paper Mario (character) in Paper Jam if anything. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:08, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, true. Though we do have variants of characters that are completely different merged because of intent (and probably other factors I'm missing) with Bowser & President Koopa (which as of this writing isn't the case, but will be because a proposal on this passed). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:33, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
The logic there is that President Koopa is just the movie's version of Bowser. The same can't be said about Mario and Rabbid Mario since they're clearly distinct characters that coexist in the same games, like how the Paper Mario character article only covers his Paper Jam appearance because that's the only game where he's a distinct character to normal Mario. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
No, I think he knows that Mario and Rabbid Mario appear both in the Mario + Rabbids games, and only mistakingly called the actual Mario "Rabbid Mario" once: his reasoning for why the Mario + Rabbids games take place in an alternate universe, as he provided on MarioWiki talk:Canonicity, is an interview with Davide Soliani (to be fair, the assumption also matches with the intro of Kingdom Battle, when the SupaMerge hits a Super Mario poster and causes the Rabbids' washing machine to teleport into its world). His reasoning stems from the idea that all the Mario characters from those games are an alternate version of the mainline characters (not just their Rabbid counterparts), and as he stated both here and on the Canonicity talk page, he wishes to split these incarnations, as well as other incarnations from the eight (or more) "universes" he provides: which includes not just Mario + Rabbids and Paper Mario, but also Super Smash Bros., The Super Mario Bros. Movie, the 1993 Super Mario Bros. movie, the DiC Super Mario cartoon shows and "comics". And to me, that is way, WAY worse than thinking Rabbid Mario is the same person as Mario but from another dimension. rend(talk)(edits) 11:43, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, you have a very good point! Also, I think the "comics" aren't part of the same continuity, which makes things worse (We'd be splitting Super Mario Kun Mario, KC Deluxe Mario, Super Mario Adventures Mario, etc.).SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:53, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Indeed. On the Continuity talk page, Big Super Mario Fan admits he doesn't really know the comics that well, which is why he simply wrote "comics" as one universe instead. I imagine that if he was aware of how many comics there were, he'd want the incarnations of those to be split off too. rend(talk)(edits) 12:01, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Camwoodstock: That's not what I meant. The Mario in Mario Golf and in Mario Tennis is the same. When we talk about games specifically there are 4 different Marios. 1st the Mario who appears in most Mario Games. 2nd Paper Mario who appears in the Paper Mario series. 3rd Mario who appears in the Mario + Rabbids series. 4th Mario who appears in the Super Smash Bros series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:50, May 13, 2024 (EDT) Big Super Mario Fan
I'd ask why you insist the + Rabbids one is different of all possible options, but the fact is neither I nor anyone else here cares. You're basing this off nothing at all other than your own preconceived notions, which is the very definition of speculation. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:56, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick:
To Answer your question. It's not speculation. Obviously there's the Main Mario, where most of his games take place. Than there's Paper Mario, who's confirmed to be a seperate character in Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Than there is Smash Bros. Mario who is a toy/trophy brought to live by imagination. Than there's Rabbid Mario, who was created in the Mario + Rabbids series, as seen in the cutscenes of that game. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 21:08, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
You didn't say "Rabbid Mario." You said "Mario from Mario + Rabbids." That's not the same thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"Heavily implied", "semi-confirmed" — these read to me as admissions there isn't proof. We're a wiki. We work with facts, not guesses. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:40, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Exactly this. There is a time and a place for headcanons and inferences; a matter-of-fact wiki is perhaps the last place you should be putting them. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 22:41, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, better off putting them in either your Userpage, or you User talk page. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: I meant Mario from theMario + Rabbids series. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Ahemtoday: It has something to do with logic. You know milk comes from the cow, when you buy it in the supermarket. Than you wouldn't write it comes from the supermarket. Also there is evidence. Just watch the cutscenes of Super Smash Bros. or Mario + Rabbids and play Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:58, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
It is very easy to take a single thing, not interrogate it at all, and use "logic" to extrapolate it to everything with no regard for its actual bearing on reality. If I am to be convinced that Mario in a specific set of games is a different character from Mario in some other set, I require nothing less than an official source explicitly stating as such. To my knowledge, nothing like that exists for any of these cases. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:15, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, cutscenes aren't FULLY official sources, developers are. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I would like to point out that fellow NIWA wiki, the Zelda Wiki, the wiki for The Legend of Zelda series, which definitely features different incarnations of Link, Zelda, and various enemies and NPCs, do not split these incarnations in separate articles and keep them all under the same subjects (e.g. there aren't multiple articles on Link or Octorok, despite there being multiple versions of those). I know that our wiki is not the same thing, but if a wiki based on a series with 100% confirmed different incarnations of the main cast doesn't split their articles, then why shouldour wiki do this when the series we do cover don't have multiple incarnations of their characters at all (or it's being "implied" or "semi-confirmed" at best)? rend(talk)(edits) 01:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: I give you an example. Following your logic. If a man jumps out of a window the man next to him should jump out too. Just because the Zelda Wiki doesn't split their articles, doesn not mean that we should not do this eather. Also in that Interview it's confirmed that the Super Smash Bros. characters are toys. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 02:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
While it's fair to say that we don't always have to do what other wikis are doing, it's also important to note that we don't always have to do the opposite of what other wikis are doing, either. I brought up the Zelda Wiki as an example on why your idea doesn't work, because The Legend of Zelda series is the most obvious example in there being multiple versions of the same characters, that most of the time look way different in nearly every installment, and yet the Zelda Wiki does not resort to splitting them (it would only be unhandy and complicated, after all. Super Mario isn't like that. At all. Throughout nearly all the "universes" you've determined, Mario looks the same, and his demeanor doesn't really change throughout most of them either. In essence, Mario + Rabbids!Mario is identical in appearance and behavior to mainline!Mario, so there's no need for a separate article for Mario in Mario + Rabbids. Same goes for Mario & Luigi!Mario, no need to split that off, either. Most other differences throughout these incarnations are really just splitting hairs and superficial, so when even the Zelda franchise doesn't seem worth to split all it's actually different incarnations into separate articles, then why should we be splitting hairs here? Also I do have to agree with Hewer that we've gone quite off-topic; I'm just throwing my two cents on this multiverse thing you brought up for no reasonrend(talk)(edits) 11:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Ok, @Hewer On the SMA4, also a bad example b/c the Wii U version. @Big Super Mario Fan First, none of what you say is fully confirmed. Second, even IF there's a multiverse, there would be more universes than what you specified. Third, this doesn't have to do with universes. Fourth, this needs to stop. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Wii U version then, this just feels pedantic at this point. I think I've already made my point there clear enough, though my main point is that this was a meaningless argument not relevant to the proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Ok, good point at that, but it did say "ports, remakes, remasters, & collections". @Big Super Mario Fan I'm still waiting for a reply here. Unless you've stopped because you've seen the wrongness of your arguments. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Easy. The games that are not canon should be listed in a different category than the ones that are canon. Regarding Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. I can answer this as well. Both versions are canon. Here's the timeline. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World (Wii U/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS/Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey (Nintendo Switch). The 2. Captain Toad adventure (episode) happens in between. New Super Mario Bros. U / New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe happen at the same time. Before Super Mario 3D World and Super Mario Odyssey. Because Ports or Remakes add content that wasn't in the original release. But it still happened at the same time. For example Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga and Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions happens at the same time. The same applies to Mario + Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story and Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Bowser Jr.'s Journey. The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker Special Episode happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, as they find the Super Crown here. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:33, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
You've kinda just reiterated what Arend was saying with more words, minus the actually important part: that this is pointless speculation that will definitely not be used as a basis for the wiki's organisation. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Wait, you're not making any sense here. First, you're saying that, somehow, the Wii U version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happens before the Switch/3DS version of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, even though it's the exact same adventure, so it would logically take place at the same time, something you state as such later anyway. I mean, I get why you would say that, given that in the Wii U version, it's directly followed up by 3D World, but on Switch and 3DS, it's directly followed up by Odyssey instead; but if anything, this would more logically indicate a split timeline, not that the exact same adventure happens twice. Then you say that the 2nd Captain Toad adventure (by which I assume you mean the DLC episode) happens inbetween the Wii U and Switch versions of the regular game (which already makes no sense given that it's DLC for the Switch iteration, so it should happen after that, meaning that New Super Mario Bros. U would also take place inbetween those versions (specifically after 3D World, because there really is no room for another adventure to squeeze inbetween; the 3D World opening plays directly after the credits of the Wii U version)... only to THEN say New Super Mario Bros. U takes place before BOTH 3D World and Odyssey? Basically, what you're saying is this: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, Special Episode (DLC)) > New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) > Super Mario 3D World > Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Switch, main campaign (even though it's the same as Wii U's main campaign)) > Super Mario Odyssey ...bro, I think it would be easier to say that the rereleases happen in an alternate timeline, than what you're trying to explain here, because what I've got out of your explanation doesn't make any sense. And do I really need to say that this timeline you've given me is also highly speculative? Aka, not confirmed? As in, not canon? rend(talk)(edits) 18:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Also, would it hurt if you had answered my things regarding the canonicity on remakes under where I was actually talking about that, instead of under the Zelda Wiki stuff? rend(talk)(edits) 18:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA: It is strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes. Second, of course there would be more universes than what I specified. It does have to do with universes, because only the canon ones should be in a category. The others should be in another category. But it shouldn't matter if its a new game, a remake, or a port, etc. It's shouldn't stop. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
"strongly implied"
"semi-confirmed"
Please just stop. You can say that it's right, but that doesn't make it true. It's not an official distinction, there's no consistency between the relations of games. This again has nothing to do with the proposal you are discussing on. If you insist on having this discussion, it would make more sense to do so on Mariowiki Talk:Canonicity, though it's probably better suited for the forums. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:56, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, Big Super Mario Fan keeps saying those two terms a lot, as if it means anything (plus I wouldn't say that Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker happening twice or that New Super Mario Bros. U happens both before and after Super Mario 3D World is "strongly implied" or "semi-confirmed" in any way). At this point, "strongly implied, semi-confirmed + you can watch the cutscenes" feels like a bad equivalent of the "L + ratio + get rekt" meme or however that goes. (And I still have no idea why they brought up what is or isn't canon themselves, on their own proposal about merging rereleases with mainline titles)rend(talk)(edits) 18:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this is not going well. Also, some "universes" are actually multiverses in their own right! How do you factor THAT in!? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Okay, here's an easy to understand timeline: Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC ➡️ New Super Mario Bros. U (Deluxe) ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Wii U) ➡️ Super Mario 3D World ➡️ Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker (Nintendo 3DS / Nintendo Switch) ➡️ Super Mario Odyssey. So there definitly is a canon in Mario. All the way from Donkey Kong (1981) to Princess Peach: Showtime (2024). The things is sometimes the Mario canon is a bit complex. That's why some people say there is no canon. But it's simply not true. That shouldn't be an excuse for the Super Mario Wiki. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 21:37, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
It doesn't matter how many times you baselessly declare there is a canon, it won't become any more true ("semi-confirmed" wouldn't cut it even if it was accurate). This is all still pointless speculation that will absolutely not affect how the wiki is organised, and you're extremely unlikely to convince anyone here that your speculative canon and timeline is better to base the wiki on than the way we've been doing it for years, so I suggest you just drop it, or at the very least, as Doc said, do this discussion on MarioWiki talk:Canonicity instead of your unrelated proposal. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:23, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Now you're saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before the Treasure Tracker main game?! How does that make any sense at all?! I already said that it makes more sense that it would happen after the Switch version of the game, given that it's DLC for that game. And again, The Switch and 3DS versions are practically the same as the Wii U version aside from the fact that it's directly followed by Odyssey instead of 3D world. Again, it makes more sense to say that the 3DS/Switch version takes place in an alternate timeline (also, your proposed timeline doesn't even come close to "semi-confirmed" or "heavily implied"; saying that the Treasure Tracker DLC takes place before any of the main games is heavily speculative). rend(talk)(edits) 06:39, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&ATSA - The Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC comes before the main game, because they find the Super Crown here. Which is then used in New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe. And yes we could discuss Mario & Sonic canon on your talk page. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:36, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I think that official DLC descriptions like here ("[...] you can purchase the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker - Special Episode DLC to continue your journey [...]"), website descriptions like here ("More adventures for Captain Toad and Toadette are available as paid downloadable content!"), and official trailer blurbs like here ("Captain Toad and Toadette are back for more adventures!") kind of imply that the DLC takes place after the main game, not before. Moreover, several of the levels in the DLC are revisitations of previous courses of the main game, with the Level names titled in a way that differentiates them from the original, similar to the remix levels of World Mushroom and World Flower. rend(talk)(edits) 19:26, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Oh man! You're not making this easy for me. But the Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC definitely happens before New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, because they find the Super Crown here. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:49, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Well yeah, I suppose I am not making this easy. You're the one disagreeing with our Canonicity policy and claiming that all the remakes/ports/rereleases take place in the same canon timeline, and we point out the flaws in your logic. The whole Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker thing is perhaps the most notable example on why including every singe port and remake in the same single timeline as the mainline games would result in a huge mess, given how the Switch port and its DLC make changes to what follows after the game. rend(talk)(edits) 13:27, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend, @SONIC123CDMANIA, @Hewer: I know Rabbit Mario is not Mario. That was a mistake. I don't really care about the comics. You can't split every Mario incarnation. Because than we'd have 100 Mario pages, 100 Peach pages, Bowser pages. I was only taking about the Important once. For me those are.
Mario (Main Mario Universe)
Paper Mario (Paper Mario Universe)
Alternate Mario (Mario + Rabbids Universe)
Toy/Trophy Mario (Super Smash Bros. Universe)
Cartoon Mario(Cartoon Universe)
Animated Mario (The Super Mario Bros. Movie)
Live-Action Mario (Super Mario Bros. Live-Action movie) Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 02:49, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
1, Rabbid Mario is TECHNICALLY a alternate Mario. 2, I never said ALL versions, as in official AND unofficial, just all official versions. 3, your arguments fail when taking into account multiverses within multiverses. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:37, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
So you admit that splitting all these incarnations is a bad idea, but still insist on splitting just some of them randomly? Straight up using "I don't really care" as an argument is certainly not helping your (already very bad) case. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA: 1. Yeah but that also includes Mini Mario then. 2. Ok 3. What do you mean with multiverses in multiverses? Can you name me an example? Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
The cartoons, 2023 Mario Movie, 1993 Mario Movie, and the comics are all multiverses in their own rights. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer: Not randomly splitting. Only the important ones. I only don't care about the comics. But I do care about the games. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 15:39, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Well we're not splitting any of them and that's that. Nightwicked Bowser 15:46, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
To be honest, this discussion has spiraled so much out of control into this whole canonicity-timeline + split-the-characters thing, that I'm contemplating whether or not we should store this on MarioWiki:BJAODN/Proposals after this proposal has ended (to clarify, that would be for the comments section alone, not the proposal's actual subject) rend(talk)(edits) 17:21, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
My distaste for BJAODN aside, would you mind not openly mocking a user earnestly trying to argue for something? — Lady Sophie(T|C) 17:41, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, uh, please do not put what is very clearly just a small child that doesn't know what headcanon is into BJAODN right in front of them.~Camwoodstock(talk) 18:06, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Flashbacks to when many of my genuine contributions as a 13 y/o ESL were placed in BJAODN and it was among the things that gave me major anxieties that I still had to resolve by the time I turned 20. Some attitudes never change! -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:08, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
...Yeah, okay, sorry for the suggestion. I wasn't trying to mock anyone here. I was basically spitballing since I'm kind of frustrated that this down-spiraled, off-topic discussion is still ongoing and hadn't been dropped earlier. In retrospect, suggesting it for BJAODN would probably be a bad idea and sounds meanspirited, and I apologize. rend(talk)(edits) 18:23, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA:
Why are they multiverses in itself?
King Koopa is a Live-Action adaptation of Bowser though.
Cutscenes are canon too
That Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker DLC description is not canon. It's just Marketing. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Cartoons: Super Mario Bros. Super Show has "a" Earth (live-action segments) & Mushroom Kingdom's planet (Cartoon segments, TAoSMB3, SMW), & also others based on other Mario cartoons (Captain N, etc.). Comics: Super Mario Kun multiverse (Main world, LoZ, etc.), KC Deluxe universe, etc. 1993 Mario Movie: "Earth" & Dinohattan (and I guess the adaptations too). 2023 Mario Movie: "Earth" (cause Brooklyn) & Mushroom Kingdom (and others not seen). For the King Koopa thing, I'm pretty sure it's President Koopa (who is an alternate version of Bowser from 1993 Mario Movie), unless you're talking about King Koopa's Kool Kartoons? For the cutscenes thing, well of course, they're part of the game. For the CT:TT DLC description, isn't marketing canon? For the Mini Mario thing, the form, or the toy? Both are split. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:33, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA:
I didn't know al that. I meant the Live-Action Bowser. Not the Cartoon one. And I still don't think the Captain Toad DLC description is canon. For Mini Mario, I meant the toy.
"Live-Action Bowser" President Koopa, or the weird-looking Bowser from King Koopa's Kool Kartoons (the one that looks like he's a suit)? And Mini Mario is already split. For the CT:TT DLC description, we'll have to agree to disagree. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:01, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA: I meant President Bowser. I knoe that Mini Mario already his own page. Yeah I have different opinion on the DLC description.
It's President Koopa. But anyways, he's going to be merged to Bowser because of a proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:14, May 18, 2024 (EDT)
@Ahemtoday:I thought the MarioWiki doesn't care to much about canon. Then they could include all Mainline games in one category. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker wouldn't be included anyway, since it's not a Super Mario game. It's a related Game. Also this proposal isn't about canon or not. It's about listing Main Games, Ports, Remasters, Remakes etc. of Games, in the same category. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: I'm sorry if you're not smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. BJAODN is just dumb/joke proposals. This comments section doesn't belong there. It should go to the archive just like the others. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
...Look, while I do genuinely feel terrible for suggesting to put it on BJAODN in the first place, it's not because I'm not "smart enough" to understand what you were talking about. My main concern is that the whole discussion has gone off-topic and has undermined the original subject of the proposal by a very large margin. Of course, I now realize that BJAODN is not the solution here, but there should probably be a discussion on how to prevent future proposals from going off-topic like this after this one ends. rend(talk)(edits) 19:07, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Camwoodstock: Maybe your a small child? Me? No. Definitely not! You know what a headcanon wood be? If I'd say Mario has a 3rd brother. But I only talk about things that are heavily implied, semi-confirmed, some are even fully confirmed. There you have your answer. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:54, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
I'm surprised all of you are so willing to engage in what looks like bad faith debate with this user. Oppose the proposal, and leave it at that. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 20:01, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Ahemtoday here my list. How I would do it (🆕️ meabs games that aren't already in the list, because the others are alteady in the list):
Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
Super Mario Bros. 2
Super Mario Bros. 3
Super Mario Land
Super Mario World
Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins
🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars
Super Mario 64
🆕️ Super Mario Bros. Deluxe
🆕️ Super Mario Advance
🆕️ Super Mario Advance 2: Super Mario World
Super Mario Sunshine
🆕️ Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3
🆕️ Classic NES series: Super Mario Bros.
🆕️ Super Mario 64 DS
New Super Mario Bros.
Super Mario Galaxy
New Super Mario Bros. Wii
Super Mario Galaxy 2
🆕️ Super Mario All-Stars: 25th Anniversary Limited Edition
Super Mario 3D Land
New Super Mario Bros. 2
New Super Mario Bros. U
Super Mario 3D World
Super Mario Maker
🆕️ Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS
Super Mario Run
Super Mario Odyssey
🆕️ New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe
Super Mario Maker 2
🆕️ Super Mario 3D All-Stars
🆕️ Super Mario Bros. 35
🆕️ Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury
Super Mario Bros. Wonder
22 games are in this list, I would add 13 games = 35 games.Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Mario:I have good arguments. And I'm good at discussing things with other people. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:44, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Look. Don't blame this on me. I just made the Proposal. I could'nt know that it would go off-topic. I don't want this eather. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:52, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
The topic began to diverge when you said: "I read the Canonicity article. But I think's that's not good. Because there definitiv is a canon in Mario. Not only that but there is a Mario multiverse with at least 8 different Mario universes in it." You begun reading the Canonicity page upon Hewer's suggestion (who could not have predicted that you would react like this at all), who in turn suggested you to do that in the first place because you told him and SONIC123: "I didnt mean that every Mario game should be in the same category. No. There are lots of Super Mario Bros. games that aren't canon." Note that prior to this, no one has ever uttered the word "canon" in this proposal at all: people only begun talking about canonicity and multiverses afteryou brought up those topics. I'm sorry man, I don't know who else to blame here BUT you. rend(talk)(edits) 21:12, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend: Yes I said that. But I couldn't know that would discuss this further. But I think those people misunderstood me. Because I said three things. Canon, Multiverse and Timeline. But most of it doesn't matter for thid proposal. It's about what games should be included in a section and what in another section. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:25, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Perhaps you could not have known, but neither could your objectors: Prior to you elaborating on the subject, Nightwicked curtly denied your idea to split the characters up ("There's no way in hell we're gonna start screwing up this wiki's manner of coverage just because certain things might not happen in the same universe."), Doc thought the idea was ridiculous ("loooooooooooooooool where are you even getting these numbers from"), and I objected that your multiverse idea is the exact kind of speculation that our Canonicity policy was talking about. If you felt like discussing further into it might derail the original proposal, you probably should've said that you'll elaborate further on another talk page that fits better to the topic (such as the earlier stated MarioWiki talk:Canonicity). And no, people understood you just fine; they just did not agree with your idea to split all the Marios, Peaches, Bowsers, etc. up in separate articles about their different incarnations in certain universes. Nightwicked was very clear about that, and so was I, as well as basically everyone else opposed to your idea. The only confusion was in regards of which incarnations you wanted to split up, which doesn't matter much when people are against you splitting up any incarnations in the first place. rend(talk)(edits) 13:01, May 18, 2024 (EDT)
Stepping in as sysop: This topic has gotten far off on a tangent and likely won't go anywhere. Keep comments after this directly relevant to the proposal. If you have nothing else to add regarding the canoncity of the Mario franchise, which is mostly a moot point anyway and our stance in the wiki will not change on this, vote on the proposal. I won't personally stop you from making comments on canoncity but you can continue argument inside, say, collapsed content. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:20, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
You can comment freely as if I never said anything but I'm just trying to steer the discussion back to what it's supposed(?) to be, which is about the proposal to merge remakes and whatnot and not necessarily about if there is a canon or not to the Mario universe. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 11:55, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
...I never said that. I just was asking if it was fine to reply to previous comments, not make new ones. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:59, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yes you may. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:00, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
do not create pages 2-6
I think there should be seperate pages for level themes for example: Grass lands. Not just as categories. And it should not be listed alphabetical, but rather after a game for extram all Grass land levels in Super Mario World. Than another page for different Desert levels, sorted by games.
Sparks (talk) Categories are enough. If there were to be articles of different level themes across all Mario games, it would get much too repetitive. Adding category identifications to the bottom of level articles sorts them all without the need for many extra pages.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Sparks. These would get very repetitive, very quickly.
Mario (talk) I'm not going to support a proposal that's poorly put together. Elucidate your course of action.
Ray Trace (talk) The Level page I feel is already adequate for covering the themes (could maybe use an expansion). As for the Airship, Ghost House, etc. those are at least marked with a unique icon in the world map whereas a generic snow course isn't so I feel those are exceptions rather than the rule.
BMfan08 (talk) We already have a Level page to discuss nuances of the types of levels. Making separate pages for these would be repetitive, as Sparks and Camwoodstock said, and I fear that the listing of the levels would be longer than the description of the themes.
@ Doc von Schmeltwick: Yes, why can't we make pages for the other level themes too. This would also be helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 22:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: That is a valid point, though I'd like to point out that only one of those pages actually lists all the levels of that type (which, if I'm not mistaken, is what the proposer wants to do with these articles). @Big Super Mario Fan: What do you mean by helpful for the Super Mario Maker articles? BMfan08 (talk) 22:55, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@BMfan08:For example in the Super Mario Maker 2 article you can click on the levels themes Ghosthouse , Airships, Castles. To than see the history of those on their own articles. I think this should also be done for orher level themes. Because that's really interesting to know. For example on YouTube there are also videos about the evolution of Grass land levels or Dessert levels, etc. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 23:05, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I'm stuck here. On the one hand, the opposition has a point. On the other hand, both Doc & BSMF have good points too. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
This is why I'm abstaining for now. As Doc points out, we have several articles on specific level themes already, so making articles on other recurring level themes such as Ground/Grassland/Overworld and Underground would be obvious. On the other hand, it could be seen as becoming quickly repetitive, and something like Level already covers all themes without the repetition. It would also bring into question whether courses such asWorld 1-3 (Super Mario Bros.) should be counted as ground levels or sky levels. rend(talk)(edits) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
True, true. As for the 1-3 thing, I personally view it as both. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:40, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, after giving things some thought from everyone here, I'm removing my vote for the time being. I'll abstain though, only cause I'm not entirely sure what the proposer has in mind for such articles. I'm not interested if the end goal is repetition for the sake of it. BMfan08 (talk) 14:05, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really know WHAT the proposer has in mind, which is why I'm abstaining. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@SONIC123CDMANIA: I tell you what I have in mind. There should be pages for level themes likes Grass lands, Deserts, etc. They should be structured like the pages about Ghosthouse, Airship and Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 17:45, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
(facepalm) I knew THAT, I'm talking about the other comments. Is this just for repetition, or not? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
No, it's not just for reptition. It's also interesting to know about such things. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 18:42, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Mario: As I wrote. The Proposal is about creating pages for Grassland, Dessert, Water Level themes (History, Apperances), that a built like the pages for Ghost House, Airship, Castle. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) 20:55, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form
list variants with their base form 7-0
bit of a wordy title, so let me explain.
as they stand, enemy lists in game articles are sorted purely alphabetically. this causes some minor organization issues, for example: the "B" section of every enemy list being crowded with just about every Big variant in the game. i think that's not a useful communication of information. what i propose is that instead, variations such as Big Goombas, Horned Ant Troopers, that usually don't appear on their own, would be listed right after the base form even if it breaks alphabetical order. of course, since there can be more than one variation of an enemy, those would then be listed alphabetically, placing Big Goomba before Mini Goomba.
some games split new enemies into their own table, so if a game introduces a new variation (such as something like a Big Gamboo) they would just be on the new enemy table.
Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk) Deadline: May 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#Megadardery (talk) As the proposal currently stands, it doesn't offer a well-established alternative to the alphabetical order. I assume you mean that you want to merge the following as well (Paratroopas is grouped with Koopa Troopa, King Bob-omb is grouped with Bob-ombs, etc). Doesn't this mean, we are just grouping by species? List of species kind of already fills this purpose. Alphabetical order makes the most sense for an uncategorized exhaustive list of enemies, where List of species page fills other purposes.
Comments
Would you be open to drafting an example of what you'd like to see changed on your userpage or a sandbox? I'm kinda visually oriented. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:48, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Some time ago I formatted the New Super Mario Bros. 2#Enemies and obstacles in a manner similar to this proposal. This game has the gold variants, and having them clumped together just because they all begin with "gold" was odd (in fact, most enemies in this game are just variants), so I took the liberty to rearrange it. Yook Bab-imba 12:58, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
@Megadardery: I'm pretty sure Evie is just talking about enemy lists on game articles (e.g. Super Mario Bros. Wonder), which tend to always list enemies in alphabetical order regardless of enemy variants. Evie mentions how enemies are listed on games a lot. rend(talk)(edits) 20:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
indeed, i kind of forgot to specify. retouched phrasing to clarify. EvieMaybe (talk) 23:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I apologize, I thought this referred to List of enemies. I'll redact my vote, I agree that alphabetical order in articles is clunky, but I think chronological order (order by appearance in levels) makes the most intuitive sense. As it's less "subjective" than other forms of grouping--
06:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
You know, that's not a bad idea either. We'll have to see what Evie thinks of it, though. rend(talk)(edits) 07:25, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Weird, I remember looking at the linked page once and that was how it was structured! Did something change since then, or was that a different page? Maybe it was this?? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:41, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I don't know how this wasn't noticed by anyone before (including myself), but it appears this proposal was set to two weeks after its creation. Only talk page proposals and writing guideline proposals can last up to two weeks without extension, so I changed the deadline to one week after its creation (...which is today). It doesn't look like it needs an extension anyway if the current standing indicates anything. rend(talk)(edits) 08:49, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
You would be correct that this proposal would only last one week instead of two. However, I looked at the Proposals history and it appears to have been created on the 14th, meaning that this proposal would really be finished on the 21st. The proposal above this one also has an end date of the 21st, so unless the order was somehow broken it would fit chronologically. BMfan08 (talk) 11:39, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
i figured "changing how we list enemies across the whole wiki" counted as a writing guideline, sorry EvieMaybe (talk) 12:00, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
@BMfan: Oh, you're right. I was being bad at math for a moment - my mistake. @EvieMaybe: I'm personally unsure whether "change how we sort enemies on game articles" counts as a writing guideline or not (perhaps I should pay more attention reading this), but I do know that proposals about writing guidelines should be listed under its appropriate header. rend(talk)(edits) 12:16, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
@EvieMaybe while I like the idea of organization being loosened a bit for more curatorial discretion, I think the alphabetization of enemies emerged organically from utility. You even see this in Nintendo's officially produced guidebooks and Mario Portal, where enemies are more often than not alphabetized. Some games have literally hundreds of enemies, and what is a "variant" or "relative" of another creature is sometimes subjective. It is also is not always clear which member of clearly related enemies (like Spoing and Sprangler; Octoomba and Rocto) is derivative of which. What would you recommend in these cases? - Nintendo101 (talk) 10:08, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
that's a good point. i don't think i should be the sole arbiter of what counts as a minor variant, though. maybe we could make a proposal defining it? in the meantime, small, big and alternate colored variants (stuff like Fire Spike) definitely do EvieMaybe (talk) 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like it would make most sense to just list alphabetically as usual if there's uncertainty surrounding what's a variant of what, and only make the exception for enemies that are certainly variants. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:11, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
I have implemented (what I understand to be) the changes called for in this proposal to the Super Mario Galaxy enemy tables in my sandbox here. Does this look alright to folks? - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
that's exactly what i was picturing!EvieMaybe (talk) 23:26, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Consider "humorous" and other related terms as frequently misused in MarioWiki:Good writing
Consider 6-0
A writing quirk that seems to pop up everywhere (particularly in the Mario RPG pages/sections) that always drives me nuts is referring to a situation or action as "comical" or "humorous". Generally, these words are used to describe something that is percieved to be amusing, which is obviously subjective and should not be present in encyclopediac writing. However, usage of these words on here seems to follow an improper, "objective" pattern of referring to features intended by the developers as gags or jokes. Examples of blatant misuse:
The group runs into Prince Peasley, and after a battle ensues with a few Piranha Beans, Captain Goomba humorously sends out one of them to attack Prince Peasley.
Who says Captain Goomba is trying to make a joke out of sending monsters out to fight an ego-centric prince? In Captain Goomba's eyes, he's practically fighting for his life trying not to be eaten. The only one who could find this humorous is the viewer, and since this is a story synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any viewer.
Even though there is actually an in-game audience this time, the wording still implies that the writer thinks it is humorous. In order to emphasize that it's Olivia who thinks it is funny, I changed the last sentence to:
If Mario wears it, he spins around and causes the mask's eyes to roll, which Olivia finds amusing to the point of laughter.
The article for Kruller has quite possibly the most egregious usage of "humorously" I've ever seen:
When Luigi enters the office afterward, Kruller briefly faints from shock at Luigi entering, before entering the next room to find a suitable weapon to defend himself (humorously getting stuck on his back mid-roll) [...] Gooigi then retrieves the Mezzanine's elevator button, with it being humorously revealed that Luigi slept through the entire battle [...] After defeating Kruller in two-player mode, Luigi, who was watching the battle from outside, takes all the credit saying that he did it, after which Gooigi humorously copies Luigi as he had actually defeated Kruller [...]
All of these are jokes meant for the audience. And once again, because this is a synopsis in an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be an audience.
And there's way more that I haven't mentioned (just look up the word "humorous" on here and you'll see what I mean). To summarize how I feel this term has been frequently misused, in a form easily copyable for the rules:
Humorous/Comical/etc.
"Humorous", along with other similar words, is used from an observational perspective to describe something one finds amusing or funny, which is, of course, subjective on the part of the writer and should be avoided in an encyclopedia. However, it is commonly misused to refer to anything that is specifically written to be a joke or a gag by the authors of a piece of media. These kinds of words should generally be used only when a character or person relevant to the article finds something amusing. Not to be confused with "comedic", a word that simply means something relates to comedy in general, and is fine to use if a joke is deliberate on the part of a character (or, in case of references to the media's development, a developer).
DrippingYellow (talk) This whole situation is, dare I say it... "humorous". Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Flowery writing is no laughing matter!
Hewer (talk) I'd add that "comedic" should be used instead to get across that something is meant to be funny while using more objective language, but otherwise, sure, I'll humour this idea.
Ray Trace (talk) We should just get rid of that subjective adjective altogether, let readers decide from the context of the quote if it's humorous or not, we don't need to write an editorial about it (ie sentences such as "Patrick gets caught by Sandy's lasso and dragged back, resulting in a nuclear explosion" already conveys to the reader that it's comedic)
"Comical" and "comedic" should be fine, as those simply mean relating to comedy. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
"Comedic" is definitely fine, but in multiple dictionary sources I've come across, the definition of "comical" meaning "relating to comedy" is either listed as obsolete and deprecated, or absent altogether. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@Ray Trace That was a really good example of obvious comedy. SpongeBob itself is comedy, so that was a good idea to use that as an example! SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:12, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer I updated the rules blurb, is it good now? DrippingYellow (talk) 11:34, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Decide whether to merge the {{more images}}, {{more media}}, and/or {{more refs needed}}
Merge all 4-0
I may have created the {{more refs needed}} template, but I later saw a discussion for merging it with {{unreferenced}}. That inspired me to plan on merging {{more images}} qnd {{more media}} with {{image}} and {{media missing}} respectively, so I decided to make a proposal containing three options:
Option 1
Merge {{more images}}, {{more media}}, and {{more refs needed}} with {{image}}, {{media missing}}, and {{unreferenced}} respectively AND create the categories Articles with sections that need more images, Articles with sections that need more images.
Option 2
ONLY merge {{more refs needed}} with {{unreferenced}}.
Option 3
Keep as they are.
Here are some examples:
Template:Image
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FF6;border:1px solid #630">
It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more images'''|at least one '''image'''}} be [[Special:Upload|uploaded]] for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. Remove this notice only after the {{#if:{{{more|}}}|additional images|image(s)}} have been added. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}}}
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more images|an image}}]]}}</includeonly>
{{image|more=yes|section=yes|Sprites}}
=
It has been requested that more images be uploaded for this section. Remove this notice only after the additional images have been added. Specific(s): Sprites
Template:Media missing
{| class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#C88AFF;border:1px solid #630"
|style="padding-right:10px"|[[File:Soundx.png|25px|class=invert-dark]]
|style="padding-top:3px"| It has been requested that {{#if:{{{more|}}}|'''more audio and/or video files'''|at least one '''audio and/or video file'''}} related to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} be uploaded. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}<br><small>Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}. See the [[Help:Media|help]] page for information on how to get started.</small>
|}<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need {{#if:{{{more|}}}|more media|media}}]]}}</includeonly>
It has been requested that more audio and/or video files related to this section be uploaded. Specific(s): Voice clips Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this section. See the help page for information on how to get started.
{{media missing|more=yes|Videos}}
=
It has been requested that more audio and/or video files related to this article be uploaded. Specific(s): Videos Please upload all related music, sound effects, voice clips, or any videos for this article. See the help page for information on how to get started.
Template:Unreferenced
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''{{#if:{{{more|}}}|needs additional citations for [[MarioWiki:Citations|verification]]|does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]}}'''. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. {{#if:{{{reason|{{{1|}}}}}}|'''Specific(s):''' {{{reason|{{{1}}}}}}|<includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles with incomplete maintenance tags]]}}</includeonly>}}<br><small>Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]].</small>
</div><includeonly>{{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}||Gallery=[[Category:Articles {{#if:{{{more|}}}|{{#if:{{{section|}}}|with sections}} that need more citations|with {{#if:{{{section|}}}|unsourced sections|no sources}}}}]]}}</includeonly>
{{unreferenced|more=yes|section=yes|Spanish and German names}}
Once the proposal ends with Option 1, we'll be able to merge these templates and then replace the {{more images, {{more media, and {{more refs needed syntax with the {{image|more=yes, {{media missing|more=yes, and {{unreferenced|more=yes syntax respectively. However, once the proposal ends with Option 2, we'll only be able to merge the {{more refs needed}} template and then replace the {{more refs needed syntax with the {{unreferenced|more=yes syntax. Once the proposal ends with Option 3, we'll keep the {{more refs needed}} template and protect it.
Arend (talk) Actually yeah, they should probably be combined.
Option 2
Option 3
Comments
Create a category for teenagers
do not create 1-11
One thing that feels strange to me on this wiki is the current age categories. We have children and babies. However, when it comes to teenagers, it either goes to the children category or doesn't go there at all. Granted, both are underage, but it does not help the average user who wants to find all the teenage characters on this wiki. I mean, if we are okay with creating the categories for the previous underaged characters, a third one one wouldn't hurt. For this to count, I looked for every character that was considered to be a teenager in the Super Mario franchise at one point. We have enough categories for them to be put in, having about ten Super Mario characters to count. I'm probably missing a couple and if so, please let me know in the comments. The exact criteria are thirteen to seventeen years old or confirmed to be one. Characters like Tiny Kong wouldn't make it in this category as she was never confirmed to be a teenager in her recent design.
Below is a list of Super Mario characters who are or were teenagers.
And here is a list of non-Super Mario characters who would be affected by this proposal. This only applies if they were portrayed as teenagers within said game. For example, Vector the Crocodile was labeled as one in his earlier appearances but is considered an adult in later games, including all Mario & Sonic games.
I don't know any potential counterarguments in disfavor of this, because this would be much more helpful and less broad than having any underage character be sent to the children category, especially when that's rare, as some of the above-mentioned characters are not put in that category. Plus, it would be weird to call Little Mac or Mona a child. Yes, I know people sometimes describe teens as kids, but it's a lot more misleading if put in those categories.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - The main reason we have the "babies" category is the Yoshi's Island games having the baby counterparts. There's no teen-focused variation of the Mario cast (knock on wood, there)
SolemnStormcloud (talk) As someone who feels Category:Children doesn't have much of a reason to exist, a category for teenagers would have even less of a reason to.
Tails777 (talk) I just don't think this is entirely necessary. At least the Mario series makes the whole babies thing really simple; they are characters designed to be babies and stay that way. The third party examples going by "which design is based on a teenage appearance" just feels unnecessary. I think, in the end, it's just not a necessary category.
Camwoodstock (talk) We really don't need this, especially since a lot of characters that are actually concretely teenagers are just kinda like that, and it's not like... a tenet of who they are. When the Child category is already under scrutiny for how it's moreso trivia than actually relevant information, this has even less of a leg to stand on. The closest thing we could think of is basically reworking the Child category to a "Minors" category, but even then, that would succumb to the same issues the current Child category does... And that's not even getting in to the total elephant room that is Ashley, who is allegedly "15, going on 500", and whether they're on the "teenager" side of this equation or the "adult" side of this equation seems to depend on how funny Nintendo feels like being that day--and more often than not, they do answer "teenager", if not even younger than that.
Arend (talk) Per all. Also, to expand on the Ashley thing, in Japan, her age is left ambiguous, but in those Japanese versions for Touched and Gold onwards, Ashley sounds remarkably younger than in Western versions of those games. That makes it seem that Ashley was originally intended to be a preteen child, but the west aged her up to fifteen since she looks older than the kid characters we've had at the time (e.g. 9-Volt, who is a 4th-grader). Then again, Ashley looks about as old as Penny Crygor, who is a middle schooler... needless to say, Ashley's true age is a can of worms in itself.
Mari0fan100 (talk) Not many characters in the Mario franchise are teenagers, and ditto on the fact that Category: Children doesn't have a good reason to exist. Per all, especially SolemnStormcloud.
Windy (talk) I don't think this is necessary, per all.
Comments
Not sure if I did the references right for this. TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 22:54, May 21, 2024 (EDT)
@MegaBowser64: I agree with your vote, but I don't agree that teenagers suck. Some of them are quite cool and funny. Mari0fan100 (talk) 02:21, May 29, 2024 (EDT)
^Pelland, Scott, and Kent Miller. Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars Player's Guide. Page 4.
^Mario Kart Arcade GP DX uses the Ghostly Adventures design of Pacster, who is a teenager in that show.
^ ab His age is listed as twelve to thirteen years old.
^ Depending on the languages of her games, she is either of teenage age or adult age.
Standardize "History in the Super Mario franchise" headings under certain conditions
Keep current History heading standards 2-0-7
Inspired by Nintendo101's flowerpot subpage (from an earlier revision, before it had been removed), this proposal aims to standardize the use of ==History in the Super Mario franchise== over ==History==. This will help make it clear to readers what is Super Mario and what is not while reading articles, and prevent potential disputes once a standard has been set. Please note that this proposal is NOT about the DK, Yoshi, or Wario subfranchises.
For an article to apply for the ==History in the Super Mario franchise== heading, the article should meet one of the following criteria:
It is from the Super Mario franchiseBUT has also appeared in non-Super Mario media, popular examples being the Super Smash Bros. series and the Minecraft textures. Everything that isn't Super Mario would be subheadings of ==History in other games==, or ==History in other media== if the subject also (or instead) appeared in publications, television shows, etc. not in Super Mario franchise. An example of this can be seen on the History of Luigi article.
Crossover content, including Nintendo products, as they appear in Super Mario media. Examples can be seen on the Game Boy, Link, and Egg Pawn pages.
For the first bullet point, this would help establish that real and generic subjects are not from Super Mario and makes the History heading less ambiguous. On the Dinosaur article, for example, are we reading about history of dinosaurs as they exist in real life, up to the point of extinction, or from the Super Mario franchise? It's the latter. For George Washington, are we reading history about him from the 18th century or as he exists in the Super Mario franchise? It's also the latter, clearly.
For the second bullet point, this would help eliminate the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise and help better contextualize Super Mario as it exists in other media, like sometimes Zelda or Minecraft, rather than being integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself.
For the third bullet point, this would eliminate confusion that the history is talking about Nintendo products in general, like when they were produced, the amount of sales generated, etc. and rather mention its appearances within the Super Mario franchise itself. History on Nintendo products themselves can be found on NintendoWiki. Similarly, for articles like Link, it helps when the History section specifies it is of Link as he appears in the Super Mario franchise. Then connections to Super Mario go under the "History in other media" heading.
To make it short, if this proposal passes, and ==History== is changed to ==History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise== (and split into a separate ==History in other media== in the case of criteria #2) on an article that can be categorized by any of the three numbered bullet points above, users will not be allowed to revert it back to the initial ==History== heading, like in the aforementioned case involving the Dinosaur article.
Hewer (talk) Similar to your previousproposals about reorganising history sections, I don't really see what we'd gain from this. For the first and third bullet points, the edit summary that removed it from the Dinosaur page sums up my thoughts: "This is obvious and unnecessary". Of course we're only going to be covering the subject's history that's within our scope, I don't think anyone's visiting the Dinosaur page seeking a complete history of the Mesozoic Era only to be disappointed when they don't find it. For the second bullet point, I ask the same question as your last attempt to split up non-Mario appearances: why does it not being a Mario game make it worth splitting up? The assertion that they're not "integral to the same degree as their main appearances in Super Mario media itself" feels wrong, games like Smash are major appearances of the Mario characters and are important to their histories, sometimes moreso than appearances in actual Mario games (Smash Melee introducing Yoshi's Egg Roll, Smash Ultimate being K. Rool's first physical appearance in a decade, etc.). I also again question whether "the popular misconception that Super Smash Bros. is part of the Super Mario franchise" exists or is worth "fixing" in such an indirect way (we already don't consider them Mario games to my knowledge anyway). The Game Boy example is the only one given where I see some merit in doing this, since we do give some coverage to the actual histories of Nintendo hardware and it could be worth distinguishing the history of their in-universe appearances from that.
Nintendo101 (talk) Because this is the Super Mario Wiki, the inherent assumption is that any subject with an article appears in the franchise (including Link and Sonic), and that the "History" section would only cover its appearance in the Super Mario franchise. What else would it be about? If a "history in the Super Mario franchise" was to be implemented anywhere, I feel like it only makes sense for recurring subjects that debuted in the Super Mario franchise, but make recurring appearances elsewhere (like Chain Chomps, which make some a few appearances in Zelda). But even in that context, I don't know if it would be appropriate. (I also don't agree with the premise that any in-game subject is "generic", regardless of its name or design. The grapes in Yoshi's Story are just as derived from the real article as the Sour Bunch.)
Dine2017 (talk) Under criterion #2, common Mario subjects such as Goomba would have a long ==History in the Super Mario franchise== and a short ==History in other games/media==, making the two unbalanced. Also per all. (In the case of Game Boy, I think ==Appearances in the Super Mario franchise== is more accurate, cf. Nintendo Entertainment System and Nintendo 64.)
For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look. Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
"For clarity, when I say "standardize," (not to be confused with "allow," since I don't think there's anything in the rules that explicitly forbids formatting in the aforementioned three cases), it means if a page is formatted that way, others aren't allowed to revert it, since it's the standard for how said articles should look." Thanks for the clarification! My support will still be there. "Also, @SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA), glad to see that flowerpot page." Thanks! I wanted to keep/expand on it as a subpage of my userpage, b/c I didn't want any edit conflicts. You and @Nintendo101 are free to edit it if you want. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:43, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Wasn't there a proposal about roughly the same thing not too long ago? You're meant to wait 28 days between proposals on the same thing, so if that's the case, we don't exactly wanna wait for a substantial amount of votes before calling attention to it. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 15:12, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
No, I think this is different. That one had to do with removing franchise headers, which this one doesn't. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:23, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this one is not about removing headings. It's about modifying "History" to "History in the Super Mario franchise" in one of three case, and in one case (if there's appearances outside of Super Mario), splitting "History in other games/media" into its own history heading. See what I did on Don Bongo as an example. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:39, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Where would appearances in things like Smash and Captain N go in this case? -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:40, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
"History in other media" (see Link article). Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:41, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think anything in the comment you reference contradicts any of the sentiments made here. No one is arguing subjects that originated outside of the Super Mario franchise (like Link, Sonic, Mad Scienstein, Wart, etc.) should not receive coverage, nor that appearances made by subjects that did emerged within the franchise should not be noted (like Link's Awakening, Smash Bros., Tetris, Qix, etc.). Rather, because of the inherent scope of the wiki, it is assumed that a "History" section on this site encompasses the subject of the article's appearances in the Super Mario franchise and it is unclear to me why that needs further clarification. - Nintendo101 (talk) 09:35, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
But you said yourself in your oppose vote "Because this is the Super Mario Wiki", which, again, I thought was getting old as an argument. Hewer himself in the linked proposal said it! I'm just confused about what changed in between that and now. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:38, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, why are you getting on Nintendo101's case for an argument that I made in a proposal they didn't even take part in? Second, my point when I made that comment was that "This is a Super Mario wiki" is getting old as an argument on its own to trim, reorganise, or otherwise alter crossover content like Smash, as Super Mario RPG keeps trying to do, whereas Nintendo101's argument is that, because this is a Super Mario wiki, we don't need to specify that our content is about Super Mario. The same words may have been used, but the context of the arguments is different. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:54, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
First off, I'm not. Second, I didn't know that the CONTEXT was different, I only paid attention to the words, not the context. Third, a "History" section only covering the Super Mario franchise kinda neglects the references and cameos. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:01, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Isn't the point of this proposal (which you're supporting) to have history sections that only cover the Super Mario franchise? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:05, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
The history section is going to be split. That's the point of this proposal. YOUR point is just around 1/2 of the point of this proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:45, May 20, 2024 (EDT)
Move Super Smash Bros. information for crossover characters into the list articles and delete their Super Smash Bros. profiles
Do not move info or delete profiles 1-1-10
This proposal concerns Super Smash Bros. information of certain characters listed in Crossover characters. It makes it harder to see the actual Super Mario content on said articles, like how the Isabelle page largely concerns her appearances in Super Smash Bros. while the actual Super Mario appearances in Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario Maker are all the way below. In the case of Villager, it starts off by showing the WarioWare appearances but then has this huge chunk of Super Smash Bros. information in between that and the appearances in Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario Maker.
Besides, the List of Super Smash Bros. fighters pages feel kind of awkward that certain crossover characters do not have their information listed there with other non-Super Mario characters, so this proposal aims to rectify that.
The fighters on the list pages do not have their profiles, and I don't see why the crossover characters should have them but not the fighters already in the list pages, so if this proposal passes, all of that will be deleted too. This includes the Profiles section on other crossover pages like Knuckles, Deku Baba, Zangief, and so forth, since it would be illogical for them to keep their profiles but not the protagonists of the Super Smash Bros. series, an inconsistency that's already present. But the status of the SSB content in the History section of crossover content OTHER THAN fighters in the Super Smash Bros. series can be for a future proposal.
This will affect the following pages, and their Super Smash Bros. information (excluding profiles) will go into the following articles:
There's also Samus, and there's a proposal to currently split the article, so if that passes, her Super Smash Bros. information will stay on the List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. page.
Note: A short summary of the character's role, or any connections to Super Mario, will remain intact, similarly to how Mario#History has a short summary on Mario throughout his appearance while the main history page on Mario is located at History of Mario.
There are three options: Option 1 will enact all of the changes above, Option 2 will remove only the Super Smash Bros. profiles from pages on non-Super Mario content, and Option 3 opposes everything in this proposal.
Nintendo101 (talk) It makes intuitive sense to just list the Super Smash Bros. info on the pages of the character when available. (As a side note, the Super Smash Bros. series has a pretty intimate relationship with the Super Mario franchise, and I do not think we should be omitting coverage here just because SmashWiki exists. We don't address topics the same way.)
Tails777 (talk) If the characters have an article, I see no reason why Smash stuff should be singled out and removed just because it's not Mario related.
Hewer (talk) It's standard practice (and also pretty logical) to list any time a subject happens to appear alongside Mario stuff. Captain N: The Game Master is a good example - it's considered a guest appearance, so it doesn't get full coverage, but we still mention things' appearances there if they happen to be covered on the wiki for some other reason, e.g. Slime (Dragon Quest). So why should Smash (where Mario stuff perhaps has a greater role than in Captain N) be the one exception? The proposal tries to argue about organisation and finding information, but I'd say unnecessarily splitting a character's information across multiple pages is the real bad organisation here. If people really can't bear to scroll through some Smash stuff in order to find what they're looking for (which, mind, might be the Smash stuff anyway), they can use the contents links at the top of the article to jump to particular sections no problem. And also, to be frank, I don't really understand what the proposal is talking about regarding "profiles".
SeanWheeler (talk) If we move these characters Smash information to the list of Smash characters, we might as well just delete those pages and move all information to the Smash character lists. Those lists already have the Super Mario Maker costumes anyway. But we shouldn't move them to the lists because those lists are cluttered enough as they are.
Comments
This passed proposal already establishes that non-Mario trophies should be removed from dedicated character articles. Check out the bolded sentence and the rationale after it:
It's simple. I propose to simply trim those trophies list pages to only the Mario/DK/Wario etc. character and cut the rest. This includes crossover characters that have pages on the wiki - while we may have a Link page because he's in Mario Kart 8, his Smash Bros trophy is about Link the protagonist of his own independent intellectual property and not Link the funny Mario Kart 8 man, and it leads to the bizarre situation of having a listing of Link but not the character his series is named after. Best keep things simple.
I believe if option 3 were to win in this proposal, that decision would be overturned. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:06, May 28, 2024 (EDT), edited 15:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
Okay, I'll remove that from the scope of the proposal then. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:09, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
Wait, hold on, I may be stupid. That simply specifies that the subjects who have pages on the wiki, but do not pertain to the Mario franchise, would be among the trophies trimmed from the trophy pages, but it does not specify that they'd be trimmed from their own pages as well. I confused myself and hopefully I can clear it up following my above comment. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:13, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
I was about to ask about the example of me trimming the profiles from the Sonic page applies, but now I'm not sure what's going on myself. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:25, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
That was about the lists of all trophies per game, not profile sections for individual subjects. Doesn't look like there's any overlap between these proposals. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 16:14, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
I was going to address the opposition by stating that, should this pass, a short summary of each character's SSB role will remain on the page (See Mario#History for a similar type of example), but the main information will be on the list of fighters pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 16:42, May 28, 2024 (EDT)
Looks like the truncation of the moves helps a lot with accessibility, like on the Villager page listed above. Pages like Fox still have excessive profiles, and it seems weird to have those there but not on like the corresponding List of trophies pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:30, May 29, 2024 (EDT)
Eh, I'd say it makes sense. The list of trophies pages are only meant to be lists of Mario trophies, but we happen to also have pages describing fighters in Smash, so why not list the trophies there where they're relevant? Again I raise you Captain N - the article about it is only about the show and its relevance to Mario, so we don't mention the appearance of Dragon Quest Slimes on that article since it has nothing to do with Mario in that context, but because we happen to have an article about Slimes for another reason, we mention the appearance there. Also, I find the "accessibility" arguments you keep going for a bit strange - there are people who might want to look at Smash information on this wiki, it's not just some burden that we have to avert people from as best as we can. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:54, May 30, 2024 (EDT)
Merge the name of Mario family wiki
Do not rename wiki 0-2-24
Mariowiki contains content from Donkey Kong and Wario series despite Mario did not appears. Pauline is an intersection between Mario and Donkey Kong series, so she can be included in either. As independent games of the Mario family including Luigi and Princess Peach released, the name of Mariowiki will no longer be effective. luigiwiki.com and peachwiki.com also redirected to Mariowiki.
Since Mario is from the Mushroom Kingdom, the important thing is that they are the Mario family, so I'd suggest giving them a new name.
Proposer: Windy (talk) Deadline: June 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Mario (talk) In fairness this is a kino proposal so this gets my vote.
Status quo
Arend (talk) Current wiki name is fine. It's straight to the point: it's about the Super Mario franchise, and in marketing for this franchise, characters with their own series such as Wario, Yoshi and DK are often included anyway. Something like "Mushroom Wiki" is not clear at all, and are probably even less relevant to the Yoshi, DK or Wario series, since none of their series have anything to do with mushrooms. "Kino" is also German for "cinema", so "Kinopedia" works even less (unless you're trying to say it's a pun on Kinopio rather than Kinoko, in which case that's still worse).
Pseudo (talk) The current wiki name is simple, concise, and great for searchability. Changing it would completely torpedo that for very little gain. While separate, the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario games are closely related to the Mario franchise, and make sense to be covered on the Mario wiki.
Hewer (talk) The name of the whole franchise is Super Mario, a game doesn't necessarily need to feature Mario to be in the franchise. I don't think anyone is confused to see New Super Luigi U on the Super Mario Wiki. Meanwhile, they most certainly would be confused as to what the hell Mushroom Wiki or Kinopedia is even about, those names are significantly more generic and less recognisable and would create immense amounts of confusion, not solve it. This is a disastrous "solution" to a non-existent issue. (also I'm not entirely sure what you meant when you said Pauline "can be included in either" but the idea that Pauline is the main crossover between the Mario and Donkey Kong franchise rather than their shared origins and DK's continued appearances in Mario games is laughable)
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - ...why would that be better? It just makes it harder to find. Obtuse names like "JiggyWikki" and "Triforce Wiki" were chosen just because the more obvious "Banjo Wiki" and "Zelda Wiki" were already taken.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. "Mushroomwiki" makes us think of a wiki for mushroom foragers, and no offense, but "Kinopedia" make us think of a knockoff of Urban Dictionary--all things considered, we lucked out hard by having the name "Super Mario Wiki" at "mariowiki.com" ripe for the picking; we really, really shouldn't just throw that all away for something obtuse. We are not Elon Musk.
Ahemtoday (talk) These names, especially Kinopedia, are just as tied to specifically-Mario games, and make the wiki's subject much less obvious.
SeanWheeler (talk) I never heard of Kino. And the Mushroom is the the Smash series symbol for Mario and not Donkey Kong (letters DK), Yoshi (egg) or Wario (letter W). The mushroom isn't that essential to DK, Yoshi or Wario, but Mario is a very important figure to the spinoffs. The first Donkey Kong game is the debut of Mario. The Yoshi series has Baby Mario. And Wario is pretty much Mario with the M turned upside-down and was supposed to be a rival to Mario.
Shadow2 (talk) So your argument is "Mariowiki contains content from Donkey Kong and Wario series despite Mario [doesn't appear in those games]", so the solution is to name it after the Mushroom Kingdom...which ALSO doesn't appear in most Donkey Kong and Wario games? Opposing due to nonsensical.
Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per all, this rebrand would be almost as bad as what happened to Twitter.
BMfan08 (talk) While everyone else here has already said what I think about this idea, I'd nevertheless like to offer my commentary. Going to the Mushroom Kingdom page, the only instances of Donkey Kong outside of race courses is mention of the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series (Need I say more?) and that Donkey Kong Island is a "surrounding area". Wario is not even mentioned at all outside of the race courses. And that's not even getting into the Mushroom article. While not every wiki is named like ours is, more often than not the title is based on the main subject, and that's why I believe that this wiki has been named the Super Mario Wiki for so long.
The point is the merging of Mario character names. The domain; Luigiwiki, Peachwiki, DKwiki (or donkeykongwiki.com), Wariowiki, Yoshiwiki and Bowserwiki have all been redirected to Mariowiki. Windy (talk) 10:26, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Why would that need done? Especially Peach, who has two major games plus an LCD thing under her... petticoat...? (she doesn't have a belt) And Bowser, who has zilch. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:38, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
All those URLs already redirect to this site, which I think is what Windy's trying to get at for whatever reason. As for what relevance that's supposed to have to the idea of renaming the wiki, I haven't a clue. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:09, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Windy already stated as such about the luigiwiki.com and peachwiki.com URLs in the proposal itself, directly after stating the MarioWiki name will no longer be effective (which uh, wouldn't be true given the name of the franchise; for some reason, Windy seems to think this wiki is named after the character instead of the franchise). I... think they bring it up to say "oh, we can make mariowiki.com a redirect to the new URL, like the luigiwiki.com and peachwiki.com URLs" (I wouldn't have any idea what else it could've meant). rend(talk)(edits) 16:21, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
So...where's the issue? What does this have to do with renaming the wiki? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:39, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Let me ask you a question: what is the name of the whole franchise this wiki is about, and covers franchises like Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario alike? It's not some weird merger of names, not something like "Mushroom" or "Kinoko" or even the "Mario family" (which admittedly is a better to name a wiki after than "Mushroom"/"Kinoko"). No, it's Super Mario. "Super Mario Wiki" is still a perfectly fine name for the subjects this wiki is talking about. While this wiki does contain content from the Donkey Kong and Wario series despite Mario "did not appears", there's really no need to rename this wiki since Yoshi, DK and Wario are still characters in the franchise that Mario is the center of. And so are Luigi, Peach and Toad: all six of these are always to be recognized as Super Mario characters, so even if Mario doesn't appear in some games that these others star in, the current name of our wiki is still effective and relevant. rend(talk)(edits) 10:47, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Kinoppe's described as a follower of Dr. Mario's daughter (that was the grammar on the original article we don't get it either)! She was born because of Mario with a PhD! ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:32, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Actually, she's stated to be a follower of Peach and Dr. Mario's daughter. I think that's to say she's Dr. Mario's daughter and a follower of Peach, instead of a follower of the daughter of Peach and Dr. Mario (Yeah I completely agree that sentence was grammatically confusing) rend(talk)(edits) 16:50, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
As an aside--so, um, do mushrooms all appear in the spinoff side-series??? We know there's mushrooms in the original Luigi's Mansion (namely the Poison Mushroom) and in the WarioWare series (they repeatedly appear in microgames), but like, are there any in the Wario Land games? Are there any in the Donkey Kong games? We aren't exactly familiar with Every Single Mario Video Game Ever Released, but like, it's not like Mario games are even defined by having a mushroom in them in the first place; both MarioBros. games lack them, and those are literally named based on the fact that Mario is in them. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:18, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
I already stated in my oppose vote that mushrooms are barely relevant in any of the Yoshi, DK and Wario games. It's really only Mario-specific. rend(talk)(edits) 16:28, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
We knew they weren't relevant to them, that's definitely not in question for us. Our question is if Mushrooms made a meaningful appearance in any of them. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:32, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
"It's really only Mario-specific" Nuh-uh, I'll have you know this is a real mushroom inspired by the mushrooms that slide on the ground in mario games. -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:02, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Ah of course, excuse me for forgetting about the true emblems and stars of the DK franchise. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:36, June 1, 2024 (EDT)
Discourage "([Title] for [system])" disambiguation format when "([Title])" alone is sufficient to identify the subject
discourage format 9-2
These past months, there have been some remakes that share titles with the games they're remaking. This has led to a few new articles with titles ending with "([Title] for [system])", such as Scrapbook (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) and Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo Switch). However, this long-winded double-disambiguation format is not always strictly necessary, and both of these example articles fall outside of the specific use case MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door. These are not cases where "two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them" (emphasis added).
I propose a change to the naming policy to explicitly discourage using this disambiguation format in such cases. If the game title alone is enough to specify the subject, including the system in the article title is unnecessary and awkward. Those details belong in the article itself, not the title.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: June 9, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Camwoodstock (talk) Erring on this for the time being. We get the counter-arguments, but it's usually clear from the article's body itself that the content is exclusive to a given remake of a video game that happens to hold a similar name, and it's not like we even apply these nametags consistently anyways--if a thing has a more specific name that isn't already shared with something else, like Hottest Dog or Goomboss Battle, we don't append these "<name> for <console>" tags. As it stands, if you need the title to clarify it's exclusive to a remake, then something's probably wrong in the article itself.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all. And uh, sorry for accidentally roasting this proposal with my comment lol.
Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) I find it strange that this additional disambiguation is used for version-exclusive content only if the article already needs a distinguisher. Nostalgic Tunes's title doesn't have to clarify that it's exclusive to the TTYD remake specifically, so why does Gold Medal need to? Or maybe we need to go the Nintendo route and call it "Gold Medal in the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door game for the Nintendo Switch family of systems"
SeanWheeler (talk) Better to shorten the titles than to add unnessarily long parentheticals. No need to disambiguate when the subject only appears in one version. The "(<title> for <console>)" parenthetical should only be used for subjects with different pages for each version, like 100m (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii).
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - "There isn't a Scrapbook in the original Super Mario RPG, and there isn't a Gold Medal in the original Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door" ...that is precisely why this is needed, or else it's confusing as to why something that isn't in the actual, original game is identified as though it is.
Scrooge200 (talk) Per Doc. It doesn't make it more clear, it's just confusing because it implies it's in the original game.
Comments
@Doc von Schmeltwick I disagree. "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" is not a name that implies the subject appears in the GameCube game Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door; that would be "Gold Medal (Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for Nintendo GameCube)". All the "(Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door)" identifier suggests is that the subject appears in some game with that title. The body of the article can specify which game. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Common sense dictates the game title refers to the original, not the George Lucas'd Special Edition (that verbiage may be cruel, but I'll stand by it). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:26, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Floor (Mario Bros.) is a bad example; "Floor (Mario Bros. for arcade)" implies that it only appears in the arcade original, yet it actually appears in all versions of Mario Bros., so it being called just "Floor (Mario Bros.)" is actually justified. rend(talk)(edits) 20:45, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
...the lesser known one, to the point that its identifier is "(Game & Watch)" instead of simply "(game)" that's attached to the arcade version? I feel like if there were floors in the G&W game, such an article is more likely to be called something like "Floor (Mario Bros. for Game & Watch)" simply for how well-known and widespread the arcade version is in comparison. rend(talk)(edits) 20:56, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Therefore, it is not always reasonable to assume that a title without specifying system always refers to "the original". jan Misali (talk · contributions) 21:02, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
My impression of the (<game> for <system>) identifier is to use it when one feature appears in one version of a title, but not in another version (or is different in another version), and when it's identical in both versions (or multiple versions), just (<game>) may be used as normal. this revision justifies the (<game> for <system>) for consistency with article such as 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Nintendo 3DS) - which would have to have such a name because 100m (Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games for Wii U) also exists. This kind of identifier is also used after this proposal has passed in which to opt out the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier in favor of the shorter (Super Mario RPG) one, since the remake is simply called "Super Mario RPG" and enemies with the (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) identifier clearly appear in both games; with (Super Mario RPG for Nintendo Switch) being used for features that weren't in the SNES original, and presumably using (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) for features that weren't in the Switch remake. rend(talk)(edits) 21:20, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, that does appear to be the current way it's being used. The premise of this proposal is to discourage this in cases where it's not strictly necessary, as it makes the article titles longer and less convenient for little to no benefit. This practice of specifying that a subject is exclusive to a later game isn't used consistently anyway (see Switch (Donkey Kong)), and as the proposal states it falls outside the use case that MarioWiki:NAME recommends using this format in. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:00, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
That ignores that the arcade one was in development first, the G&W one just beat it to the release punch on account of being simpler to program and manufacture. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:12, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Do you have a source for that? If so, you should put that source on the Mario Bros. (game) article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 09:21, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Considering it's been repeatedly said Miyamoto created Luigi for the arcade game and the G&W games were created without his involvement, it seems pretty self-explanatory. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:22, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
Only tangentially related, but why are the three GoldMedalitems split anyways? Sure, they all function differently, but it seems like a fairly generic concept all things considered, and we don't split articles like Apples just because they happen to work differently across games. And then Medal is also split up even further, but makes no mention of Gold Medals? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 20:52, June 2, 2024 (EDT)
Have badges ever been merged with other items? As far as I can tell, basically every badge from the first two games has its own article, even ones that are clearly related to and similar to items in other games (Power Plus (badge) and Power Plus (Super Paper Mario) for example). DiveRocketLauncher 02:16, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
This might just be the most unanimously opposed proposal in Mario Wiki history. No offense to the proposer or anything, but no matter how good this sounded in their head, it would never work out in real life.MegaBowser64 (talk) 19:36, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
??? Did you mean to post this on the above proposal? Shadow2 (talk) 23:09, June 3, 2024 (EDT)
We'd argue that the Alien (Club Nintendo) example is funnier just because we opposed it out of the gate despite being the creator of the proposal, whereas the Images proposal lost its vote via means of retracting it after having been talked out of it. The latter at least had (past tense) a vote--the former had none, ever. ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 20:22, June 4, 2024 (EDT)
Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages
use shorter identifiers 8-0
This is based on a proposal from last year about Super Mario RPG, which had passed. The proposal was about using (Super Mario RPG) as a disambiguation identifier over the full (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) title because not only does the Nintendo Switch remake not use the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG", but it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison.
This proposal is the same principle, but with articles concerning Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! instead (in fact, this idea was also suggested in the aforementioned Super Mario RPG proposal). Both their respective GBAports have entirely omitted the subtitles from the SNES originals, much like Super Mario RPG's Nintendo Switch remake, yet articles that make use of a disambiguation identifier still make use of the full title of the SNES originals (see Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels per example). I think it'd be much easier to navigate if the identifiers went from (Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest) and (Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!) to simply (Donkey Kong Country 2) and (Donkey Kong Country 3) respectively. I believe this makes sense because both the SNES originals and GBA ports are still called Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, and it's the same as what we have done with the Super Mario RPG identifiers.
Proposer: Arend (talk) Deadline: June 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
DrippingYellow (talk) Makes sense to me. Donkey Kong Country 3 at the very least is even officially abbreviated as just "DKC3", rather than "DKC3:DKDT", in Wrinky's dialogue in Donkey Kong 64.
SeanWheeler (talk) The proposal to get rid of the need for specifying the console for remake-exclusive content had passed. Might as well extend that rule to shorten every game's dab terms.
I feel like that's a bit more of a stretch since it replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it. Also, "Yoshi's Island" isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG" and "Donkey Kong Country 2/3". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:38, June 14, 2024 (EDT)
Include "The" for Glitz Pit team articles
Include "The" for article titles 10-0
Many of the Glitz Pit teams use a "the" moniker when listed in rankings and when introduced by Grubba, however most of our articles don't do it with the explaination given when "The Koopinator" was moved to "Koopinator" being that "the" is lowercase when tattling him outside of battle. I get that this means "the" may not be part of the name proper, however this is the sort of thing that does roll of the tongue better when it is included even in the article title. I'm not trying to set a precedence with other wiki subjects in a similar boat (e.g I would still prefer leaving Koopalings as is), I'm really trying to just limit this proposal for the Glitz Pit teams. Anything outside of this would remain a case-by-case basis.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Honestly, for a team name, this makes more sense. If necessary, we can have the category order go to "Koopinator, The" for example, but as they are presented in-game, the "The" is part of their names.
Scrooge200 (talk) - This is the clear intent. or example, "Fuzz": what is this? In-game, it's always called "The Fuzz", which makes sense because that's a slang term for police, not just "Fuzz" on its own.
Pseudo (talk) Per all, and I'd say that exceptions to this like Wings of Night are actually strong evidence that this is an intentional part of the team's full name; they're not the "Iron Adonis Twins" but "The Iron Adonis Twins".
DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. I'm the one who moved Koopinator's article for consistency, but I support adding "The" to the article names as that makes the most sense. I probably should have said something about this when I moved the article.
Note to self: the Koopinator example mentioned in the proposal text should probably be incorporated into The Koopinator's article as "The Koopinator, also spelled with a lowercase "the" as the Koopinator(insert Tattle dialogue reference), is a character in...", or that sort of thing, if this proposal passes, since it's still a valid name reference in its own right. Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 19:18, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
He's only "the Koopinator" because no one else I think had the chance for their name to be mentioned outside the beginning of a sentence. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:27, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
At the start of matches, "The" is capitalised even when it's not at the start of the sentence. I'll leave this livestream here for reference; The Koopinator is at about 1:37:40. Nightwicked Bowser 21:35, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
Ah, that's kind of tricky because the game breaks up the text strings in that dialog box and calls in whatever name in memory. Looks like the remake's the same way. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:41, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
Hm, fair enough. This is pretty insignificant anyhow… Pseudo (talk) (contributions) 03:42, June 14, 2024 (EDT)
Add parameters for listing related groups to character and species infoboxes
add parameters 5-1-2-4
Alright, I know the "Affiliation(s)" parameter for these was deprecated many years ago for being dumb, but hear me out.
A few years after this proposal passed, this wiki added a group infobox for linking to and listing members, member species, and leaders of a group, similar to how the species infobox lists variants, notable members, etc of the species. Thing is, unlike the character and species infoboxes that are designed to link to each other (character's species/species' notable members, species variants/species variants of, and so on), group infoboxes are a one-way street as it currently stands. So, I propose that parameters be added to these infoboxes so they can list the groups they belong to. And to be clear, this parameter would only be used for groups, so we get none of that "Mario is 'affiliated' with his brother and sometimes Bowser" nonsense. This has a much more specific purpose. Right now this wiki doesn't really have lists of groups that characters and species belong to, you have to look through all the articles for groups to find that out, so I think these lists would be worth having.
I've come up with two options:
Option 1: Template:Character infobox and Template:Species infobox get a "member of" parameter, which would be used to link to groups they are, well, a member of. Goomba and the like would link to Bowser's Minions, Vivian would link to Three Shadows, etc. This parameter would be used to list both memberships and leadership roles (the latter could maybe be distinguished by adding "(leader)" next to the link).
Option 3: Only add the "member of" parameter to the character infobox, not the species infobox.
EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, the parameters would be displayed in a two-column list similar to the species infobox parameters, and would only be used for links (e.g. groups that actually have articles, and not just any arbitrary category people come up with).
EDIT THE SEQUEL: Per LinkTheLefty (talk), added an option to only add this to the character infobox. I originally thought it would be weird to exclude it from the species infobox since some species-characters like Birdo are heavily associated with groups such as the Birdo Beauties, at least when these characters are treated as individuals rather than species, but in hindsight, it would be odd to, say, classify allGoombas as members of Bowser's Minions when that's obviouslynotthecase. (At least Gary would be classified as a member of Bowser's Minions...)
Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Deadline: June 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 21, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) The folly of the "affiliations" tab was that it was allowed to include characters, which led to nonsense like Fawful being affiliated with "himself" among other things. Restricting it to groups is perfectly fine.
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, don't really see why not. The oppose argument seems to mainly be "it could be used wrong", but that kinda goes for anything, and doesn't mean it will be used wrong.
DrBaskerville (talk) Whereas a nice idea in theory, I fear we'll see a repeat of everything that led to the previous iteration of this parameter getting deleted in the first place. Unless there will be heavy patrolling of this parameter, which seems unlike given how widespread the Template:Character infobox is, I don't trust leaving it to chance that it will be used responsibly and we won't end up with weird things like Mario being "member of" some ridiculous things like "Mario Bros.", or, just as worse, a long, long, exhaustive list of every organization Mario has ever participated in, e.g. Excess Express passengers, Mario Kart 8 racers (etc., etc.), and so on. Mario is obviously a "worse case" example, but the principles apply to virtually any character who has multiple appearances. In the Goomba example that you provided, for instance, not all Goombas are part of Bowser's Minions. What about the Goombas in Goomba Village or Rogueport or any of the other various non-Bowser-aligned Goombas. You'd just have to get really, really into the weeds to make specific rules for parameter usage, and it will be a pain to enforce them.
Nintendo101 (talk) Couldn't we just write this stuff in the body paragraphs? I worry an "affiliation" would be too often open to subjective interpretation and promote drive-by edits, further damaging the infoboxes.
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) I'd rather avoid adding parameters that could lead to unconstructive uses.
Comments
Would having single character and species infobox options satisfy some of the opposition's concerns? LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:27, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
Replace sticks' direction notes in games' control lists with Unicode arrows
do not replace 4-6
I've noticed for many retro games' pages, for instance Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels#Controls and to a lesser extent Mario Kart: Super Circuit, have pretty wordy explanations that make the tables taller than they should ideally have been. An instance from the former page at the time of writing is " (left and right)", which if my proposal would pass would be mass-converted to "↔", especially since The Lost Levels was nominated for "Spotlight notice" earlier tonight, for which its note "(...) help to contribute in any way that you can." seem like a fitting time for me to see if this idea floats well with other users than me.
D-pads for newer consoles are more or less unaffected (except in particular the Nintendo 64 D-pad that doesn't currently have an icon in Template:Button at all), and motion control info for Wiimote/Joy-Con would also be unaffected due to their very high complexity, but for non-N64 analog sticks there are no other viable options at all to reduce the table boxes' text lengths.
Other examples, though theorethical ones instead of the above ones:
" up/down" → "↕"
" left" → "←"
(Optional) "Rotate " → "↻"
There's only really one option that I can see, with no possible alternate options to vote for instead. I personally do not consider the vote as a matter of "Mass-implement" or "Prohibit forever", and I would not object to if anyone applied the idea to arrow-application edits on individual pages if they were to so wish.
Shadow2 (talk) It might seem silly, but I think the unambiguous English word "Left" is a more direct representation than just an arrow. Someone might look at your second example replacement and think "Why is there an arrow pointing at the control stick icon?" Comparatively, "Left" means "Left". This is especially more prudent with the stick rotation. It might be obvious to you and others, but not everybody is going to see "↻" and understand that it means "Rotate the control stick". Again, the unambiguous English word "Rotate" is better.
Cadrega86 (talk) Per Shadow2, I think this is trying to fix a non-issue, plain words are much more understandable and clear than ambiguous arrows. Arrows could also be a bit problematic in terms of accessibility (e.g. screen readers, although they probably can't read the stick icon either unless it's been given alt text.)
Tails777 (talk) I've thought a bit about this and personally, I feel this is a situation where words speak louder than pictures, or symbols in this case. This isn't necessarily something that needs to change or anything, I think it's fine the way it is. Per all.
Ahemtoday (talk) I think the inconsistencies between devices brought up in the comments kinda sinks this idea for me.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Ahemtoday; if we had some work-around to guarantee a consistent way for screenreaders to read these/have devices always display the exact same symbols, we might be singing a different tune. But for now, we should probably prioritize what works and is accessible over aesthetics.
I like this in principal, but I will sometimes use "→" to convey the order of button presses, as apparent on the Super Mario 64 page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:15, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
Well, I guess if instead "▶" is being used (◀▶, ▼▲), I guess it wouldn't be much of a problem? Or maybe any of these? Nevermind, these don't work on iPad. rend(talk)(edits) 09:46, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
We already have stuff like and . Is there any way that this could be implemented on examples like those? BMfan08 (talk) 12:30, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Not for analog sticks by any realistic means that I can tell. DandelionSprout (talk) 12:33, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Wondering if gif would be supported, since some games have animated gifs of stick movement. Ray Trace(T|C) 12:58, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Sounds impractical in my eyes, as the GIFs would (presumably) constantly play and potentially distract people who read the pages. DandelionSprout (talk) 16:13, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding ease of reading, the ability to compress the height of some games' control tables by possibly more than 40%, significantly outweights any potential initial readibility. The one and only thing I'd note, is that in some rare cases the stick and the arrow could end up with a newline between them, in which case the only workaround I could find would be to use "<br>"; Template:Button doesn't seem to support non-breaking spaces. The preceding unsigned comment was added by DandelionSprout (talk).
Our main concern is: how do screen readers handle the arrow symbols in unicode? ~Camwoodstock(talk) 17:04, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
My browser's built-in TTS feature reads "→" as "right-pointing arrow", but I'm aware of other systems that would just skip these symbols entirely. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 17:09, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
On my end (iOS 15, you.com), a few of the symbols render as emojis (up-down arrow as ↕️, left-right arrow as ↔️, and the triangles for left and right as ◀️ and ▶️), while the others register as ASCII symbols. S o m e t h i n g o n e ! 17:13, June 18, 2024 (EDT)
I did some googling, and while "alt" doesn't seem to be supported in "span" at all, allegedly "aria-label" is supported by TTS tools, though I currently lack the setup needed to test any TTS tools. On the Swordfighter Peach page I've now tested out such a label with "aria-label=up" wrapped around 🠉, which I'm 85% sure wouldn't be emoji-fied. While the latter is part of the "Supplement Arrows-C" Unicode set that was said by User:Arend above to be unsupported by iOS, the set was released in 2014 and is therefore something that surely must've been added in later iOS versions, or at least I hope they've been added. Had it not been for how the arrow set I've now tested out doesn't have two-pointed arrows, I'd have called it a second 180° that would've swung the tide back in favor of approval. DandelionSprout (talk) 15:36, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Doesn't seem to work for me, it just displays as the cross in a rectangle symbol. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:02, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah no, my iPad is running iPadOS 17.5.1, the most recent version for iPads as of last May, and it's showing your symbol as the white rectangle symbol. I'm not sure about iOS (the one running on iPhones) or MacOS, but I feel they would have to display these things somewhat similarly? rend(talk)(edits) 16:35, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Yoshi's Island pages
canceled by proposer
This is based on two proposals that have passed. One proposal was about using "(Super Mario RPG)" as a disambiguation identifier over the full "(Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars)" title due to the Switch remake not using the "Legend of the Seven Stars" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it just "Super Mario RPG," and the other was about using the "(Donkey Kong Country 2)" and "(Donkey Kong Country 3)" as a disambiguation identifier over the full "(Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest)" and "(Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!)" titles, respectively, due to not only the GBA remake not using the "Diddy's Kong Quest" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it "Donkey Kong Country 2," but also the other GBA remake not using the "Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!" subtitle from the original SNES title while still calling it "Donkey Kong Country 3." In both cases, it would be easier to navigate and would look nicer because the page title is not so overly long in comparison.
This proposal is the same as before, except that articles rather concern Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island (an idea also suggested in the two aforementioned proposals, one for Super Mario RPG and the other for both Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3). As a GBA game is named "Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3" instead of "Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island," it contains a remake that has entirely omitted the subtitle from the SNES original much like the Switch remake of Super Mario RPG and the GBA remakes of Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3, yet articles that make use of a full title of the original SNES iteration (see Category:Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island worlds per example). Perhaps it would be much easier to navigate once the identifiers went from "(Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)" to simply "(Yoshi's Island)." I believe that this makes sense because both the original SNES iteration and the GBA remake are still called "Yoshi's Island," and it is the same as what we have done with the Super Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 2, and Donkey Kong Country 3 identifiers.
Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) Deadline: June 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: June 23, 2024
Hewer (talk) Per my comment on the matter last time: it replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it, so we've never had a game just called Yoshi's Island, and I don't know of any other time we've used a title for a game identifier that isn't actually a title for a game. "Yoshi's Island" also isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG", "Donkey Kong Country 2", or "Donkey Kong Country 3". I think this is going a bit too far and ends up a little more confusing than helpful.
SeanWheeler (talk) We wouldn't know if it's referring to the island or the series. Calling them "Super Mario World 2" would be better.
Comments
Just to clarify, is this proposal to make the identifier (Yoshi's Island) or (Super Mario World 2)? The former would make more sense, but the latter is what removing "the subtitle" from (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island) would entail. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 16:46, June 22, 2024 (EDT)
...Gunther, did you just literally copypasted my proposal to use as a basis of yours? The structure is quite similar and certain words and sentences being used are also the same. I would've appreciated if you didn't copypaste my proposal and sell it as if it's your own text (aka, plagiarism), and instead proposed your idea in your own words. I mean, I didn't copypaste Annalisa's proposal at all when I made my own proposal, did I? rend(talk)(edits) 20:47, June 22, 2024 (EDT)
Nope. Not at all. GuntherBayBeee 22:37, June 22, 2024 (EDT)
I find it very hard to believe the similarities are unintentional when the title is almost exactly the same and many sentences use extremely similar wording ("it would also be easier to navigate and would look nicer due to the page title not being so overly long in comparison" and "it would be easier to navigate and would look nicer because the page title is not so overly long in comparison", for example). Insert James Somerton joke here. DiveRocketLauncher 00:56, June 23, 2024 (EDT)
What makes this extra concerning to me is that this is the exact same proposer as from the Yoshi proposal (really, User:Teh Other, the guy from the Yoshi proposal, redirects to User:GuntherBayBeee, the guy from this proposal). This was something they got freakin' warned for before, and to see that they're doing it again nearly two years later implies that they have not learned their lesson from this after all. Not only that, but the fact that they deny their plagiarism and made an effort to make a few more changes to hide it (but still keeping the same structures and use similar sentences as mine) implies that they know plagiarism is wrong but did it anyway, possibly out of laziness like last time. rend(talk)(edits) 06:42, June 23, 2024 (EDT)
Looking at both proposals side by side, yes. This is copied from Arend's proposal, just with any instance of Donkey Kong Country changed to Yoshi's Island. The wording is almost the exact same save for some minor changes (like changing "principle" to "as before"). Sparks (talk) 07:03, June 23, 2024 (EDT)
Standardize sound test page titles
standardize titles in category 5-2-1
Something I've noticed in some of the sound test pages is if they're given an in-game name for the sound test mode like "Jukebox", "Sound Gallery" etc. that name gets used instead of "List of (game) in-game music" "(game) sound test", but this makes things very confusing (especially when you have Juke Box and Jukebox, two separate lists) since it's not clear which of these is for which game, and these sound tests can have many different possible names. Some of the "in-game music"- "sound test"-titled lists even have sound test names and currently don't use them (e.g. "Music List" for Odyssey).
I propose renaming these exceptions to "List of (game) in-game music" "(game) sound test" and having the original names redirect to them (and add {{redirect}} linking to the category if necessary). Of course, this would be applied to future sound tests in games as well.
However, there's also the issue of some music lists being incorporated into other, location articles (e.g. Musée Champignon) or some being treated as its own location article (e.g. Sound Studio), and I'm not fond of the idea of renaming a location to a list since the MarioWiki is supposed to document locations. I think these exceptions named after physical in-game locations (listed in bold below) should be left as is, and "Category:Sound tests" would be added to "List of (game) in-game music" "(game) sound test" redirects linking to their respective sections for better standardisation and consistency on the category page.
Another, obvious solution would be to split these lists off from the location pages to their own "in-game music" "sound test" pages, which I've added as another voting option, but I personally don't like the idea of keeping all of the other sections on Musée Champignon together and intact while having its Sound Gallery somewhere else. (Then again, I noticed Prisma Museum doing just this with its art gallery at the time of writing this... Maybe the art can be moved from Gallery:Paper Mario: Color Splash#Concept art gallery to there to be consistent with Musée Champignon. But I digress.)
(EDIT: I just realised that Juke Box is a physical item in Mario Party. For the sake of this proposal, it will be considered one of the bolded locations.)
Hewer (talk) Second choice, just because I really don't like the idea of indiscriminately splitting specifically the music lists from articles that cover a lot of different information, and I feel like it would look messy. For instance, it would look super weird for Scrapbook Theater's page to just be an enemy list with the music list (which is actually shorter than the enemy list) split into its own page. Keeping the lists on the pages also helps make it clear we're using the ordering and naming from the list of music shown in that place in the game, including any other oddities, such as Scrapbook Theater's music list ending with "Yoshi's Woolly World Medley" that's just a button to play a random song. I don't think there's much of a way to justify splitting just the music lists and nothing else from pages like this.
Rename sound test modes (unbolded), split sound tests from locations (bolded)
Arend (talk) Honestly, I feel like the sound tests found from locations/items should have their own dedicated article, given that articles like Musée Champignon are jam-packed with so many files that some devices (e.g. my iPad) have trouble loading the page (although this issue is also a thing with the TTYD remake's Sound Gallery). Not sure if the Sound Room of Wario Land 4 should be included, given that all the CD songs included there are unique to that Sound Room (with none of the tracks appearing anywhere else in the game), and we already have a dedicated article for Wario Land 4 media with the actual level music and stuff.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Arend. We feel like this makes the most sense from a perspective of performance, which if we're being real here, is our main concern here.
Do nothing
Hewer (talk) This change doesn't feel super necessary to me and seems to just create more complications than it's worth. We're already using official names here, I don't really get the need to change that, especially not to "sound test", since that's not always the official name. Not every article title needs to specify the game it's talking about, otherwise we'd use identifiers on like every article. (Odyssey's page can be moved to "Music List" too if necessary)
Ahemtoday (talk) As someone with a vested interest due to renaming this category a while back, I think the thing with me is... I don't think the phrase "in-game music" makes much sense as a name for these articles. I only changed the name of the category because I really don't have a better name for these articles, but "in-game music" in no way conveys that these articles are about sound tests. As such, I don't really relish the concept of changing more articles to be named that. My issue with this has been solved, see the comments.
Comments
First of all, I think you forgot to add a comments section. Second of all, as the creator of the Sound Room (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Party Game$!) page, I only created it like that cause there already was a Sound Room page made. I asked members of the Discord if they thought I should move the other one (which belongs to Wario Land 4) but received no reply. BMfan08 (talk) 12:30, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, the Musee Champignon page takes a couple more seconds for me to load, too. It's in the top 170 largest pages (and would be smaller if it weren't for all the Mario Kart Tour list pages). Something curious is that Color Splash has a full media page, while for Origami King and Thousand-Year Door Switch, they just have the files embedded onto the museum/sound gallery pages. I did this for CS because I wanted to upload extra fanfares and unlisted tracks, but I'm wondering how to handle it now. Scrooge200 (talk) 18:27, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
@Ahemtoday The point of the proposal is to keep the naming consistent. The "in-game music" can be renamed to something else later if needed. MarioJC 22:51, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
I think where I'm at right now is that I prefer naming these articles after the menus/areas in which they play, even given the inconsistency, over the unfitting "in-game music" title. I'll support the proposal if someone suggests a more suitable we could move all these to instead. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:26, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
I was thinking just "(game) sound test", like "(game) bestiary". MarioJC 23:48, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Ooh, that's a good way to handle it. I'll vote for this proposal on the condition that that's the naming scheme we use. Do I need to make a separate proposal for that or something, or is it uncontroversial enough that we can just do that? Ahemtoday (talk) 03:29, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
Looks like Porple went ahead and renamed them, so that takes care of that. MarioJC 10:40, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend I forgot the Sound Room songs are unique and not from the game's levels, so an "in-game music" title wouldn't be accurate. I've removed it from the list (so it would be the only name exception in the category). MarioJC 22:51, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
A bit tangential, but do you think List of records in WarioWare: D.I.Y. would qualify as an exception? I know it's not in the category right now, but it's reminiscent of that situation. Ahemtoday (talk) 23:26, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Yes, I would count that as an exception alongside Sound Room. MarioJC 23:48, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Seconding that the WarioWare D.I.Y. records should probably be an exception. Those are all exclusive songs that don't appear in any of the other modes (unless you input music from them into one of your own Microgames, of course). ~Camwoodstock(talk) 00:05, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
So my naming issue has been solved, but let me say my thoughts on separating these out. See, the thing is, these articles are not all in the same situation. Yes, Musée Champignon, Prisma Museum, Scrapbook Theater, and Sticker Museum have enough content in the article that a split-out list would function. It's extremely justifiable for Prisma Museum, which is already split; but maybe a bit less necessary for Sticker Museum, whose other contents are mostly plaintext. However, Juke Box and Sound Studio have basically nothing outside of the content that would get split off; in option 2, they would be basically nothing but stubs leading to another article. And then there's Music Room, which covers multiple games; I can only describe it as an edge case. I'm not sure it makes sense to treat all these articles the same way. Though I suppose this proposal is about creating consistency. If we're dead-set on doing that, I have to support option 1 — I value MarioWiki:Once and only once over fast load times. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:29, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
Allow quotes of characters being voiced by their official actors in unofficial media
Allow 7-0
Voice actors whose performances are heard in official works may also go on to voice their usual character(s) unofficially, such as Charles Martinet having fun as Mario, Luigi, and Wario on a trip to Chile in a series of Vines or the voice actors of the DKC cartoon reprising their roles in the fan-made Return to Krocodile Isle, with the former example already being quoted on the wiki. What this proposal aims to do is explicitly enable the practice of quoting unofficial performances through a statement at MarioWiki:Coverage, section "Fan work by creators officially involved with the brand", specifically as an extension to its policy on fan artwork. To be eligible on the wiki, the quotes must only reproduce lines of dialog that are perceived as directly tied to the character in a given piece of media, and not frivolous performances that can be determined to be demonstrations of skill on the part of the performer while they are engaged in an interview or other such interaction. For instance:
Charles Martinet cracking jokes about crabs in those Vines will be allowed to be quoted, because the lines can be attributed to the Mario Bros. figures shown in the video.
Charles Martinet saying "All toasters, toast toastie!" in his Mario voice at a convention panel is not to be quoted because Martinet is still being himself as he changes his pitch to sound like Mario.
Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly surprised this wasn't already a thing. Mostly because "It's a hibiscus! Oh, hello-biscus." is firmly wedged in our lexicon, but also because this feels like a very natural extension of our coverage. Maybe it's because quotes pages go generally under the radar? At any rate, these feel like natural inclusions to those pages.
Pseudo (talk) Per proposal. This definitely seems within the wiki’s scope as a semi-official semi-unofficial portrayal of these characters.
Hewer (talk) This feels like a reasonable extension of the proposal to allow fanart from people who officially worked on the franchise, so sure, per proposal. Though we should probably give them some separation (like their own section) on quotes pages to make it clear they're not strictly official.
I don't know if this fits. Jack Black pretends to be Bowser and even puts on a small show when he enters the stage, with lights flickering and a throne as prop and whatnot--but that's still just a cute segue into an interview with Jack Black. -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:27, June 17, 2024 (EDT)
Get rid of or heavily restrict the "Subject origin" parameter
remove parameter entirely 10-1-0-2-1-2
I can already sense a murmur rising in the crowd, but hear me out. I've made it no secret on here that I don't really like the Subject origin parameter on the species infobox. The term "subject origin" is a bit of a misnomer. It really should've been called "design inspiration", because rather than explaining where the subject comes from in pieces of media, it's only ever been used in instances where the subject took any sort of inspiration from another entity, either real or fictional. If that sounds oddly broad... then yes, it isvery broad.
This line of reasoning is used for bizarre classifications such as Mincers being derived from Zingers because they're both spiky enemies (is Mincer even an enemy, or just an obstacle?) that follow specific paths, or every "Bone" enemy variant being derived from Dry Bones even if they don't actually fall apart. There's even a few cases where "subject origin" has taken priority over confirmed relatedness between species, despite the term not in itself suggesting a close relationship between subjects, thus losing useful information in the infobox in these cases (e.g. Rocky Wrenches which were formerly Koopas, Whomps which are said to be "cousins" of Thwomps, Krumples being blue Kremlings that follow the same naming scheme as their predecessors Krusha and Kruncha).
The most awkward instances, however, are easily the instances of a subject being "derived" from a generic concept. Kleptoads, though based on frogs, have little to no relevance to any of the generic instances of frogs present in the Mario franchise. Similarly, Rabbids are entirely separated from the Mario series' depictions of rabbits, not only because they don't act like generic rabbits in the Mario series, but also because they're not even from the same franchise. It's not even restricted to entities that actually have pages on the Mario Wiki. Kremlings are stated to originate from "crocodilians", a page that only exists as a category, Crazee Dayzees are derived from "flowers" (which are in a similar situation), and Krimps are listed as being derived from "dogs". Who's to say Boos aren't derived from "ghosts", or that Flaptacks don't have "bird" as a subject origin, or that Octoombas aren't based off of both "aliens" and "octopuses"?
I hope you can see that the unrestricted references to generic or real-world species at the very least are a problem. But even for non-generic subject origins, the vast majority of the time (I'm tempted to say all of the time, but there could be an instance I'm struggling to think of that doesn't fall under this), this kind of info is covered sufficiently in the introductory paragraph, or the General information/Appearance section when applicable. I propose we deal with this in one of the following ways:
Option 1: Axe the "subject origin" parameter entirely. (My primary choice) Option 2: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to generic species, in addition to switching priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects". (I'm fine with this) Option 3: Simply ban usage of citing generic species as the subject origin. Option 4: Ban usage of subject origin to refer to species from the Mario franchise. Option 5: Just switch priority of "Related" and "Subject origin/Derived subjects"
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, and especially per 7feetunder. It's an awkwardly named, unnecessarily confusing, arbitrarily used, unhelpfully broad parameter that feels like it's spiralled and descended from its intended purpose to uselessness (plus random speculation at worst), and it feels weird for the fictional species that something's a variant of (like with Galoomba) and debatably necessary listings for the generic real thing it's based on (like with Crazee Dayzee and Moo Moo) to use the same parameter. In short, this subject is the origin of much confusion, and little good can be derived from it.
TheUndescribableGhost (talk) After enough consideration, I'll go with this option. This category got flanderized.
Somethingone (talk) As the person responsible for revitalizing the parameter in the first place (it was used before my proposal and fell off before my proposal too), sure. Just as long as the real world species are kept out of the "comparable" parameter.
LinkTheLefty (talk) I think, right now, it's a little confusing, myself. Back when I thought to have the parameter revived, I thought of only using it for genericized subjects, and this option seems to be closest to what I had in mind. For that matter, we don't need to list every single variant of something under derived subjects; just the base version is fine. I'd rather not go back to listing generic subjects broadly listed under comparable again, and insist that the parameter would benefit from focus.
Somethingone (talk) Second choice - my original intent with that old proposal.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't really see the issue. If anything, the "relatives" parameter not having directional counterparts is the weakest link. Plus the "listing Galoombas as Goomba relatives rather than variants because a source distinguished them from each other and happened to used the word 'related'"-type of thing might be itself getting out of hand...
Oh, looks like I'm involved with this proposal to some degree. You see; I was the one who did the Kremling edit and especially the recent Dry Bones edits. For the latter, my explanation is that subject origin refers to things based on another entity while not actually being the entity. For example, Galoombas have been considered not Goombas, but they were meant to be inspired by them and even their name reflects it. There are various subjects that are definitely inspired, while not considered relatives of the original entity. Goombrats are weird, because they are stated to be relatives, although it's not made clear if they are a variant, as Super Mario Run loved to throw a wrench at us. The initial existence of subject origin appeared to be more generic species that had multiple fictional variants off of it. I always had this issue with penguins on this, because the Mario franchise equivalent of penguins are meant to be based on those from SM64, yet the derived section brings up entities that existed before it. The blue color seems to derived from Bumpties, so there's thatMIPShole for you. As for my Dry Bones edit, they've inspired various skeleton enemies over the years. It's obvious that Bone Piranha Plants were inspired by Dry Bones, because their designs have the same type of texture. The same applies to Fish Bones, because they are meant to be underwater Dry Bones, especially given in Maker, where an underwater Dry Bones becomes a Fish Bones. Poplins are not confirmed to be relatives of Toads, but it's wrong to say that aren't inspired by Toads. Really, I got the impression that subject origin = inspiration. We know that Dry Bones and Fish Bones are definitely two different entities not even related, but we know one took inspiration from the other. I guess this type of logic would make Shellcreepers being the origin for Koopa Troopas, although Shellcreepers are retroactively considered part of the Koopa clan. Yeah, relatives is another thing. For me, if its unclear what came first, its a relative. Paragoombas have the ability to spawn Mini Goombas. Mini Goombas aren't really a variant of a Paragoomba, so the relative label fits there. To get back on topic a little bit, I'm surprised Moo Moo didn't get mentioned here; it's in the same boat of Kremling, except I made it link to the Wikipedia article for cattle. My thought process behind these edits, where to tell the viewer what the species is based off on. This is somewhat true for Kremlings, who are sometimes called reptiles or lizards. A person who isn't familiar with this franchise might not know what the hell a Kremling is meant to be based on, so I figured that I mention its inspired by both crocodiles and alligators (not sure if Kremlings tend to crossover with these two, like how Diddy and Dixie are crosses between monkeys and chimps). I guess this could get out of hand when talking about fictional animals such as dragons or aliens, so there's that. My thought process is that someone might not realize what the species is based on. Like, if there was a fictional species based off on a spider monkey, which some people might not realize actually exists, that was the intended goal. Of course, it can resort to "well, no shit," situations regarding Kremlings who are just based on typical crocs and Moo Moos. So yeah, I'm not entirely sure what to choose here. I do want it to be obvious to non-Mario readers what the subject is based on. Are we considering making Galoombas be considered comparable to Goombas? TheUndescribableGhost (talk) 23:55, June 11, 2024 (EDT)
This very well could just be me, and I do not want to disregard the hard work of my fellow users. However, in my personal experience, the "subjects origins", "relatives", etc. entries for the species infoboxes have become so diluted and bloated with loosely-affiliated species that I usually just ignore whatever is written in those sections completely. This is a bit of a shame, because I remember them being quite fun and informative years prior. Today, I don't really trust/value the information written there because it seems either: (A) very subjective and promoting of drive-by edits; (B) derived from a proposal drawn chiefly from subtle similarities in Japanese nomenclature, to the point that they ignore everything about the species' physical appearance or canonized taxonomy; (C) declares it to be derived from a subject that is pretty apparent just by looking at the subject; (D) based on mechanical similarities within their respective games, which is not something that I think inherently means they are related, variants, or subjects of origins, and are details best left in the body paragraphs; or (E) are so long that it makes the whole concept of the infobox - something to quickly condense information - completely useless.
I do not know what would be the best amendment for the species infoboxes. Something to return them to their prior useage would be nice - it's not really clear if any of DrippingYellow (talk)'s options would really do that. (Possibly something to address D, I think.) But I am interested in sort of change. Too often, it feels like people are going out of their way to look for connections that are not real, rather than noting ones that unambiguously exist. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:43, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
Abstaining from voting, but while I don't really have a problem with axing the subject origin parameter (we can move the information from that parameter to relatives or comparable), I do realize that by doing so, we're basically undoing this proposal about fixing how to handle the relations of generic/real-life species in infoboxes, meaning we might need a new solution for this issue. Do we have to list some of the fictional species as variants to the real-life species, related to the real-life species, or perhaps introduce a new parameter to replace subject origin that is far clearer and stricter in its definition? (e.g. "real life inspiration" or "real life counterpart"... okay tbh these aren't the best replacements, I'm basically spitballing) rend(talk)(edits) 15:16, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
I don't remember if randomly listing the real thing that something is based on even if it doesn't have an article (like on Crazee Dayzee) was already being done before that proposal, but either way that kind of thing shouldn't be in the infobox at all in my opinion. As for "real-world species" that we do have articles for, we can probably just treat them like we would any other species in these infoboxes. To quote Nintendo101 here, "A seagull is just as derived from real gulls as Goonies, and just as divorced from real-life components of those animals. It is inaccurate to present them as otherwise." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
Wait, just to clarify, option 1 also involves removing the counterpart parameter "derived subjects", right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:59, June 23, 2024 (EDT)
With the impending retirement of these parameters, would anyone else be up for a "relative to" parameter below "variant of" and above "variants"? I don't think the Goombrat's larger counterpart should take priority over their relation to Goombas, for example. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:22, June 24, 2024 (EDT)
...I personally don't think a Goomba's relation to Goombrats should take priority over all the Goomba variants (Paragoombas, Bone Goombas, etc), though. rend(talk)(edits) 13:35, June 24, 2024 (EDT)
I don't, either. My idea would not affect the "base" relative in that way, and the relatives parameter's original definition for unclear base variants (like with Spoing and Sprangler) would still follow status quo. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:42, June 24, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I see now. Yeah, I suppose a new "relative to" parameter wouldn't be that bad of an idea. rend(talk)(edits) 13:54, June 24, 2024 (EDT)
On the other hand, this parameter may need additional criteria to consider before implementation. While subjects with obvious design progenitors like Galoomba and Whomp probably wouldn't cause any issues, it'd be a little weird to use such a parameter for more loosely related species, like Cheep Chomp to Porcupuffer. SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:30, June 24, 2024 (EDT)
trim the lists 11-0
This is something that stuck out to me while I was adding profiles to Samus's article. These articles, List of Snake's codec conversations and List of Palutena's Guidance conversations, include the conversations for every fighter in the Super Smash Bros. series, even all the non-Super Mario characters. About a year ago, a proposal to remove non-Super Mario trophies from the lists of trophies passed with no opposition, and most, if not all, of the points brought up in that proposal also apply here. You can read that proposal if you want to see the arguments in full, but to summarize for this proposal:
This content does not involve anything from Super Mario and its related franchises, it is purely flavor text about non-Mario characters spoken by non-Mario characters
We have a precedent for trimming non-Mario Smash content
Aside from the trivia, this content isn't original to this wiki, it's flavor text pulled straight from the game itself, and you would get the exact same content from just going to SmashWiki instead
With that in mind, I think the conversations for all non-Super Mario characters should be axed from these lists. The conversations for non-Mario characters that have their own articles, like Link and Samus, would still be included in their profiles/statistics along with their trophies, since I think the question of whether or not those should also be removed is best saved for a separate proposal.
Hewer (talk) My first instinct was to think of moving the non-Mario conversations to the sections for each fighter in the fighter lists, but seeing as we didn't do that with other things like their trophies, it's sadly pretty hard to justify keeping a ton of dialogue about non-Mario characters said by non-Mario characters in a non-Mario setting.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. For every Guidance/Codec call for an actually relevant character, such as the infamous Viridi speech about Piranha Plants that has been outright cited in proposals that resulted in tangible splitsor merges, there's Snake's thoughts on Fox McCloud. Take a guess which one we think should stay, and which one we think should probably just stick to being covered on SSBWiki instead.
Somethingone (talk) My thoughts are best summarized in that one essay I wrote for the character proposal; if we trim Smash content to just Mario stuff in some areas, we should trim it that much in all areas.
I'll be honest, I kinda think the Mario characters should also have this stuff moved to their profile & statistics sections. That feels more natural to me than making a page for something in Smash and then giving it incomplete coverage. Ahemtoday (talk) 19:07, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
