MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/77

Proposal archives

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79

All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

Ditch classic course prefixes in Mario Kart course article names (for real now)

Drop prefixes 23-0-7
Before the release of Mario Kart World, I made a proposal about prefixes in the titles for Mario Kart courses. I cancelled it as the game hadn't released yet, and there was still potential risk of there being some grey area and/or clashes with whatever changes we make. However the game is out now, and we know how the game handles course titles. So, I'm bringing this proposal back.

Below is the original body of text I wrote for said proposal:

Welp, here it is, a proposal that's been pretty overdue now. All beginning with the Booster Course Pass, the idea of rejecting the prefixes in article names has been tossed around a few times, thanks to ~~Tour~~ Ninja Hideaway. But now Mario Kart World is here and we only have been handed more reason to drop them from the titles, with classic course prefixes being eradicated entirely now. This means articles like 3DS Wario Shipyard and DS DK Pass will now have to be reverted back to just Wario Shipyard and DK Pass, and we can assume that this will only continue in the future, potentially.

So, to prevent inconsistency and confusion (Why would Choco Mountain lack a prefix but N64 Frappe Snowland wouldn't?) it is finally time to ask; should we drop these prefixes entirely from the article name? Links to courses would still, of course, use prefixes if they are referring to a course from a certain game (i.e. GBA Riverside Park in Mario Kart Tour) since that is how the course is referred to in said game. All that will be affected will be the actual titles of courses. Redirects will still, of course exist. This can also eliminate potential confusion about courses like Sky-High Sundae by removing the potential redirect with a prefix that'd be potentially suggested.

Edit: Courses with identical names will have the game's name in parentheses such as "Rainbow Road (Mario Kart 7)".

Edit 2: courses whose names change between games will use their most recent names (i.e. "Bowser's Castle 4" and "Koopa Troopa Beach (Super Mario Kart)")

also, it is worth mentioning that Mario Kart Tour seems to treat the prefixes as not being part of the course's name, as the prefixes do not show up on the course selection screen, so the "use most recent name" policy seems to have no impact on this. This also means RMX courses will keep their prefix, as the "RMX" is treated as part of the course's name itself.

Edit 3: below is a list of every page that will be affected by this proposal:

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: June 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Drop prefixes in all course titles

YoYo (talk) As the creator of the proposal.
SGoW (talk) The current policy is needlessly pedantic, and creates a ton of confusing incosistency for practically no reason.
Waluigi Time (talk) I've personally never been a huge fan of this policy to begin with. Having the base titles is easier to remember and more consistent with each other than treating retro courses as full renames.
Technetium (talk) Per all.
Wii PopitTart Parkway (talk) I have always been annoyed by the inconsistency of "SNES" "N64" "(Mario Kart: Super Circuit)" "(Mario Kart: Double Dash!!)" "(Mario Kart DS)" "Wii" "3DS" "(Mario Kart 8)". All in all, I really don't feel like the console prefixes are supposed to be properly "part" of the titles for the purposes of naming them. In nearly every game they're sectioned off in the formatting in some way, which is even reflected on the wiki. IMO, they're simply a little tag promoting "This is a course from a prior Mario Kart!", like a "NEW!" on the corner of a product box. This feels justified by World, which does not make an effort to treat its retro courses as a special callback, but as part of the connected world, and as such the prefixes are entirely absent.
Tour Stache Sprint (talk) — This has really bugged me ever since "Tour" was added to BCP tracks just because they have it.
N64 Rykitu Raceway (talk) Per all.
GBA Tails777 (talk) While I do like the prefixes, it's clear they were used as a means of avoiding confusion between tracks that share the same name, something every Mario Kart title had up until this point, commonly with the Mario Circuits, Bowser's Castles and Rainbow Roads. Mario Kart World does not have that issue at all, likely resulting in a lack of use for the prefixes. I'm okay with removing them simply because it makes everything more consistent. Following what Waluigi Time said, I doubt these are being treated as renames and more as clarification between similar/identically named tracks. Besides, redirects still exist and we can still use the prefixes when the context fits.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per all.
Evie May Raceway (talk) i'm not too jazzed about the "consistency" argument, but personally i've never seen the prefixes as part of the course's name. getting rid of them also means less moving pages whenever a course returns in a future game, and it makes it easier to link to them.
Lakituthequick (talk) Per all. It's very clear that these were never intended to be part of the course name proper anyway, just to label the origin of retro courses in-game.
NS2 BMfan08 Towers (talk) Per all.
Shadow2 (talk) Yes please, per all. This has always bothered me immensely. We don't call it "Past Stages: Yoshi's Island" on the Smash Wiki.
Dominoes (talk) Per all. It does seem needlessly overcomplicated to me how we have two systems for naming courses depending on the games they appear in, and combined with the fact that retro prefixes should not be treated as renames to begin with, it seems fine to me to drop the prefixes.
TomAndTheCats (talk) Per all. The status quo will definitely confused newer users (also how come we haven't already changed the Mario Kart World retros?)
Polley001 (talk) Makes sense to me, never did like the inconsistencies. I also agree with the conclusion that the prefixes, although often treated as such, are not actually part of a course's name.
Sdman213 (talk) Per all.
Mario (talk) It's not really to the benefit of most people involved imo.
BBQ Turtle (talk) Per all.
Rering644 (talk) Per al.
Superspongis (talk) Per a.
Killer Moth (talk) Per all. these were always annoying.
Sorbetti (talk) Per all.

Keep prefixes in all courses that use them

Drop prefixes from courses in World (status quo)

Hewer (talk) I don't really see how Mario Kart World causes an inconsistency here. The current policy is actually not to use the prefixes for every course, it's to only use them for courses that did so in their most recent appearance. For example, we have Wii Rainbow Road, but Rainbow Road (Mario Kart DS) (not "DS Rainbow Road"). Mario Kart World doesn't really cause any issues with this system, we can just remove the prefixes from the courses that appeared in that game without extrapolating that to every course in the series. This proposal would also cause an issue for courses like GBA Bowser's Castle 4 - would it be moved to "Bowser Castle 4" or "Bowser's Castle 4"? The former doesn't match the most recent name, while the latter has never been officially used without the GBA prefix. And there's also music names to consider, like GCN Yoshi Circuit (note that the prefixes were still included in the Mario Kart 7 soundtrack on Nintendo Music that released only a month ago). It's easier to avoid issues like these by sticking to the most recent official sources rather than deliberately deviating from them.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. Mario Kart World doesn't really do anything to spark an "inconsistency", and it's not worth upending everything to change it, especially without a clear path forward in the proposal itself beyond "drop prefixes". What do we do when it comes to tracks that literally share names otherwise? Obviously, the best idea would be to just use parentheticals, but the proposal itself doesn't seem to acknowledge this; it would be one thing to convert said prefixes into parentheticals (it'd likely be rather contentious, but we could at least understand an appeal to it, even if we don't think we'd vote for it), but dropping them altogether is... A very different thing, and we can't say we're a fan.
Altendo Road (Altendo Kart DS) Per Hewer and Camwoodstock. (Wait, wasn't this already said before?)
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Per my reason below.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. I don't consider "inconsistency" a bad thing in a case like this where the source material itself is not internally consistent. We're just reflecting the difference in naming conventions used in different games.
Salmancer (talk) Per all. Eh, not really down for creating an exception to the "most recent name" setup. Again, we shouldn't be trying to improve what Nintendo does. Also, the prefixes have mechanical relevance, thanks to certain challenges on the List of challenge cards in Mario Kart Tour calling out groups of courses by their console abbreviation! Until Tour is long, long into the rear view mirror, I think that forces us to stick to current policy. EDIT: I also think the phasing "an SNES course" rather than "A course originally from Super Mario Kart/the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" implies to some extent that the prefix is part of the course's identity.
Pseudo (talk) Per all. These have still been legitimate names for these tracks quite recently.

Comments

Mario Kart course articles are already inconsistent, because courses that have yet to appear as classic courses do not have prefixes, so inconsistency isn't a problem. N64 Frappe Snowland has a prefix, because that is how it was formatted in its most recent appearance. Choco Mountain's article should lack a prefix for the same reason. I think we should only do this for classic courses that appear in World. I suggest adding a "Only drop prefixes if they appeared in World" option, because that seems like the most logical way to go about this. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk

I agree that that's the best option. Since it's consistent with current policy, I assumed that it was covered under the proposal's "status quo" option. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 18:21, June 7, 2025 (EDT)

I thought the status quo implied keeping prefixes even if the course appears in World. @YoYo, would the status quo option still remove the prefix if the course appeared in World? Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk

18:37, June 7th, 2025

Just for clarity, since the original proposal text didn't mention it; if the first option passes, is the idea that we'll give courses with identical names parentheticals, even if we're removing prefixes? Otherwise, uh, there's an obvious problem. ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 21:43, June 7, 2025 (EDT)

We'll definitely add (name of game) to the ends of course article names for those recurring ones, if we do decide to remove prefixes entirely. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk

23:29, June 7th, 2025

Okay, at least it wouldn't be like... Disastrously trying to cram multiple distinct tracks into the exact same page. We still don't know how necessary this is (the "contradiction" just isn't), but that's good to know.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

23:48, June 7, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer: Actually, Tour uses both prefixed names and non-prefixed names at the same time. The icons on the cup selection use the names without prefixes while selecting them shows the names with prefixes. Therefore, Bowser's Castle 4 is indeed still an officially used name. Tails777 Talk to me!

But it's not the primary name used in its most recent appearance. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 10:26, June 8, 2025 (EDT)

But what exactly does decide which is the primary name in a case where both are used in the same game? In the context of Tour, GBA Bowser's Castle 4 is used when selecting a course while Bowser's Castle 4 is used on the cup select menu and used on the icons for favorite/favored tracks. If anything, for Tour, the most commonly used names are indeed the ones without prefixes.

Tails777 Talk to me!

Mario Kart 8 also omits the prefixes on the Grand Prix results screen.
PhGuy12 (talk) 15:35, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

{{Classic}} and {{Classic link}} can stay even after the proposal passes, right? We just have to rework the link templates so that N64 Toad's Turnpike links to Toad's Turnpike, 3DS Bowser's Castle links to Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart 7), and such. Also, I imagine the course names with prefixes will stay redirects. rend (talk) (edits) 12:30, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

I suppose that courses whose names are not shared would not have identifiers. There is no other course called "Toad's Turnpike". Anyway, {{Classic}} would continue as it is, as it does not use links.
PhGuy12 (talk) 15:35, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

Not for that course, because there is no need to name the page "Toad's Turnpike (Mario Kart 64)" as there isn't any other Toad's Turnpike in the series. - YoYo

(Talk) 03:54, June 10, 2025 (EDT)

I just randomly picked a course with a prefix purely for example; the point is that {{Classic link}} could stay so long as it is reworked so the links they make link to the actual pages instead of redirects. So the two of you being focused on the fact that Toad's Turnpike doesn't need an identifier doesn't exactly answer my question at all; it merely points out an error on my part.

rend (talk) (edits) 06:01, June 11, 2025 (EDT)

@Pseudo i recommend you re-read the proposal. Both Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart Tour (also now Mario Kart World too) have disregarded the prefixes when displaying course names multiple times. It's evident they're not actually part of the course's name, rather just a separate "word" displayed next to the course's name. to say its "legitimate" is a blatant lie im afraid. - YoYo (Talk) 06:11, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

It's true there are some instances where the prefixes are excluded, but there are also plenty you are ignoring where they are included as part of the course's name, such as soundtracks, patch notes, websites and other marketing, and of course, directly in the games themselves. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 07:42, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

I don't see an option for this, but what about dropping all of the course prefixes except for the ones whose names have repeated throughout the series? For example, keep DS Wario Stadium, GBA Mario Circuit, GCN Sherbet Land, or N64 Rainbow Road as the names since there's separate courses with the same names. But courses like Shy Guy Bazaar, Banshee Boardwalk, or Yoshi Falls remove the prefixes because there's no other tracks with these names. How does that sound? Unnamed anon (talk) 21:54, June 20, 2025 (EDT)

Decide on a standardized romanization system to be used for all Cantonese text

Use Yale romanization of Cantonese 3-10-0
As a native Cantonese speaker myself, I would like to contribute to coverage on media and names in Cantonese (that are intended not to be rendered in Mandarin, such as the lyrics of the Cantonese dub of "Peaches"), which includes romanizing the Cantonese text. However, from what I am able to search, there is currently no established guidelines on MarioWiki regarding documenting foreign languages other than Japanese, and different sites have different methods to document Cantonese. Therefore, I think we could decide on which romanization system we should use for Cantonese text, such that we could use the same method and guidelines going forward.

For context, unlike most other languages like Japanese, Mandarin and Korean, there is not a single predominating romanization system in use for Cantonese, as there are no official bodies directly pushing forward the use of any kind of (phonetic) romanization system. There are currently two Cantonese romanization systems commonly in use by the public:

Jyutping

"Jyutping" was developed by the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong in 1993. It focuses more heavily on clearly reflecting the absolute phonetics of Cantonese, as well as ease of typing. No diacritics are used, and tones are marked with numbers after each syllable. Each letter or digraph corresponds to one phoneme and could not be interpreted in any other way, similar to IPA. This also gives the system a steeper learning curve for English speakers, as each phoneme a letter represents in Jyutping does not correspond to how it is in English: for example, "j" in Jyutping represents [j] in IPA, which is represented by "y" in English.

Jyutping is favored by Wiktionary and the Chinese Wikipedia. Hongkongers tend to favor the usage of Jyutping for its clarity.

Yale

The Yale romanization of Cantonese was developed by the Yale University in 1952. It uses diacritics and the letter "h" to mark tones. Compared to Jyutping, the letter-phoneme correlation in Yale is more familiar and easier to understand for English speakers. However, that a single letter or digraph can mean different phonemes in different context, plus the usage of "h" to indicate tone, can be rather confusing and cumbersome. It is also possible for two different-sounding syllables to be represented with the same combination of letters in Yale.

Yale is favored by Bulbapedia, and English speakers learning Cantonese as a second language tend to use Yale. The English Wikipedia uses both Yale and Jyutping almost equally in its articles.

Example of both romanization systems, using lyrics from Peaches

Cantonese	Jyutping romanization	Yale romanization
瑪利歐，路易吉，咚奇剛都無計誰點樣都不可迫使我與你分開碧姬公主，最後終歸我手是我所擁有	Maa5lei6au1, Lou6jik6gat1, Dung1kei4gong1 dou1 mou4 gai3 seoi4 dim2joeng6 dou1 bat1ho2 bik1si2 ngo5 jyu5 nei5 fan1hoi1 Bik1gei1 gung1zyu2, zeoi3hau6 zung1gwai1 ngo5 sau2 si6 ngo5 so2 jung2jau5	Máhleih'āu, Louhyikgāt, Dūngkèihgōng dōu mòuh gai Sèuih dímyéung dōu bāthó bīksí ngóh yúh néih fānhōi Bīkgēi gūngjyú, jeuihauh jūnggwāi ngóh sáu Sih ngóh só yúngyáuh

(Addendum: Tone numbers for Jyutping can optionally be formatted in superscript like this: Maa⁵lei⁶au¹. However, to do so in long stretches of text would be best facilitated with a new template. Yale is also compatible with using numbers to indicate tones instead of diacritics and "h", but such usage is considered substandard.)

There are also a few other romanization systems, but they are either less common or not intended to be used for phonetic purposes:

ILE romanization of Cantonese: the only romanization system accepted by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. Similar to Jyutping, with a few differences as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Most commonly used for indicating the pronunciations of difficult words in Chinese textbooks in the Hong Kong education system, but it does not see as much use in public as the aforementioned two.
S. L. Wong system: Similar to the ILE system, but uses IPA symbols instead of Latin characters or digraphs. Also used in some Chinese textbooks, but IPA symbols are much more difficult to type out.
The romanization system used by the Hong Kong government for person and location names. The spelling is very inconsistent with phonemes which makes it unsuitable for any linguistic purposes.

Proposer: Dominoes (talk)
Deadline: June 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Use Jyutping as the romanization system

Dominoes (talk) For me, I prefer the clarity of Jyutping.
Jdtendo (talk) Jyutping seems more consistent than Yale.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) ~~I Googled "best Cantonese romanization", and the AI overview says Jyutping is the most proper romanization. This is one of the websites the AI overview got its information from.~~
As Dominoes said, Google's AI overview might be wrong, so here are some other websites in Jyutping's favor. https://zolimacitymag.com/jyutping-how-to-write-cantonese-in-the-roman-alphabet/ https://jyutping.org/en/blog/scheme/ https://www.quora.com/Should-I-start-with-Yale-or-Jyutping-when-learning-Cantonese https://www.quora.com/Is-Jyutping-accepted-as-the-best-way-to-learn-Cantonese
Also, I found a Reddit forum question that is pretty much this proposal's question. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cantonese/comments/vumdkt/best_romanisation_system_for_cantonese/

Use Yale as the romanization system

Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Probably the easier to understand for English speakers and being more commonly used in the English speaking side is what tilts me towards this option, as well as looking similar to Pinyin, as well as already being in use with Bulbapedia. That being said, the other system also has its perks too so it's a bit of a tough choice for me to make.
Camwoodstock (talk) While we would prefer if we could just include both at the same time, rather than having these being mutually exclusive (if we need 3 columns for the original text and translation as it stands, one extra column to display an alternative Romanization method doesn't hurt as much), we would prefer to err on the side of what Bulbapedia (another NIWA wiki) uses. While we definitely think the other one has its perks, being used primarily by speakers of both English and Cantonese definitely gives it an edge to us; it's more helpful for the actual speakers of the language.
JanMisali (talk) I've always preferred Yale romanization for Cantonese, and google's AI overview apparently recommends Jyutping which is another point in Yale's favor I think.
Shadow2 (talk) The purpose of a romanization system is to make text as legible as possible for an English (or other romance language)-speaker to read, so that they may possibly read out the words without knowing the Chinese symbols. Yale is a good system for this because it writes out the letters as best as possible, and it can be read by pretty much any layman out there. Jyutping, however, fails in this regard completely. You cannot properly read Jyutping if you don't learn it first. The layman is going to look at this text and wonder why there are so many numbers everywhere, and have no idea what to do with any of them.
Hewer (talk) Per Shadow2.
YoYo (talk) while I am not 100% certain, I believe Yale is the more commonly known romanization in English.
Arend (talk) If I had to choose one, I would rather pick a system that doesn't insert numbers after every syllable, which is going to look downright incomprehensible for a typical visiting user that doesn't know a lick of Chinese.
Cadrega86 (talk) Per Shadow2 and Arend.
EvieMaybe (talk) per Shadow2
@1+3^♩0 (+@1<) o3n @11•

Use another romanization system for Cantonese

Comments

Just out of curiosity, is there any particular reason we can't just... Use both? Outside of potential redundancy, at least. ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 13:59, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

It would be completely redundant for little benefit to have two different romanizations for each Cantonese phrase. And if you're suggesting that either system could be used to the editor's liking, it would be inconsistent from one page to another, and having several different ways to accomplish the same thing usually leads to discourse about "But what is the right way to do it?" or edit wars between supporters of either system. Choosing one standard and sticking to it is a much better solution. Jdtendo^(T|C) 14:54, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

The proposer does mention that Wikipedia does it almost equally, wonder how they pulled that off.

Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 15:06, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

We meant the former of "just use both at the same time", not "literally no standard at all and you can use either/or". Obviously, the latter would lead to obnoxious edit wars. We don't really know enough about Catonese to know about how bad the redundancy would be beyond simply... The inherent redundancy of listing it twice. It doesn't strike us as any more "redundant" than listing the same text 3 times for the original text/a romanization/a translation, at least--heck, sometimes it's even more than just 3 times, depending on the song.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

16:09, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

For clarification: Wikipedia simply just uses Yale sometimes and Jyutping the other times (or sometimes, both of them together), with no apparent rule over which one to be favored. Which isn't ideal, as it creates inconsistencies across pages, and potential edit wars. Dominoes (talk) 19:35, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

At least, "original script", "romanization" and "translation" are three different concepts with distinct use cases; the same cannot really be said for requiring two romanizations for each Cantonese phrase. By the way, Wikipedia typically presents four romanizations just for Mandarin Chinese (e.g., for Feng shui: fēngshuǐ, fêng1-shui3, fongshuěi, fēngshwěi) whereas we just use Hanyu Pinyin on the SMWiki. Jdtendo^(T|C) 10:57, June 10, 2025 (EDT)

@Rainbow Road Drifter Personally, I would not trust Google's AI overview, as it tends to be inaccurate and partial, especially for niche situations like this. The current situation for romanizing Cantonese is much more nuanced, and less cut-and-dried as one would expect, so it would be good to search more on how people and websites from different perspectives think about it. Dominoes (talk) 22:59, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

@Dominoes I understand, so I am using other websites from the search results for my argument now. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 23:26, June 9, 2025 (EDT)

i would like to ask @Dominoes their opinion on all the Yale voters's arguments. they're certainly convincing, but i'd like to hear what a native speaker thinks of them before making my vote. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 00:46, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

@EvieMaybe Perhaps contrary to what my simplistic comment in my vote might have implied (I should have touched more on it when making the proposal in the first place!), even if I myself prefer Jyutping (I feel off about how Yale uses "j" for [ts] and "ch" for [ts^h], though that's more of a personal nitpick from me), I have no problem at all with either being used. I would agree with the arguments going for Yale, and the strength of accessibility towards unfamiliar readers might prove to be a bigger factor in the context of an English Wiki than what I would expect myself as a native speaker. Like I mentioned above, it's a nuanced topic, and I'm glad that everyone gave good insight towards the matter. At the end of the day, what I'm looking forward to is simply an agreed-upon standard that we can properly document and follow, with a strong backing evidence as to why it's decided so in the first place. Dominoes (talk) 01:37, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

thank you for your insight! —

eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 11:54, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

Overhaul sponsor pages

Keep sponsor debut pages, move "sponsors" to brands, create new pages for other games featuring brands and add a sponsors list on main game pages 1-1-8-0
As things are right now, sponsors are only listed on the pages of the games they debuted in, as seen here. However, as time has gone on, these sponsors have returned more and more in the Mario Kart series and now elsewhere, including Super Mario Odyssey, Yoshi's Crafted World and even airport collaborations and Super Nintendo World. Sponsors have become ubiquitous with the series as a whole, with many transcending their debut games. As of the release of Mario Kart World I have seen several instances of people confusing returning sponsors for brand new ones. The current system is not the easiest to navigate and is unintuitive. It is hard to keep track of sponsors across each debut page, and there is currently no way to see a list of every sponsor in a given game if it has any returning sponsors. It is also now true that sponsors and brands debut outside of the Mario Kart series, with several appearing in games like Mario Sports Superstars, Mario Tennis Aces, Yoshi's Crafted World and Mario Golf: Super Rush. With the current system only covering games in the Mario Kart series, sponsors in these titles are only represented if they have featured in Mario Kart previously. It is also worth noting that many of the brands now featured in these games are no longer specifically sponsors, instead being storefronts, groceries, etc., so calling them "brands" may be more appropriate.

My proposal is that we have one dedicated "List of notable brands" page, which could feature every sponsor/brand featured in the backgrounds of these titles and list their appearances under each heading, much like the current debut pages do. This would cover everything eloquently.

Alternatively, we could go back to "list of sponsors in [insert title]" format, where each game's page lists the sponsors that appear in that title, regardless of whether or not they are returning. The pages with returning sponsors could be sectioned off into "new" and "returning", with the aforementioned non-Mario Kart games receiving their own sponsor pages too. The issue with this idea is that recurring sponsors would no longer have sections showcasing all of their appearances in one place, and edge-cases like Super Mario Odyssey and the airport collaboration would be left out.

Edit: Per Hewer’s comments, I'm adding an additional option. This option changes "sponsors" to "brands", keeps the existing “list of sponsors debuting in” pages, creates new pages for other games featuring brands that aren’t currently represented and adds a sponsors subheading to the main pages of games featuring sponsors, which list all sponsors that appear in said titles.

Proposer: Seandwalsh (talk)
Deadline: June 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Feature all brands on "List of notable brands" page

Seandwalsh (talk) Second choice, per proposal.

Return to "list of sponsors in [insert title]" format, create new pages for other games featuring brands

Camwoodstock (talk) This is our preferred option. The current format we have is fine enough, but it obviously doesn't account for these debuting in non-Mario Kart titles... so... let's just do that. Merging these all to one page sounds like a quick way to invent a new longest page, and we cannot say we like the name of "notable brands" in the least; it implies some threshold these would have to meet to be included on the page, but the doesn't specify what that threshold would actually be? Oddly enough, the best-case scenario is that there just is no threshold at all, and this is blanket coverage of every in-universe brand. Vague, subjective "notability" and wiki policy are a notoriously horrible mix, ~~just ask anyone that has ever watched an object show before,~~ and we probably shouldn't strive to do something like that here.

Keep sponsor debut pages, move "sponsors" to "brands", create new pages for other games featuring brands and add a sponsors list on main game pages

Seandwalsh (talk) First choice, per proposal.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) These brands make physical appearances in some games, so they aren't "sponsors" in those, but every other aspect of the sponsor pages is fine as it is right now.
Hewer (talk) This vote is sponsored by Roy Smooth Sounds!
Jdtendo (talk) Per Rainbow Road Drifter.
Technetium (talk) Per all.
BBQ Turtle (talk) When I started making these, I started with Mario Kart 8 and the name sponsors was just the best one we could think up at the time- I do think that brands is a much better term, especially with things like Yoshi's Crafted World entering the mix. Speaking of, I did plan to make a page for that one but I just never got around to it, that is absolutely worth doing! Also the list thing on each game's page can also be added to the list of very good ideas, I think this is the best way to handle all of this. Also per all.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. Even within Mario Kart games, I never felt like every logo present in a course was a sponsor, as many were pretty explicitly framed as simple advertisements/stores already present in the course (e.g. the shops in Coconut Mall). I also support a text-only list of brands with appropriate links in each game's page. I have to point out you wrote "sponsors list" on the header here, though.
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary choice. May as well, since this more-or-less does the same thing but with the "brands" name instead, and fortunately avoids the pitfall that is "notability".

Keep things the way they are

Comments (Other Suggestions?)

I'd support an option to move from "sponsors" to "brands" for the sake of accuracy (nixing the "notable" bit, maybe go with "fictional brands" or "in-game brands" if we're worried it won't be clear what the pages are about) and create lists for non-Kart games, but otherwise sticking with the current system of having pages that cover the sponsors introduced in each game. While not perfect, I do think it's better to keep it so that each sponsor has all of its information covered in the same place, so if you search Bowser Oil you can get redirected to a complete list of its appearances. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:55, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

I would be satisfied with this, aside from the issue of there being no place to see every sponsor in one game remaining. Maybe a sponsors subheading on a game’s main page that just lists every sponsor (without images or descriptions) could work? -Seandwalsh (talk) 10:22, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

I like that idea. In fact, we're already doing that for Mario Kart World. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 10:35, June 12, 2025 (EDT)

What Is A Game? III: Demo Another Day™

Similarly to the semi-current situation with physical games, the way that tech demos are currently covered is... not entirely arbitrary, as everything is currently compiled into one page, though the current classification system for tech demos needs to be modified. The current tech demo page considers a tech demo to be both a publicly shown demo to gauge interest in an upcoming product, which is the usual definition of "tech demo". However, it also includes internally used test programs, such as snd_test and morphdemo. A better term to describe these would likely be "Test programs" or "Internal tests", as the nature of a "tech demo" means that it must be publicly shown in order to demonstrate the technology (hence the name "tech demo"). In addition, many programs not covered here could fall under the banner of "Internal tests", including various cartridge test applications (such as the NTF2 Test Cartridge). Many test cartridges such as these feature content relating to or outright showcasing characters from the Super Mario franchise. As these are all individual pieces of software, I'd say that these could all get split, as they feature enough content to comfortably fill out their own articles.

If this proposal were to pass, depending on the outcome(s), the listed software below would be either split into their own articles and given mentions on a new "Internal tests" page, or they'd be simply given mentions on said page and not split. If this page was created, the demos listed below that are currently considered "tech demos" would be removed from the tech demo article entirely.

Note that some of these, such as NDDEMO and Yoshi Demo, are already split, so all that would change in regards to these demos - which were mostly available exclusively via SDKs for their systems, with the main outlier I can think of here being Mario Kart XXL - would simply be their classifications, with them being listed on the page for Internal tests instead of on the tech demo article. -Nelsonic (talk)

Below is a list of all of the different pieces of software that would be affected by this, organized by system, created by Camwoodstock (talk), whether or not they should have their own pages or simply be mentioned on the respective tables, alongside their reasonings for each when applicable:

Public-facing demos (what would go on Tech demo)
- Mario Demo - The Virtual Boy one. ~~Should probably get its own page, if it turns out to be separate from VB Mario Land?~~ EDIT AS OF JUNE 13, 2025: So, uh. It turns out this may have been an errata this entire time, having dug deeper with Nelsonic in attempt to draft a proper page. This... Isn't a tech demo, it's a prototype version of the Virtual Boy's boot sequence. Whoops! We'll still at least acknowledge this in the proposal itself, but we likely will not be including this in the table in the final version.
- Game Boy Color Promotional Demo - Seemingly unaccounted for entirely on the present list, despite having a few images from it already uploaded. How odd! This should probably get its own page, as it was very uniquely distributed for kiosks in-stores and even features some unique Mario-related assets just for it.
- Super Mario 128 - Already has a page. Obviously, the table section would be about the tech demo itself.
- Luigi's Mansion demo video - Already has a section on that game's pre-release page, and that seems fine enough.
- Mario Kart for Nintendo GameCube demo video - Like Luigi's Mansion's demo video, it has a section on that game's pre-release page, which is fine enough.
- DS Wireless Internet Tech Demo - VERY low-information tech demo, demonstrating Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection to some capacity, using Mario Kart DS. Despite its obscurity, it still took place at some sort of public-facing event, so it should at least be on the table. Maybe if more information is discovered, we can give it its own page?
- Balloon Trip - Already has a page, fairly self-explanatory.
- Mario's Face - Already has a page, fairly self-explanatory.
- DSpeak - Presently lacks a page for lack of information, but if more was uncovered, it could definitely get one. If nothing else, it should be on the table.
- Carving - DS tech demo that does feature some Mario elements, should probably be on the table, but information on it is too thin to have a page.
- Diddy Kong Racing Tech Demo - No relation to Diddy Kong Racing DS which was by Rare themselves, this was a tech demo by Climax Games showing Diddy Kong Racing on the Nintendo DS. A very strange edge case indeed, we're unsure if it warrants a page, but it should absolutely get mentioned on the table here.
- Classic Collection - A 3DS tech demo that sort of acts as a hodgepodge of stereoscopic 3D clips of old NES and SNES games. Doesn't get a page, simply since it was essentially an early prototype of the eventual 3D Classics series. However, it should be mentioned on the Tech demo page's table; it was Mario-related when it was just a tech demo, and what happened to it when it actually released is out of the scope of this page.
- New Super Mario Bros. Mii - Already has a page, fairly self-explanatory.
- The menagerie of public-facing Wii U tech demos that got recycled for games like Nintendo Land or Game & Wario - Don't have pages, but weirdly barely go acknowledged on the corresponding pages. We can't imagine giving these their own pages, but coverage of these should be expanded at least a tiny bit to clarify the origins (maybe 1-2 sentences)?
- MvDK on Wii U - Has a section on Mario vs. Donkey Kong: Tipping Stars's page the Tech demo page itself just... Isn't linking to, for one reason or another?
Internal tests (what would go on Internal tests) (should be divided into two tables)
- Internal demonstrations - These being to demonstrate the hardware functionality to developers.
  - snd_test - Set to get its own page. We definitely understand this, as it has its own set of Mario minigames.
  - Donkey Kong Country VB mock-up - We don't even have a picture of this one. To the table it goes, but it's probably on thin-ice; if it's less Mario-related than this one, it'll have to make a very compelling argument.
  - morphdemo, puzzle, and spritemonkeyEX - The "gameplay" of these, when present, is extremely thin. Should definitely be mentioned on the table, as all involve some form of Mario content, but giving them their own page is dubious.
  - Wario Land II samples - Should be on the table, but they shouldn't get their own page. Emphasis on "own"; we could probably give these a mention on that game's pre-release/development page. Between this and the Game Boy Color Promotional Demo for kiosks, it's safe to say that Wario Land II played a very key role in the development of the Game Boy Color, and it's probably worth acknowledging that.
  - Yoshi Demo - Already has a page. This is like, THE Internal Demo, it was handed off to anyone who got an SDK.
  - Mario Kart XXL - Everyone's favorite prototype to Crazy Frog Racer that a collector hoarded the ROM to for over a decade because he thought it was valuable already has its own page, and said page more-or-less covers the edge case perfectly, so it can stick around on the table. Saves us time, at least.
  - NDDEMO - Already has a page, and like Yoshi Demo, it was given out via SDK to developers, so it has a strong case for its presence.
  - Koopa Troopa Forest and Mario FPS - Information seems scarce, but at the very least they should be on the table.
- Diagnostic Programs - These being to, well, diagnose issues with public-facing hardware, used by service employees. Still definitely "internal tests" in a different sense, hence we think it's safe for these to share a page with the internal demo programs, though definitely under a different pretense. Spoilers, a lot of these probably don't warrant individual pages, but we'll gladly tell you which ones should be brought up on the table itself.
  - NTF2 Test Cartridge - Admittedly, we don't actually know how much this should be acknowledged... Much at all. The extent of the Mario presence is just that Mario is on the cartridge label. Interesting, but not particularly Mario related outside of the cartridge itself. We genuinely don't know how to go about this one, and would like feedback of if "Mario is on the label" is "Mario" enough to warrant going on the table versus a more "generic" test.
  - Game Boy Aging Cartridge - Mario appears in the tests themselves, and actually, the previously unused sequences from the Controller Kensa Kart do get used here! We can't actually tell which one game first, the Aging or the Controller Kensa, but at any rate, both should be present. (This is missing the Mario at the end of the Controller Kensa test, whereas Controller Kensa is missing the graphics test.)
  - Game Boy Controller Kensa Cartridge - Mario appears in the test itself if you pass it, and there's even an unused test for graphics, which has Mario in it. This could probably get a mention on the table.
  - Burn-in - Test Cartridge - Mario routinely appears in the tests, and there's even some appearances of early Super Mario World assets. This should definitely get a mention on the table.
  - NTF 2.5 Test Cartridge - A follow-up to the Burn-in Test, with even more features and way more instances of early SMW assets; with how much it has, it might honestly warrant a page, if just to give it a proper gallery. (Admittedly, we're a tad at a loss of how to showcase images from these demos. We know there are a few of these loose on the wiki, like this one from the Game Boy Color Promotional Demo: But we're at a loss of how we should go about putting these into galleries for entries that don't warrant individal pages...)
  - SNSP Aging Cassette - Another diagnostic program akin to the Burn-in Test with some more early SMW assets. Should definitely get a mention.
  - Controller Test Cartridge - No Mario content at all. Get outta here. ;P
  - AGS Aging Cartridge - Mario and Donkey Kong both appear in the tests. Should appear on the table.
  - GameCube Service Disc v1.0/03 - Mario appears right at the very end of the tests. Should appear on the table.
  - Aging Card NTR - An early screenshot of Super Mario 64 DS appears in the tests, and funnily enough, the test actually runs a modified version of the AES Aging Software to test the GBA compatibility. Testception! Should appear on the table.
  - Data Check & Log Check - What little we can find on this (since a ton of information on this seems to just be utterly buried in analog horror based on it... mumble grumble...) suggests no Mario presence whatsoever. Unless there's some breakthrough, we think it's safe to exclude for the same reasons as the Controller Test Cartridge.
  - CTR Aging Test Program - Has Mario Kart 64 music, for some reason. Should appear on the table.

To summarize our (e.g. Cam, Tori, Cecil, Claire, and Macy's) take; ...we're running 3 polls in this proposal. Don't worry, they won't be too long to explain!

Do we split tech demos from internal demos?: Fairly straight-forward. Do we even make this split between public-facing tech demos and more internal test software, or not? While our list is subject to change, we bounced it back-and-forth with Nelsonic, and we'd be keen to make those adjustments after the proposal itself if it comes to it.
If yes for "we do split internal demos", do we include NTF2 Test Cartridge?: As mentioned, this is the single most confusing entry; having a Mario-themed cartridge label, and plenty of promotional material for Nintendo World Class Service featured Mario, but this cartridge is missing Mario where it's most important; the actual tests. We could swing either way on its inclusion, but we'd like to hear other people's thoughts. (We'd highly suggest voting in this poll, even if you'd otherwise be against the split itself; every opinion matters in this case. Though, obviously, if we don't split the internal demos, the result will be moot.)
If yes for "we do split internal demos", what do we do for the gallery?: Plenty of these will lack their own pages, but do contain Mario-themed assets unique to them. How should we go about this? (Again, though, if we don't split the internal demos, the result will be moot.)

If it would help, you can see a draft for the revised Tech demo page here, and a draft for the new "Internal test" page here. These drafts ignore NTF2 Test Cartridge and the gallery proposals; it's just to get a feel for the pages in their most basic forms. These are also, obviously, work-in-progress and would be fleshed out more before going onto mainspace, but it should serve as a good way to visualize what these pages will be like.

That's all from us (at least, in terms of the proposal text itself!), but obviously, we'll leave the final final say to Nelsonic. -Camwoodstock (talk)

Thanks! So, in summary, tech demos and internal tests are two different things, though they are currently not treated as such. Because of the differences - tech demos are public-facing affairs, while internal demos aren't meant to see the light of day any more than the fact that Diddy Kong Racing Adventure's only prototype ran on Xbox hardware - a split should occur. There's plenty of internal demos, and there's plenty of tech demos, meaning both of the pages could be thoroughly filled content-wise (as the article on tech demos currently is). Some of these demos and tests feature enough content to be split, while some... Some just have you chiseling out Mario's face on a DS screen. Those types of demos, as Camwoodstock said, should be relegated to tables on their respective articles, as should those types of diagnostic cartridges.

Popping up in one or two tests is not enough to save the plumber from being relegated to the table. -Nelsonic (talk)

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk) & Camwoodstock (talk)

Do we split internal demos from tech demos?

Split internal demos from tech demos 6-0
Deadline: June 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes

Camwoodstock (talk) We would certainly hope so after all of the research we put into what we want to go into a page for these!
Nelsonic (talk) Seriously. I saw more Nintendo World Report pages than I ever thought I would.
Rykitu February 16th, 2009 Build (DO NOT RESEARCH) (talk) Why not? Per proposal.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) These seem very different from tech demos, generally defined as small games meant to show a console's capabilities to the public. These are used during development to make sure a console is able to do what it is supposed to.
1468z (talk) Per all. I always found it a bit strange that despite covering internal tech demos the wiki didn’t do the same for test cartridges.
4064.private/Lab06_dev(stache).040614-2150 (talk) ― They have differing proposes, so yeah.

No

Do we include NTF2 Test Cartridge?

Exclude NTF2 Test Cartridge 0-5
Deadline: June 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes

No

Camwoodstock (talk) Just to get a vote on the board here, we do think it'd be nice to draw a line in the sand and say that Mario must be in the test(s) themselves, not just the cartridge label, for it to count for the scope of the page. Though, to be frank, we could go either way, and our opinion has bounced back-and-forth on this while drafting this and discussing it with both Nelsonic and our system.
Rykitu February 16th, 2009 Build (DO NOT RESEARCH) (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
Nelsonic (talk) Agreed. I remember seeing a picture of some NES-based test that featured graphics of Small Mario on the menu, but that was likely a different one...
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Mario makes a minor appearance on the cartridge, and nowhere else. ~~This seems like an obvious candidate for List of references in Nintendo video games. We can add a section for internal tests in that article.~~ Since this isn't a game, we may need to make "List of Super Mario appearances in diagnostic software" so we can mention minor appearances in those. This is my suggestion for how to cover these, since Stache wants us to determine how to do that.
4064.private/Lab06_dev(stache).040614-2150 (talk) ― It's far from being a "demo" to begin with, though we might need to determine how it (and other service diagnostic softwares) should be covered, and I don't know if putting them in LoRiNG would fit since they technically aren't games.

What do we do for the gallery?

United gallery on Internal demos page for all valid titles 4-0-0
Deadline: June 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Have a united gallery on the Internal demos page for all valid titles, even those with their own pages

Camwoodstock (talk) This'd be our personal preference, though admittedly, we could very easily see this running over and necessitating a very strange gallery split indeed. While we realize the strangeness of a "Gallery:Internal demos", it's a sacrifice we think we're willing to make.
Nelsonic (talk) Agreed. The demos that are most likely to have a ton of images are the ones that have an... odd fixation on pre-release Super Mario World graphics.
Rykitu February 16th, 2009 Build (DO NOT RESEARCH) (talk) Per all.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) We have Gallery:Food, which is pictures of every food product that did a Super Mario tie-in. Gallery: Internal demos can be sprites and screenshots from internal demos that have anything Super Mario related in them, even if it is a minor cameo.

Have a united gallery on the Internal demos page for the titles, but ONLY those without pages

No united gallery, just put entries for their corresponding subject (e.g. a sprite of Mario on Gallery:Mario)

Comments (SRAM OK)

In case there was anyone hesitant because they didn't know what all was being talked about, we've given YouTube links for any of the demos mentioned here that weren't already mentioned on the wiki. They've also been inserted as citations on the actual drafts. ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 01:30, June 13, 2025 (EDT)

@Rainbow Road Drifter We... Don't know how much we'd appreciate a dedicated "List of Super Mario appearances in diagnostic software" page, since that's largely what table section for diagnostic software in Internal demos is for in the first place. If we really had to put the NTF2 Test Software's cartridge label anywhere, it would probably just be best to put it in List of references in Nintendo video games, as we don't really distinguish between software and games; just ask I am a teacher: Super Mario Sweater. ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 00:42, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock My idea here is to split them into List of Nintendo diagnostic softwares or something similar, and describe each of them in their own section, as I consider them to be neither "demos" nor "games". We might need to check on "software vs. game" definition later on should there be increased chance of confusion. — Stache (talk) 03:09, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

@Stache That's part of why the page draft is specifically "Internal tests", not "Internal demos"; it serves as a decent umbrella term for the two tables. We personally don't think there's enough worth splitting between internal testing demos and diagnostic software, but if people really want, they could split that later on. This is mostly about getting these out there in the first place. Also, admittedly, we originally were going to call it "Internal demos" before we remembered the diagnostic software existed, so the proposal uses that name a few times when it should probably be "Internal tests."

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

15:40, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

Reorganize recurring theme articles to use history sections

Reorganize with History and Media sections 2-5-0
Currently, most of our articles on recurring themes have four sections that describe the theme's appearances: the top section before the table of contents describes its role in its game, the "reuses" section describes verbatim uses of the theme, the "arrangements" section describes arrangements of the theme (and specifically not its first appearance), and the "list of Super Mario appearances" section is a table of every appearance it's ever made.

I feel like this method of organization is a bit scattershot, spreading its information over multiple sections and having a redundant one on the end. It also allows awkward situations where reused music could have more information than can comfortably fit in the reuses table — some songs reuse their Melee arrangements for Donkey Konga, so they have a whole infobox to worry about. It's also not the way we cover anything else in the series — recurring characters, locations, items, and moves all cover each of their appearances through history sections; and I believe music should do the same as well.

I do acknowledge, however, that distinguishing arrangements and simple reuses of a track is a useful trait of the system we have now, so I'd like to incorporate that into the new structure by way of the placement of media files. I have two ideas on this front.

Theme articles will only possess a "history" section. Sections covering an arrangement's first appearance will have the media file of that arrangement in them. This is the standard option, but hopefully media files' large screen size will help the arrangements catch the eye.
Theme articles will possess a "history" section, as well as a "media" section that serves as an equivalent to a gallery page. The media section will be where all the media files are instead of the history section. This displaces the audio samples from the text about their origins on the page (though of course they would be extensively labeled), but it maintains the ability to have every distinct version of the song next to each other without breaking from the typical article structures of the wiki.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: July 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

History

Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal. I don't really have a preference for which option.
Jdtendo (talk) Primary choice. I don't think having the media files in the History section is an issue.

History + Media

Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal. I don't really have a preference for which option.
Altendo (talk) Per proposal. I do prefer a separate media section as it makes the history sections more straightforward, but otherwise, this seems fine.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Reuses and arrangements should be listed together, since they're both later appearances of a song.
Jdtendo (talk) Secondary choice, per all.
Waluigi Time (talk) I don't think our current setup is very optimal, because reuses of tracks are left in the section for the original game. For example, at first glance of Player Down, you would think it doesn't appear in any of the New Super Mario Bros. games, but that information is actually tucked away in the section for Super Mario 64 DS because it's the same arrangement from that game. That's not very helpful and expecting too much of readers to be able to find what they're looking for. I do think it's still worth mentioning in the 64 DS section that this version is reused in later games, but those games should have sections of their own as well. I'm not too concerned about where the media goes but hopefully giving it its own area will make the page look cleaner and encourage editors to fill them out a bit more.

Reuses + Arrangements + List of Appearances (status quo)

Comments (theme reorganization)

Musical theme articles are structured differently than other articles because different arrangements of one theme could be considered several subjects as opposed to an evolution of a single subject. Under this logic, I do not believe the use of reuses and arrangements sections over a single history section is necessarily scattershot. I do not believe the table section is necessarily redundant either, as it allows categorizing titles and credits in a different organizational manner than the other sections.

Most importantly, I believe that tying arrangement samples to the descriptions of each arrangement is necessary to the understandability of a theme's article. Most subjects can have their appearance and functionality described within text, so including a picture of each appearance inline with the appearance's description is not necessary. Music is simply not the same way; while an image can sufficiently be described with alternative text, a complete description of audio is not possible, perhaps short of providing entire sheet music. For this reason, separating media tables from arrangement details would be a mistake.

Regarding the infobox issue, Donkey Konga songs should be split into separate articles anyways, since they act more like musical levels than simply arrangements or reuses of existing arrangements. "GCN Yoshi Circuit" and Rollercoasting are already structured this way without including an infobox on the theme's article. B700465189a9 (talk) 20:06, June 21, 2025 (EDT)

I don't think I agree with your first point — they could be considered multiple separate subjects, but so could any subject recurrent enough to have multiple distinct appearances and/or roles, so the capacity to do it with music doesn't convince me. Not to mention, the entire language we use of "recurring themes" is predicated on the idea that these are the same subject.
As for the separation of Mario Mix music... to be honest, I actually considered making a proposal to merge them with their source tracks around the time I made the Donkey Konga proposal, and I kinda still am. I don't feel that making the distinction between the Zelda theme and the playable segment in Donkey Konga named after, containing, and entirely based around the Zelda theme is justified or helpful. Ahemtoday (talk) 20:07, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

The recurring themes policy does make a direct comparison difficult, but I believe arrangements are closer to species variants than multiple appearances serving different roles. An enemy might get a redesign that persists across multiple appearances, but a musical theme may appear as one arrangement in one game before returning to the original version in every subsequent appearance. The "Ground BGM" article previously included arrangements of "Toad House," meaning arrangements three or four levels deep, so to speak, were being written in a linear fashion, which would be complicated further by including reuses. I acknowledge that the recurring themes policy is the main driver of this issue, and if all arrangements had a dedicated article, history sections would only cover reuses and direct arrangements.

The more pressing issue with this proposal seems to be the option to extract a media section. Media tables add value to arrangement sections that would not be replicated by a dedicated media section, and historied musical themes would have media sections magnitudes longer than the equivalent multimedia cutoff for other subjects. I am not convinced by the argument that inline media tables make articles look unclean, as the media tables serve a clear purpose to enhance each section they are used in. B700465189a9 (talk) 22:48, June 24, 2025 (EDT)

How are credits expected to be handled under the proposed systems? Currently they're relegated to the appearances table at the bottom of the article, this proposal is trying to remove that, with no mentioned alternative for where credits should go. SGoW^(Talk) 06:56, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Ah, I'd overlooked that. Fortunately, that information can easily be slotted into sentences in each arrangement's "History" section. Ahemtoday (talk) 20:07, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, this is reasonable. I've already done that on some articles anyway, as the current system doesn't allow for crediting of performers or from non-mario games. SGoW^(Talk)

07:25, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

Clarify Mandarin Chinese romanization

Adopt Hanyu Pinyin as specified 6-0-0
The recent proposal about romanization of Cantonese made me realize that we don't have official romanization guidelines for Mandarin Chinese. De facto, we already use Hanyu Pinyin, the most widely used romanization system for Mandarin, but it would be better to officially adopt it.

There is one point of confusion in Hanyu Pinyin, though. Hanyu Pinyin defines each syllable as a pair of one initial (a beginning consonant, if any) and one final (a sequence of vowels and optionally "n", "ng", or "r"). There are more than 30 possible finals, such as "-ao", "-ei", "-an", "-ian", or "-uang". Sometimes, an apostrophe is necessary to mark the boundary between two syllables that could otherwise be mistaken for a final; for example, "Xian" is one syllable but "Xi'an" is two syllables ("Xi-an"). What about Mario's Chinese name, whose syllables are "Mǎ-lì-ōu"? Should we mark the syllable boundary between "lì" and "ōu" with an apostrophe?

Some people argue that we should romanize this word as "Mǎlìōu" without an apostrophe because "-iou" is not a valid final, and thus is not technically ambiguous. However, this means that you need to wonder "Is this one of the 30+ valid finals in Hanyu Pinyin?" everytime you encounter a syllable boundary like that, which puts a strain on both the reader and the writer. In such cases, it is in fact recommended to include the apostrophe ("Mǎlì'ōu") to make reading and writing smoother (see this article: "Apostrophes in Hanyu Pinyin: when and where to use them"). This means that the rule for apostrophe usage is actually very simple: "Put an apostrophe before a syllable that begins with "a", "e", or "o" in the middle of the word (i.e., after another letter)". You can observe this apostrophe usage in the names of several places such as "Ya'an" or "Tai'an", in which the apostrophe is technically redundant ("Yaan" is not a valid syllable and "Ta-ian" would actually be spelled "Tayan") but makes the syllable boundary clearer.

If this proposal passes, Hanyu Pinyin would be officially adopted as the romanization system for Mandarin Chinese and the apostrophe rule above will be implemented, which means that current occurrences of "Mǎlìōu" will be replaced with "Mǎlì'ōu".

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: July 2, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Formally adopt Hanyu Pinyin as specified (Mǎlì'ōu)

Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
Altendo (talk) I was going to vote for the second option as a second choice until I noticed the point about "Xian", so this is my sole choice for now. EDIT ON 10:09, June 19, 2025 (EDT): I just noticed that Option 2 would only do this if it wasn't ambiguous, which disregards the "Xian" example. However, I still choose this as my sole option as there could be a lot of debates over what is "ambiguous" or not, which could in turn start a lot of edit wars.
EvieMaybe (talk) seems perfectly reasonable. as someone who DOESN'T know mandarin chinese, being able to know if it's two syllables or three is useful
Dominoes (talk) This is another topic I wanted to touch on after my own proposal is settled. As I mentioned in that proposal, Hanyu Pinyin is the predominating romanization system for Mandarin for most domains and purposes, so I do not see a reason against using it. Rather than disambiguation only when necessary, I prefer the philosophy of showing absolute clarity - to always add the ' such that the division between syllables can be clearly seen even at a glance. This is very helpful for beginners, especially for long strings of text.
Dine2017 (talk) The official rule also has a downside: words like 蛮干 and 盲按 are differentiated as mángàn vs máng’àn, instead of the clearer mán’gàn vs máng’àn. But Hanyu Pinyin has enough quirks to begin with, and adopting it in toto reduces editor confusion and makes us more consistent with other wikis.
Xiàhóu Bà (talk) Per proposal.

Formally adopt Hanyu Pinyin but don't include an apostrophe if the lack thereof is technically not ambiguous (Mǎlìōu)

Do not formally adopt Hanyu Pinyin (Mah-lee-oh)

Comments (Pínglùn)

Move the logo into the infobox for game system articles

move the logo into the infobox 5-0
Currently, on game system articles (such as Game Boy, Nintendo DS, and Nintendo Switch), the system logo is placed to the left of the start of the introduction text, which looks clunky and ugly. The text gets sandwiched between the logo on the left and the infobox on the right, which is not pleasant to read. Instead, I propose to insert the system logo directly into the infobox, which makes more sense and looks much nicer.

Here are mockups of what it would look like for the above-mentioned articles:

Game Boy
Nintendo DS
Nintendo Switch (with one adjustment to avoid having too many images in the infobox, per Salmancer's comment)

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: July 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: move the logo into the infobox

Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
Altendo (talk) Yes, THANK YOU. This issue has been plaguing other pages as well, like Mario Party board pages (I'm actually considering a proposal to do the same to those regardless of this proposal's outcome).
SleepyRedHair (talk) Makes a lot of sense, I don't see why it shouldn't be like this.
Salmancer (talk) Article text starts at the leftmost point of the content area. That's just natural reading, and it makes sense to move the logos away to adhere to it.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Per all. I think the Nintendo Switch article should have one infobox image anyway to be consistent with other articles. I was thinking the handheld mode image is the best way to show the console, and the others can go in the Features section.

Oppose: leave the logo to the left of the text

Comments (system logo in infobox)

I would support this proposal, and the pages do look better, but four images in the infobox for Nintendo Switch is one image too many. (It doesn't help that the logo is a big square compared to the other logos being rectangular. Something has to be done about this, namely either excluding the logo or dropping the tabletop mode image. Salmancer (talk) 06:01, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Infoboxes with four or so images is what inspired the wiki to start using tabber in the first place. Well, until opinion shifted and we decided we hate tabber and moved excess infbbox images for minigames to galleries. So a hard cap on the combined size of all images in an infobox makes sense. Salmancer (talk) 06:10, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

You can also move the logo into the "title" field which in my opinion looks less cluttered. Using padding you can add some breathing space above and below the logo to make it more visually appealing. - YoYo (Talk) 08:01, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

see here - YoYo

(Talk) 08:06, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

That's clever, though you might want to make sure to have alt text/hover-over text for it!

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

11:47, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

I think we shouldn't do that, because if we did that would be communicating the title in an infobox exclusively through an image. This was discouraged for tables in this proposal, and I think the spirit of it is relevant for infoboxes. We'd have to have the title parameter contain the logo of the console's name and then text for the console's name. Which is functionally equivalent to making the logo part of the infobox's images. I guess one could make the case the article's title and the article's first sentence substitutes for having to write out the name of the console in the infobox, but at least to me an infobox should be comprehensive and standalone. Salmancer (talk) 12:10, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

@Jdtendo I still uphold my support for this proposal, but I was also thinking of an alternative option, specifically to move the logo(s) to the page gallery (like with game logos being in the gallery instead of also being in the game infobox, and the same goes for other media like films). Just thought about this in preparation to my ~~previously mentioned~~ proposal to do the same to Mario Party board pages. Al ten do 21:49, June 24, 2025 (EDT)

A major difference with game articles is that those articles include the boxart in their infobox, and that boxart usually features the game logo prominently. Whereas for game system articles, the infobox contains a photo of the system in which, admittedly, the system logo may be visible but only faintly. Jdtendo^(T|C) 08:20, June 27, 2025 (EDT)

Fair enough. As I said, this move to the infobox is still better than having the logo jut into the text. Al ten do 08:57, June 27, 2025 (EDT)

Remove re-releases in side modes from counting as "references"

Microgames and reissues as side-modes are references 3-4-0-6-0-1
6 out of 10 voters (60%) approve the first place option.

This mostly began because of this edit on the WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! page, which asserts that the Fly Swatter minigame mode is a "reference" to Gnat Attack. When we asked in the Discord, it was pointed out that Super Mario Advance lists the remake of Mario Bros. in its list of references.

So uh. What?????

Like, on a very literal level, we understand the idea. Obviously, these are literally referencing these games by including them as side-modes, in a very literal, linguistic sense of the term "reference". But this feels like it dilutes the point of the term "reference" in a way we really don't like. This is already something that, at least in part, Reissue is supposed to be covering (the many issues with that page aside, we've been cooking a proposal to address that for awhile now), and as of right now, it already does assert Fly Swatter as a reissue of Gnat Attack.

But what about games like Super Mario All-Stars, where the title is nothing but re-releases like that is? IS that game "referencing" Super Mario Bros. 2 In the Discord, it was mentioned that these should qualify only if they are side-modes. What, exactly, is the threshold to be a "side-mode"? Is the original GameCube Animal Crossing "referencing" Donkey Kong 3 by virtue of the playable NES items? Is Super Luigi Bros. "referencing" Super Mario Bros. by being a mode in NES Remix 2? What about Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition, which is a rerelease of Super Mario All-Stars? Does the degree of separation mean that game is merely "referencing" Super Mario Bros. 3 while the original Super Mario All-Stars was a standard re-release? This culminated in the horrifying sentence of "Is Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition a reference to Super Mario All-Stars", at which point we started writing this proposal.

We, clearly, should not have to ask if Super Mario All-Stars is referencing itself. We think this is a stance that should be entirely agreeable. But where, pray tell, do we draw the line between a "reference" and just an actual reissue? There's a few ways we think one could draw that line:

Reissues are not references at all: Self-explanatory. If it counts as a reissue, at all, that's not a reference. This would mean removing all of the above mentioned references, so no Mario Bros. on the Game Boy Advance games, no Fly Swatter or Gnat Attack on the Mega Microgame$! or Super Mario Maker pages, and certainly no Mario Paint - Flyswatter counting as a reference
Reissues as side-modes are references, microgames aren't: "Side-mode" is defined as any mode that is not the main mode of the release (so while Mario Bros. is in almost every Game Boy Advance Mario game, it is not mentioned in the title or considered the main campaign mode, so it's a side mode), so something like Luigi Bros. or Fly Swatter counts, but Bird & Beans and Super Mario All-Stars do not. And, we exclude microgames in this case.
Microgames and reissues as side-modes are references: The closest thing we can think of to our status quo. We work on the definition of "side-mode" above, but we also count microgames as references.
All reissues are references, microgames aren't: Just about the extreme end-case. In this case, these sorts of reissues and references are one-and-the-same. We would assert that Super Mario All-Stars is, indeed, referencing the games included, and that Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition is, indeed, a reference to Super Mario All-Stars, as well as the games within. The sole exception is for microgames, which are removed.
All reissues are references: The absolute extreme end-case. Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition is a reference to Super Mario All-Stars, which is a reference to the games within, and things like Mario Paint (WarioWare: D.I.Y.) are a Mario Paint reference.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: July 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT

No reissues or microgames are references

Camwoodstock (talk) Our primary option, if it isn't clear. We feel as though the issues with the Reissue page are bad enough without the References sections stepping on their toes like this, and our plans for a rework of the Reissues page would already account for both these "reissues in side-modes" and microgames accordingly.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. Calling an implementation of an entire game within a later game a "reference" is pretty silly!
At the Altendo Wash (Altendo Party 8) Per Chompwashstock.

No reissues are references, microgames are

Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we do think microgames based on games should probably be excluded as their own thing (it's a pretty "no kidding" statement to say a microgame based on a game is in reference to it), we could at least understand including them as they're a bit less extreme than, say, calling an entire side-mode a "reference".
JanMisali (talk) Secondary choice, per Camwoodstock.
At the Altendo Wash (Altendo Party: The Cash-Grab Minigame Compilation) Second choice, per Camwood Soft.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) A microgame with original gameplay and goals that uses music, sprites, and backgrounds from Super Mario Bros. is undoubtedly a reference, but an entire game being included inside a newer game is not a reference. Rereleases of games are also not references to the original.

Reissues as side-modes are references, microgames aren't

Microgames and reissues as side-modes are references (status quo)

Waluigi Time (talk) I don't see why this has to be all-or-nothing. In my opinion, going to the effort of implementing an older game (or facsimile of it) in an unrelated game does show a specific intent on the part of the developers to reference that earlier work, in a way that simply polishing up an existing game(s) and re-releasing it doesn't. (Technically, a re-release does "reference" the earlier work too, but it's so obvious that it doesn't need to be said.) At its core, something like All-Stars set out to be and is a remake of a specific set of games, while something like WarioWare is its own thing that happens to include nods to older games for fun - take the retro games out of the equation and the former would outright not exist, while the latter would be just fine.
SGoW (talk) per WT.
Salmancer (talk) Microgame descriptions are funny things. Nintendo would not be spending valuable text in their descriptions on saying the console and release year of the game the microgame is based on if it wasn't to simulate a fan in the theater pointing at the screen every time a reference appears. (Maybe the fan in this analogy is 9-Volt). And interacting with the rules-ish and logicistics-ish of an entirely different game unexpectedly is absolutely meant to be a callback to those games. Super Mario Bros. (WarioWare: Twisted!) tests me on if I recall Super Mario Bros., and if I don't its a short and goofy way to introduce Super Mario Bros. to people who don't know it yet. As in, a reference. Really, I think the only reason microgames are in this discussion is because actually accounting for every microgame would really flood the references sections of WarioWare games. But that makes complete sense, WarioWare is Nintendo at perhaps its most self-reflective, being video games about a company that makes video games. Maybe it means we need another header for the WarioWare games, perhaps "references to prior games through microgames", but cutting microgames entirely would make the article for a WarioWare game reflect the video game its about less. As for side-modes, I really do think the situation is pretty clear cut. When something is the primary point of a game, its not a reference. And in those cases, the intro and gameplay sections should really handle everything a references section would say. The games in NES Remix? Point of the game, and listed early on in it's Gameplay section The games in All-Stars? Point of the game. amiibo tap: Nintendo's Greatest Bits? Essentially NES Remix. But the Masterpieces of Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U are structured so as to be more of a museum of Nintendo classics in the game, and less of the game itself. I think the division between side mode and reissue is fairly clear, and when it isn't it shouldn't take that long to hash out. Seriously, defining "minigame" is probably harder.
Hewer (talk) I'm very confused by this proposal, but assuming I have read it correctly, it seems to be asserting that a) WarioWare microgames should be considered "reissues" of the games they reference, and b) WarioWare microgames based on old games should not be considered to be references to those games. Respectfully, I am absolutely baffled as to how anyone who's played or seen WarioWare could come to either of those conclusions. Referencing past games is the entire point of those microgames, and I don't see how it helps the wiki in any way to actively ignore that. This proposal just feels like hair-splitting to make the references sections less comprehensive for no benefit.
PopitTart (talk) After thinking on this for a good while, my stance has kinda shifted to "like man i think it depends". Like, yeah, I dont think listing the individual 4 games that make up Super Mario All-Stars is very useful, but the inclusion of Gnat Attack in Super Mario Maker is 100% a reference. SMM as a whole is an incredibly indulgent homage (and thus, reference) to Mario Paint, and this extends to the inclusion of a minigame from it. Voting for the status quo option in the sense of "don't codify specifically what is and is not a reference".
Jdtendo (talk) Per Salmancer.

All reissues are references, microgames aren't

All reissues and microgames are references

Camwoodstock (talk) Our very distant third option. If we really wanted to include these, we may as well commit fully, rather than play wishy-washy and divide these up by a fairly arbitrary standard.

Comments ("THIS IS WHAT THE REFRANCE")

Could there be an option for microgames alone to count, but not reissues? because like... c'mon, Mario Paint - Flyswatter is definitely not a reissue of Gnat Attack. the former lets you swat at most 3 flies in under 5 seconds. I think it's an original microgame imitating (and thus, referencing) the gameplay of Gnat Attack, as much as Mario Adv. or Pikmin 2 or Splatoon 2.--PopitTart (talk) 15:38, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Touche. Went ahead and added that.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

15:42, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time - Out of curiosity, why is something like the remakes in Super Mario All-Stars an "obvious" reference that doesn't need to be said, but something like Super Luigi Bros. is something that isn't obvious, and does need to be said? ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 15:47, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

If I have even the most basic understanding of Super Mario All-Stars (say, by reading the page's opening paragraph), I should know that the game at its core is a remake of the original four platformers. That doesn't need to be restated in a references section, and if we were to apply that to other more straightforward remakes, it would look downright silly to say that Thousand-Year Door on the Switch is a reference to Thousand-Year Door on the Gamecube, for example. You can't necessarily make that same argument for side modes and I've already explained in my vote why I think they're more noteworthy to mention. --

Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 16:07, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

We mean... The opening paragraph of Super Mario Advance also mentions that game's inclusion of Mario Bros., but that doesn't stop it from also being mentioned in the references section anyways. While not in the opening paragraph, Super Luigi Bros. is given its own section on the NES Remix 2 page in a section called "Other Modes", separate from the reference section... And lacks a references section of any kind at the moment.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

16:17, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Hmm. Odds are high it's because NES Remix 2's article is heavily based on NES Remix's article, and the latter also doesn't have a references section. Now that I think about it, Super Luigi Bros. is best listed as a reference to NES Remix, given it's an NES Remix stage but extended to a full (mini)game and with the higher jump from The Lost Levels. Then you note the source games of Super Mario Bros. and Lost Levels in the text under the NES REMIX header. It would be similar to how WarioWare Gold#References to other games handles the Super Mario World reference. (I acknowledge the comparison isn't 1 to 1 given the source of WarioWare microgame references are essentially Nintendo confirmed. I should look into old NES Remix 2 coverage to see if that has answers.) Hmm, complicated. I do think the solution to complex questions is to solve them, and not "burn it all down". Salmancer (talk) 16:34, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Our solution isn't to "burn it all down", and we don't know how much we appreciate the assertion that that's what our plan is. Our plan is to hopefully rework Reissue to better clarify these, rather than try and shove these into the References section; our idea is that we shouldn't be explaining the fact that Smash has a bunch of emulator-based demos in the form of Masterpieces in the same section where we explain individual references to specific games, that information should be elsewhere. As of writing, we have a draft for the proposal we plan to make on Reissues here if it helps clarify things.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

16:42, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Apologies, I should have not concluded with that phrasing. But I think I'm still down on this proposal even with the note. I strongly think microgames are references, and if those are references, it would be really strange to have WarioWare Gold's references section list the microgame Game & Watch: Manhole (microgame) but then not list the minigame Game & Watch: Manhole because the latter would not be a reference. Therefore, in my opinion even if Game & Watch: Manhole the minigame is a reissue it also has to be considered a reference. Salmancer (talk) 20:15, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock You miswrote Section 42 as "====No reissues are references, microgames are===", without the necessary extra equals sign ("====No reissues are references, microgames are====") to make it a subsection of this proposal. Al ten do 15:59, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Whoops. Sorry. Fixed that. ;P

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

16:17, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Since it's come up a few times, no, the idea is not to re-classify microgames as reissues; not as part of this, nor as part of our proposal to revamp Reissues. Microgames were mentioned entirely since the edit that started this also added a microgame, in the form of Mario Paint - Flyswatter, alongside Fly Swatter (the minigame). Yes, those are separate. To quote our draft: "Obviously, a microgame is not a port; not even a "really, really dehanced" one. A microgame is a microgame, microgames can have themes, and there's been a precedent of those themes being based on other games, sure, but obviously The Legend of Zelda is more than entering a door." ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 16:50, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

Glad we're on the same page there at least. But in that case, why would the proposal be attempting to remove those microgames from references sections? Being references is the whole point of their existence. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 16:53, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

We mostly figured that, considering the original edit that started this involved a minigame and a microgame, somebody would ask what to do about microgames. So, we wanted to account for that... Also in retrospect we probably should've made the microgames thing a poll and have the main "none/only side modes/all reissues are references" thing be its own poll but that's neither here nor there, OOPS. ~~honestly a tiny bit tempted to mulligan and relaunch the proposal to do exactly that but also we would feel kinda rude doing that when there's been this much conversation as is.~~

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

16:58, June 22, 2025 (EDT)

personally i think the issue is in the name. i don't see that section as "references", but more as... connections to other games. elements taken from those games, for whatever reason. bringing back a gameplay mechanic isn't exactly a "reference", but it is something we should note. microgames are a similar deal, they're deliberate links to a specific game, but not exactly a reference per se. — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 11:34, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

I think that's an overly restrictive and hair-splitting definition of "references". By definition, any mention of or allusion to a previous thing is a "reference". I'm genuinely still not seeing how someone could consider those WarioWare microgames to be anything but "references" when that's the whole point of them existing. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 03:59, June 25, 2025 (EDT)

Decide the fate of the footnote template

Do nothing 2-2-5
This proposal aims to decide the fate of the {{footnote}} template. According to this:

“I think this template should be marked deprecated and deleted, since the footnotes at the bottom of an article are more noticeable and not this small text that is hardly readable. It shouldn't be controversial to mark this as a deprecated template and start removing instances of it.”

—Super Mario RPG, 22:26, February 3, 2025 (EST)

“Hm. I'm definitely not happy with this template as it currently exists — it's... a subpar recreation of footnote functionality that doesn't even achieve all of it. Jdtendo has the right of it above, in my opinion. But something doesn't seem quite right about just using the same thing we use for citations for this. And the labeling system we have to use bugs me — [a 11] doesn't quite look good and [note 11] is unsuitable for tables. I think my ideal solution would be having something like [Inkipedia's note template], which actively uses the citation function within it but manages to have a unique letter-based labeling scheme. Though I'm not sure if it's possible to have multiple lists with that, as it exists...”

—Ahemtoday, 02:18, February 6, 2025 (EST)

As such, I offer three options:

Option 1: Redesign the {{footnote}} template in a similar style to Inkipedia's {{note}} template.
Option 2: Add the lower-alpha group and replace every use of the {{footnote}} template with <ref group="lower-alpha"></ref> and <references group="lower-alpha"/>.
Option 3: Keep the {{footnote}} template as is.

If the proposal passes with option 1, the template will be redesigned similarly to Inkipedia's {{note}} template. For example, typing

{{icon|SM64DS-Star}} [[Big Bob-omb's Revenge]]{{footnote|name=DS-only mission|Neither Big Bob-omb's Revenge, Switch Star of the Fortress, Switch Star of the Bay, Switch Star of Cool, Cool Mountain, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Dark World, Switch Star in the Basement, Underground Switch Star, Flaming Silver Stars, Tox Box Switch Star, Koopa Surfin' Switch Star, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Fire Sea, the Balloon Mario mission from Behind the Waterfall, the Switch Star mission from The Secret Under the Moat, Yoshi's Ice Sculpture, Snowman's Silver Star, Soaked Silver Stars, 5 Secrets of the Mountain, Switch Star on the Island, Tick Tock Silver Stars, Switch Star of the Manor, the Switch Star mission from Bowser in the Sky, the Black Brick mission from Over the Rainbows, the 8 Red Coins from the Mushroom Castle, Through the Looking Glass, nor the Rabbit Challenge mission appear in the original.}} {{icon|SM64DS-Mario}} {{icon|SM64DS-Luigi}} {{icon|SM64DS-Wario}}

will result in this:

Big Bob-omb's Revenge^[b]

However, if the proposal passes with option 2, the lower-alpha group will be added to the <ref> tag, and we will replace every use of the template with both <ref group="lower-alpha"></ref> and <references group="lower-alpha"/>. For example, typing

[[Sunshine Isles]]<ref name="DS-only course" group="lower-alpha">Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original.</ref>

will result in this:

Sunshine Isles^[c]

Likewise, we will also add a Footnotes section to pages that do not have one if option 2 passes.

Just so you know, the {{footnote}} template could be either redesigned or depreciated.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: ~~June 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ ~~Extended to July 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Extended to July 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Redesign the template

GuntherBayBeee (talk) My primary choice
Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal. The current template is not mobile friendly.

Option 2: Add the "lower-alpha" reference group and replace every use of the template

GuntherBayBeee (talk) My secondary choice
Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.

Option 3: Keep as is

Camwoodstock (talk) We earnestly cannot tell what this proposal is asking for, and in the absence of clarification for what exactly would happen in terms of "footnotes" when the result of that code is identical to just. Some Page^[letter], with no clue where the actual footnote parameter goes in that case, we're just going to vote for the status quo option here. If someone could actually explain to us where the footnote text would go, we might change our vote...?
Mario (talk) I have no clue what this proposal is about
Nintendo101 (talk) I think the current systems we have, like the one at the bottom of the Super Mario Galaxy artilce, are more than adequate and comfortably display on mobile.
1468z (talk) Per all.
Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments (footnote suggestions)

There should be a option for replacing uses of {{footnote}} with grouped <ref>s, such as <ref group=a>...</ref>. I think that "[a 11]" does not look any bad, and it's actually a good thing to use the same mechanism for citations and footnotes instead of having to learn two different systems that technically do the same thing. BTW, I don't think options 1 and 2 allow several footnote lists on the same page. Jdtendo^(T|C) (the guy from Ahemtoday's quote) 11:59, June 14, 2025 (EDT)

I disagree. I do believe that the "lower-alpha" group could be better than you think.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBayBeee (talk).

We do not understand the sample provided in the least. Is the idea that the text "Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original." would appear in the references section? Where, exactly, does that text go? As it stands, the provided sample is effectively identical to "Sunshine Isles^[c]", just with using &lbrack ; instead of just. The [ key on the keyboard, and vice versa for the right bracket, which only serves to confuse the conversation more. ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 12:21, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

As one of the people quoted here, I feel obligated to weigh in, so here goes. I'd like to put practicality aside for a moment and just talk about what my ideal system for footnotes looks like for the end user. I think distinguishing footnotes from citations — again, on the front end, not necessarily on the back end — is useful because the two serve different purposes. One is clarification and the other is evidence. This is the reason why I like using the lower-alpha numbering scheme for footnotes; it's the most distinct from citations (by virtue of not including any numbers) and therefore the most clear on what is what. When it comes to multiple groups of footnotes, I think I'd most want the lettering scheme to just keep going between the first group and second. For instance, on Mario Kart (series), the character footnotes would go up to L, and then the course footnotes would start at M. I'm not sure if that's possible, and I'm not sure if it's best done by remodeling or deprecating the current footnote template, but that's how I think footnotes should work. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:34, June 15, 2025 (EDT)

Okay then. Can we do option 1, option 2, or both? Sorry for the late reply by the way.

Gunther Bay Beee

09:35, June 23, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock I disagree. Ahemtoday said that the lower-alpha group could be recommended because it's not only more distinctive from citations, but also clearer. Gunther Bay Beee 13:14, July 7, 2025 (EDT)

...Where does the information in the description actually go? The provided sample doesn't showcase it whatsoever; the text "Neither Sunshine Isles, Goomboss Battle, Battle Fort, Big Boo Battle, nor Chief Chilly Challenge appear in the original." does not appear anywhere within the resulting "Sunshine Isles^[c]" text. It doesn't matter how "clear" it is in terms of syntax if said syntax seems to be dropping a vast majority of its contents, and none of the presumed clarifications have done anything to illuminate just where that text actually goes, the closest thing being a vague mention of a "Footnotes" section, without any example of what that may look like.

~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs )

13:23, July 7, 2025 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday Have you voted for either option yet? The footnote template is still not mobile-friendly. Gunther Bay Beee 15:42, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

@Mario @Nintendo101 I respectfully disagree. I'm talking about the decision of the footnote template's fate. Like Ahemtoday said, the decisions are to either design it after Inkipedia's note template or use the lower-alpha group, the latter which is not only more distinctive from citations, but also clearer. Gunther Bay Beee 09:47, July 12, 2025 (EDT)

But why? - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:44, July 12, 2025 (EDT)

It's not a matter of disagreement with me, I have literally no idea what is being communicated here. What's the problem? Why is it a problem? What is being proposed here? Why is should it be the case? What does it change? None of these are effectively explained. I'm not going to support a proposal that I can't understand what is even going to happen, and why.

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:09, July 12, 2025 (EDT)

Adopt a romanization system for Russian

Adopt the Anglophone romanization system 9-0-0
Even to this day, many Mario games are translated into Russian and there are currently thousands of Russian names listed on the wiki in "Names in other languages" sections. Problem is: the romanization of those names is inconsistent, and whilst there exists dozens of systems for romanizing Russian, none of them has received much popularity.

There are two categories of Russian romanization systems currently in use on the wiki: an Anglophone system with English consonants ("ch", "sh", "zh"…) that is the most widely used but has some discrepancies, and a scholar system with Czech-like consonants ("č", "š", "ž"…) that is much less used on the wiki. I propose that we adopt one of the following two systems for Russian romanization that are based on the two categories above.

Anglophone romanization system: This system is aimed to be easy to read and write for Anglophones. It is based on BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, but using only ASCII characters, and is nearly identical to the romanization system used by Bulbapedia.

Scholar romanization system: This system is based on GOST 16876-71, itself based on scientific transliterations of Russian used by linguists.

Here is the transliteration table for both systems:

Russian spelling	Anglophone romanization	Scholar romanization	Rough English equivalent
А / а	A / a		father
Б / б	B / b		bee
В / в	V / v		van
Г / г	G / g		good
Д / д	D / d		do
Е / е	E / e after consonants or й	E / e	men
	Ye / ye in the beginning of words or after vowels, ь, or ъ		yes
	Yo / yo if it corresponds to an unmarked ё		yota
Ё / ё	Yo / yo	Ë / ë	yota
Ж / ж	Zh / zh	Ž / ž	vision
З / з	Z / z		zoom
И / и	I / i		tree
Й / й	Y / y	J / j	yeah / toy
К / к	K / k		kind
Л / л	L / l		lay
М / м	M / m		me
Н / н	N / n		no
О / о	O / o		more
П / п	P / p		pick
Р / р	R / r		rolled "r"
С / с	S / s		sane
Т / т	T / t		tip
У / у	U / u		pool
Ф / ф	F / f		fin
Х / х	Kh / kh	H / h	loch / ugh
Ц / ц	Ts / ts	C / c	tsar
Ч / ч	Ch / ch	Č / č	check
Ш / ш	Sh / sh	Š / š	shell
Щ / щ	Shch / shch	Ŝ / ŝ	push ships
Ъ / ъ	' (apostrophe)	ʺ (modifier letter double prime)	hard sign
Ы / ы	Y / y		lip
Ь / ь	' (apostrophe)	ʹ (modifier letter prime)	soft sign
Э / э	E / e	È / è	bet
Ю / ю	Yu / yu	Ju / ju	you
Я / я	Ya / ya	Ja / ja	yard

Here are a few examples to compare both systems:

English word	Russian word	Anglophone romanization	Scholar romanization
Yoshi	Йоши	Yoshi	Joši
Peach	Пич	Pich	Pič
Luigi	Луиджи	Luidzhi	Luidži
Famitsu	Фамицу	Famitsu	Famicu

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: ~~July 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Closed early on July 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Adopt the Anglophone romanization system (Luidzhi i Yoshi)

Jdtendo (talk) I think that this romanization system is more intuitive to the English-speaking users of the wiki.
Shadow2 (talk) I tend to favour the romanization system that's also used by Google Translate, which in this case is this one. I think most of the internet uses this one, tbh... Also, transliterating ц as "c" is just wild...
Arend (talk) This is an English wiki, why wouldn't we use the more English romanization? Also people are definitely going to be confused with ц being romanized as a regular "c" instead of "ts".
YoYo (talk) Per arend
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal, and also Arend; we should definitely use the "more English" one, if that makes sense.
Сяхоу Ба (talk) Per proposal. This one is easier to grasp for English users, and it's much easier to understand "ч" as "ch" than č and я as "ya" than "ja".
Altendo (talk) Per Shadow2 on the previous proposal.
фанат йоши (talk)Per
Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.

Adopt the scholar romanization system (Luidži i Joši)

Do not adopt either system for Russian

Comments (романизация)

Stop linking to other wikis for the first usage of a title on an article

Stop linking 11-0
...The title for this might be confusing, so let me explain. Take the Super Smash Bros. for Wii U article, for example. The first instance of "Super Smash Bros. for Wii U" on the article links to the SmashWiki article for the game...which...has started to feel a bit weird to me. It's almost like it's telling the reader "Hey! Our article sucks! Go read this one instead!," which, isn't what we really want. I think it's best to link to other wikis' versions of the same article at the end of our article, by using templates like Template:NIWA or Template:Wikipedia, or even an "External links" section, like as seen here. However, I'm fine with it in some situations, like Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, Mario Bros., as that only links to articles on our wiki, and is only present to prevent an unnecessary sentence like "Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, Mario Bros. is a compilation of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Junior, and Mario Bros."

Proposer: Kaptain Skurvy (talk)
Deadline: ~~July 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Closed early on July 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Wikipedia has an article on Support.

Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per proposal...and my...uhh...Wikipedia article?
Ahemtoday (talk) Yeah, this is something I ended up thinking about with the Donkey Konga articles — if we have a template for this specific purpose, why would we ever do this instead?
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Links to other NIWA wikis are only necessary if there is more information on a subject that isn't related to the Mario franchise. Our article for Smash for Wii U covers all of the game's content, so readers likely won't need to go to another NIWA wiki's article for more information. There is still a Smashwiki link at the bottom of the page, so we don't lose anything by removing it from the opening sentence.
Wikipedia DOES NOT have an article on Rykitu (talk) Per all. But wait... I DO!!?!!?!
Wikipedia ALSO DOES NOT have an article on Altendo, so this is inconsistent. Per proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. This is why we have the "external links" section. Of course we don't have a Wikipedia article, we've acknowledged that object shows exist before, dooming us to eternal non-notability.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
Nintendo101 (talk) absolutely.
Rering644 (talk) Per all. Linking to the wikipedia article for YOU.
WPfan08 (talk) It's a-me! No really, it's me! (Per all)
Hewerpedia (talk) Per all.

Wikipedia has an article on Oppose.

Wikipedia has an article on Comments.

Avoid using color as the sole means of conveying information

Color cannot be the sole identifier 10-0
This proposal aims to implement a new guideline for the creation/formatting of articles and is borrowed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia notably has a metric ton of extremely rigid rules and restrictions that are usually done in the name of accessibility but ultimately lead to things being a more cluttered mess or become harder to read for the average reader. However, the one rule of theirs that I've always fully agreed with and feel quite strongly about is their rule that color should not be used as the sole means of conveying information. This is a guideline that's usually applied to tables, where things such as the color of text, the color of the background, or the color of a symbol is used to denote information about the table entry.

This is a problem for multiple reasons. It can be confusing to colorblind users, as some of the chosen colors may appear extremely similar or exactly the same to them. Color is also not conveyed to readers who use screen-readers or devices/printers that don't show color. At the end of the day, color looks nice and it's a nice easy way to convey information for most users, but it's not the only option and there are easy ways to convey this information for others as well.

A few examples:

~~The proposal archive uses ONLY color to convey the outcome of the listed proposals on its table.~~ Didn't realize this case was already covered by an alternative method.
The information page about Japanese uses a ton of color to indicate the meaning and usage of the various characters.
Pages such as List of 2021 tours in Mario Kart Tour use grey, blue, green and red in the tables to indicate information about the courses.
The recipe list pages use color to denote regional availability of recipes.

So what does this mean if the proposal passes? Any current usage of color on the wiki to convey information does not need to be changed. All color indicators can remain as they are, as they are still a valid and very effective way of conveying information to most users. However, this proposal would dictate that an additional measure be introduced. For example, on the proposal archive, a small three-letter identifier could be used next to each entry such as "PAS" for passed, "FAI" for failed, "NOQ" for no quorum. (This is just an example, and does not need to be the methodology we use) Symbols can also be used. The essential bottom line is that anything needs to be understandable if the page is viewed in grayscale.

This change would apply to all pages across the wiki, including mainspace pages, Mariowiki and help pages, and talk pages. It would not apply to User Pages. Users can be free to color their page however they want. (However, for purposes of communication, it would apply to User Talk pages)

Proposer: Shadow2 (talk)
Deadline: ~~July 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Closed early on July 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Color cannot be the sole identifier

Shadow2 (talk) Per proposal.
Potato3003 (talk) Per proposal.
Dine2017 (talk) Per proposal.
Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal. Plus, conveying information is easier with symbols than with an arbitrary color scheme ("Camera minigames are colored pink").
Camwoodstock (talk) In addition to the points brought up, we feel like this would improve things dramatically for screen reader users. While color can be handy, it should never be the only method of conveying information. As it stands, we don't actually know if the colorblind--or blind blind--can properly decipher the proposal archives. That's a pretty glaring oversight!
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal and Cam.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. (Can we also stop using images as the sole way to present information too, please?)
EvieMaybe (talk) please and thank you!
LadySophie17 (talk) Per all. I especially dislike the rainbow mess in some Mario Party minigame lists that end up using up to 5 different colors! Two of which being yellow and silver. Insane.
Sparks (talk) Per all.

Color can be the sole identifier

#Altendo (talk | contribs) I personally don't have an issue with this; the color coding information is already placed on either the introduction or section paragraph. It's also not like color is the only identifier here (~~the Mario Kart Tour lists also put in letters to indicate course type~~ Edit on 11:38, July 6, 2025 (EDT): the fact that "the proposal archive uses ONLY color to convey the outcome of the listed proposals on its table" is false; hovering your mouse over the "ended (date)" section also shows the outcome of the proposal, and I think conveying information through text would just be an unnecessary third method of communication there).

Colo(u)rful Comments

@Altendo The information conveyed by color in the Mario Kart Tour lists is distinct from the information conveyed by letters, so color is still the sole identifier for the information it conveys. Jdtendo^(T|C) 01:31, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Bad example, sorry. Updated my comment attached to my vote. Al ten do 11:39, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

I suppose this is similar to how RPG enemy templates previously used text formatting to communicate if something was a normal enemy or a boss, giving no wiggle room for subjects that could be encountered as either. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:44, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, do screen readers know about hover text? ~Cam wood stock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 12:55, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

would this also affect the colored usernames staff members get? — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:46, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. For accessibility reasons it probably should be, though I think that's beyond the scope of what normal users like me are able to do. Shadow2 (talk) 22:23, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

@Altendo @Camwoodstock I cannot personally confirm this, but I have been told that "tooltip mouseover text", which is used in the proposal archives as you described, also cannot be detected and read by screen readers. If anybody can confirm or deny this, please do. Plus, I think some mobile devices can't read mouseover text...I know my old phone used to not be able to, although my current phone is able to. Also, Altendo, the fact that you've said "the color coding information is already placed on either the introduction or section paragraph" indicates that you may not have fully understood this proposal. Yes, the information about color coding is posted on the page. However, how does that help someone who doesn't know what yellow looks like? Shadow2 (talk) 22:23, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Although I don't think it works on mobile, the hover text works perfectly fine with me. Also, I'm not exactly against allowing alternate methods of communication; I'm just simply against prohibiting color to be the sole communication factor. Al ten do 07:46, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

Why, though? Shadow2 (talk) 21:01, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

Not only is the fact that "The proposal archive uses ONLY color to convey the outcome of the listed proposals on its table" straight-up false, but I feel like there are some instances when only using a single method of communication is sufficient enough, and adding additional methods do nothing but clutter up an otherwise straightforward section or page. Al ten do 22:25, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, there are plenty of instances where using a single method of communication is sufficient. However, that's not what this proposal says. This proposal says that single method cannot be color. Again I ask, if yellow entries in a table mean "X", how does that help someone who doesn't know what yellow is? In such a case, the single method of communication is not sufficient. Yes I messed up with one of the examples, but that doesn't make any of the other numerous examples any less valid. Shadow2 (talk) 07:43, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

If anyone has a basic understanding of how to even browse this wiki, chances are that they already know the colors. I do agree with LadySophie that maybe we should cut down our color selection, but I still feel like color is an efficient and straightforward identifier. I'm not saying color would be suitable for every situation (Mario Party minigames as an example), but for other things, like tables, it's sufficient in explaining what its purpose is. You can also still edit the proposal to fix your example until July 10. Al ten do 08:46, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

Do you actually not know what colourblindness is? Genuine question, not trying to be rude. Because no, they wouldn't know the colours because they're colourblind. Shadow2 (talk) 18:58, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

That is a good point, actually. Al ten do 21:09, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

The hover text works fine on mobile for me. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 08:02, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

Mandate the use of straight apostrophes

Mandate straight apostrophes in article titles and text body 11-0-2
There are several characters that can be used as an apostrophe — usually the straight apostrophe (') or the curly apostrophe (’). Many publishers and websites have a guideline about which apostrophe should be used (e.g., Wikipedia mandates straight apostrophes), but the Super Mario Wiki doesn't have one. Considering that the straight apostrophe is overwhelmingly used throughout the wiki and is easier to type on any keyboard, I propose that we also mandate the use of a straight apostrophe in our writing guidelines.

However, some article names such as "Meet Luigi: Mario’s Brother and Nervous Hero" contain a curly apostrophe like the corresponding Play Nintendo video, and one may argue that preserving the curly apostrophe is needed to reflect the original suject's name faithfully. In that case, should we also move Behind Chain Chomp's Gate and other Super Mario 64 (DS) mission names that contain an apostrophe to use a curly apostrophe instead, considering those games use a curly apostrophe? And for articles of subjects from other games, check if they are written in-game with a straight or curly apostrophe?

To make matter worst, Nintendo's use of apostrophe is very inconsistent. For instance, contrary to the "Mario’s Brother" example above, other Play Nintendo videos use a straight apostrophe such as "Games with Toads: Mario's Loyal Friends!" (and bafflingly, the corresponding article uses a curly apostrophe instead!). On Nintendo's website, Luigi’s Mansion™ 3 is written with a curly apostrophe whereas Luigi's Mansion™ 2 HD is written with a straight apostrophe — and it's the complete opposite in the Switch's software list! Nintendo, usually a stickler for the name formatting of their products, does not seem to care about what apostrophe character they use, which suggests that the kind of apostrophe used is not ontologically part of the name.

Just like we typically don't include "™" in game titles and we convert UPPERCASE TITLES to Title Case Titles, I think we should also use the straight apostrophe in article titles regardless of the specific character used in the source.

Proposer: Jdtendo (talk)
Deadline: ~~July 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Closed early on July 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Mandate straight apostrophes in article titles and text body

Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal
Technetium (talk) Proposal's good (and inconsistent apostrophes aren’t)
SGoW (talk) Per proposal. The "curly apostrophe" technically isn't even an apostrophe, it's actually intended to be a quotation mark.
AmossGuy (talk) Best to be consistent with this. A tad surprised this wasn't already in the guidelines.
Genesis Does (What Altendon’t) Not pern’t proposal.
Camwoodstock (talk) This is pretty dang overdue. Per proposal.
Waluigi Time (talk) I actually thought we did this already.
EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal, and thank you very much!
Shadow2 (talk) "Smart quotes" must DIE
SleepyRedHair (talk) I'm surprised this wasn't already the case. Per all.
Dwhitney (talk) Per all.

Mandate straight apostrophes in text body, but not in article titles

Do not mandate straight apostrophes (status quo)

Polley001 (talk) It's not so much that I don't think this should be mandated whatsoever, but in a similar fashion to how these options don't really allow for other possibilities, I think this is too restrictive as described. Some cases make more sense than others when it comes to being accurate. For example, there was recently a proposal passed to not include prefixes in Mario Kart course article titles. However, courses can still be written with their prefix where relevant, despite a somewhat similar consensus that the prefixes aren't actually part of their names. The need for accuracy can vary greatly, and I'm of the opinion that even something as minute as this should not be exempt from that.
Hewer (talk) Per Polley001, I think this should be case-by-case rather than having a strict policy that limits our accuracy.

Comments (Jdtendo's Apostrophe’s Proposal™)

I'd like some clarification. In the Super Mario Galaxy section of List of Super Mario tracks on Nintendo Music, the tracks "Peach’s Castle Stolen" and "Bowser’s Stronghold Appears" use the curly apostrophe, just as they're written on the service itself. Would this mean that they'd have to be written with a straight apostrophe? If that were the case, I'd actually prefer if this only applied to article titles. Polley001 (talk) 14:10, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, they would be need to be written with a straight apostrophe for consistency. The logic that I explained for article titles also applies here: the kind of apostrophe used is not ontologically part of the name, and I don't think we need to mimic different typographic rules. Jdtendo^(T|C) 15:14, July 6, 2025 (EDT)

To clarify my thoughts, I feel like a case-by-case basis would be arbitrary at best, or completely defeat the purpose of the proposal at worst. If we make an exception for Nintendo Music track names to preserve byte-by-byte accuracy, then why shouldn't we also format the Super Mario 64 mission list to include "BEHIND CHAIN CHOMP’S GATE" — not just with a curly apostrophe, but also in uppercase considering it's how it's formatted in-game? Jdtendo^(T|C) 03:00, July 8, 2025 (EDT)

I'm no expert on Super Mario 64 so if there is a specific reason not to do so, I wouldn't know, but generally speaking I don't see why it couldn't be listed in such a way for this particular list. Polley001 (talk) 02:59, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

Add the TabberNeue extension

vetoed by the administrators
Not the proper use of a poll proposal. One option cannot apply if the other does not pass.
This proposal aims to add the TabberNeue extension. With every use of the {{tabber}} template removed due to the template requiring JavaScript, the tabbers' misuse makes no sense. I researched, however, that the tabber extensions such as TabberNeue do not require JavaScript. As such, I'm just wondering if there's a possibility to add that extension.

First off, simple tabbers. These tabs are not only created with tabName=tabBody, but also separated by |-|. Any wikitext within tabs, including templates and images, are usable.

<tabber>
|-|North American box art=[[File:SuperMarioOdyssey - NA boxart.jpg|250px]]
|-|Brazilian box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Brazil boxart.jpg|250px]]
|-|European box art=[[File:SMO Box EU.png|250px]]
|-|Dutch box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey NL.jpg|250px]]
|-|German box art=[[File:SMO Box DE.png|250px]]
|-|Russian box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Russia boxart.png|250px]]
|-|Japanese box art=[[File:SMO Box JP.jpg|250px]]
</tabber>

Next off, nested tabbers. These tabs must be written as parser functions. Rather than the <tabber/> tags, they are not only wrapped with {{#tag:tabber|}}, but also separated by {{!}}-{{!}}, making it useful when creating a nested tabber.

<tabber>
|-| Logo =
{{#tag:tabber
| English = [[File:Mario Vs. Donkey Kong - Tipping Stars.svg|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Japanese = [[File:MvsDK Wii U JP Logo.png|250px]]
}}
|-| Box art =
{{#tag:tabber
| British English = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} European Spanish = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} European French = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Italian = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Dutch = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} German = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Japanese = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp-3ds.png|250px]]
}}
}}
</tabber>

In addition, here's example of a possibility to redesign the tabber template via TabberNeue and render it reusable.

Syntax

Result

{{tabber|title1=North American|content1=[[File:SuperMarioOdyssey - NA boxart.jpg|250px]]|title2=Brazilian|content2=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Brazil boxart.jpg|250px]]|title3=European|content3=[[File:SMO Box EU.png|250px]]|title4=Dutch|content4=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey NL.jpg|250px]]|title5=German|content5=[[File:SMO Box DE.png|250px]]|title6=Russian|content6=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Russia boxart.png|250px]]|title7=Japanese|content7=[[File:SMO Box JP.jpg|250px]]}}

<tabber>
|-|North American box art=[[File:SuperMarioOdyssey - NA boxart.jpg|250px]]
|-|Brazilian box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Brazil boxart.jpg|250px]]
|-|European box art=[[File:SMO Box EU.png|250px]]
|-|Dutch box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey NL.jpg|250px]]
|-|German box art=[[File:SMO Box DE.png|250px]]
|-|Russian box art=[[File:Super Mario Odyssey Russia boxart.png|250px]]
|-|Japanese box art=[[File:SMO Box JP.jpg|250px]]
</tabber>

{{tabber|title1=Logo|content1= {{tabber|nested=yes|title1=English|content1=[[File:Mario Vs. Donkey Kong - Tipping Stars.svg|250px]]|title2=Japanese|content2=[[File:MvsDK Wii U JP Logo.png|250px]]}}|title2=Box art|content2={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=British English|content1={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title2=European Spanish|content2={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title3=European French|content3={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title4=Italian|content4={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title5=Dutch|content5={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title6=German|content6={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box Wii U.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box 3DS.png|250px]]}}|title7=Japanese|content7={{tabber|nested=yes|title1=Wii U|content1=[[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp.png|250px]]|title2=Nintendo 3DS|content2=[[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp-3ds.png|250px]]}}}}}}

<tabber>
|-| Logo =
{{#tag:tabber
| English = [[File:Mario Vs. Donkey Kong - Tipping Stars.svg|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Japanese = [[File:MvsDK Wii U JP Logo.png|250px]]
}}
|-| Box art =
{{#tag:tabber
| British English = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} European Spanish = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Spanish box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} European French = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU France box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Italian = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Italy box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Dutch = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Netherlands box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} German = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box Wii U.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario vs DK Tipping Stars EU Germany box 3DS.png|250px]]
}}
{{!}}-{{!}} Japanese = 
{{#tag:tabber
| Wii U = [[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp.png|250px]]
{{!}}-{{!}} Nintendo 3DS = [[File:Mario-vs-donkey-kong-tipping-stars-boxart-jp-3ds.png|250px]]
}}
}}
</tabber>

Last but not least, transclusion. This mode has different syntax that is more similar to <gallery> syntax. The tabs are not only created with pageName|tabName, but also separated by a new line.

<tabbertransclude>
Page Name 1|Tab Title 1
Page Name 2|Tab Title 2
Page Name 3|Tab Title 3
</tabbertransclude>

With TabberNeue not requiring JavaScript at all, we all know that the extension will change the tabber template. If one option passes, then we will the TabberNeue extension be enabled. Additionally, we will also redesign the {{tabber}} using the TabberNeue extension if another option passes. That way, we won't need to worry about turning on JavaScript.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)

Add TabberNeue

Deadline: July 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

SupportNeue

GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

OpposeNeue

Altendo (talk) While this does work without JavaScript, from what I could research myself, it only works on modern browsers, which not everyone who reads pages here is lucky enough to have. And even barring JavaScript functionality, tabs, while arguably convenient, can sometimes be counterintuitive as it becomes difficult to search for a specific image; as Mario said, "Even without the javascript issues there's likely fundamental useability issues; tabber I still think(?) is more gimmick than utility. I browse some wikis, I'm usually annoyed to try finding an image I want, only for it to be buried in tabs (ZeldaWiki is an example, the Keese article supplied is a maze of tabs and I actually find it difficult to just easily pinpoint how a Keese looks like in a particular game or across games; Battle Bat does not even provide all images in a gallery section, so I have to click on all these tabs just to see how these bats look like in different games; I'd rather just view all of them)."
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Altendo; honestly, the barrier of needing a modern browser is worse than the barrier of needing Javascript. Plenty of old browsers that wouldn't work with this extension are capable of handling Javascript. In addition, the use cases for tabbers is pretty slim; it was one thing to just need a simple bit of javascript, but adding an entire extension for the sake of a fraction of the pages on this wiki feels a bit overkill.

Redesign {{tabber}} via TabberNeue

Deadline: July 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

SupportNeue

GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

OpposeNeue

Altendo (talk) Ditto.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per our vote on the other poll. If it ain't broke, don't fix it; plus, unless we can guarantee the plugin uses the exact same parameters as the abandoned tabber template, then a bunch of old page revisions will break... Thusly rendering the entire reason we merely abandoned the tabber template, rather than deleted it, moot.

CommentsNeue

Keep Boss-only minions merged with their bosses

Keep merged/split based on official recognition 1-8-0
Enemies that are only seen alongside the boss of the fight they appear in should not be separate. E.g. Crystal Bits only appear in Crystal King's fight and should not receive an article separate from him. This also applies to same -basis cases like the Petit Piranhas and Lava Buds which should be merged with Lava Piranha. The "helper snakes" or "mini hisstocrats" aren't separated from Hisstocrat so why should other cases that are much the same as this be any different?

As per request, a list of other boss helpers to better illustrate what I mean:

Tutankoopa's chomp is already merged to Tutankoopa but is an example of a boss helper that only appears in the one fight alongside the boss

Bulb (already merged to General Guy)

Shy Squad (split from General Guy)

Cortez' weapons (merged to Cortez)

There are probably others I forgot but this should give a good gist of what I mean.

Proposer: Pizza Master (talk)
Deadline: July 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

These minions have separation anxiety (Merge/Support)

Pizza Master (talk) per

Case-by-case basis (Merged or Split based on "official recognition")

Pizza Master (talk) per DBB's comment.
DryBonesBandit (talk) Per my comment.
Camwoodstock (talk) This proposal, as it stands, is a bit too wishy-washy for us to feel comfortable with the sweeping changes it's presenting. The comments suggesting yet another merge for the colored Kameks from Dream Team, while the proposal itself seemingly not doing that, is extremely disconcerting to us; even if that was addressed, there's not much about other sorts of edge cases; cough-cough, the rather contentious boss minions for Super Mario 3D World's boss fights (hi Hisstocrat.) We'd definitely prefer a more case-by-case basis for this sort of thing, and maybe we can codify something after that.
EvieMaybe (talk) there's some cases where they're better merged, and some cases where they're better split. "boss-only minions" encompasses a very wide range of complexity
Tails777 (talk) Best tackle these based on their situations. Per all.
Gru (talk)
Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per eviemaybe. I do not think Bonefin and Broode's Chain Chomp, for example, should be merged with their affiliated bosses.

Minions are Minions! (Oppose/Status Quo)

Comments

Are the examples you mentioned the only pages that this would affect? If not, you should provide a full list of affected pages. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:32, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

I'd vote for an option that supports keeping minions recognized officially as unique enemies on their own pages, such as Crystal Bits, Eggbert, and Helio, but merges minions that are not recognized as such such as Slave Basa. This comment was edit-conflicted, by the way; keeping it separate from the above question. This is me, D-B-B! 15:33, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

There are other pages like fights where a minion that appears only when the boss appears and only in their battle happens like when certain magicians create magic clones of themselves for that battle only. (Kamek (white), (red), and (green) would be merged with Kamek, for example)--

Pizza Master 15:42, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

@DryBonesBandit I disagree with having that as an option since having a name shouldn't mean a character should get their own page. MC Ballyhoo & Big Top are merged despite having different names since they are never seen apart and this is quite similar to that. --Pizza Master (talk)

That's not what I mean. They have unique stats and descriptions alongside names, which is what I mean by "recognized officially as unique enemies". The colored Kameks are literally clones of Kamek that I'd support merging. MC Ballyhoo & Big Top is a different case imo, as they are a duo of characters that aren't unique separately; both just happened to have names.

This is me, D-B-B!

15:51, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

I see. I could get behind that.--Pizza Master (talk)

I don't think a proposal like this should have a "decide case-by-case" option, since it's basically the same as the status quo option. We don't need to pass a proposal to be able to make case-by-case decisions. I agree with the sentiment of "split when they're officially recognised as distinct", but we can't objectively define that, so the option is just vague and would probably require discussions for each specific case anyway. Maybe a broad, sweeping proposal isn't the best fit here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:16, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

Hewer's point is a good one imo. I'd rather not have a large, sweeping proposal for this; I thought adding an option for official distinction was good but it is kinda vague, soo...

This is me, D-B-B!

16:18, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Pizza Master: So uh, if the "case-by-case" option passes, is it supposed to actually do anything (besides leaving individual cases up for discussion, which was already the status quo)? I'm not sure I understand what the difference is meant to be between the "case-by-case" option and the "status quo" option. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 18:57, July 1, 2025 (EDT)

Reduce the Smash Ultimate Spirits coverage down to Super Mario related Spirits

Do not remove Spirits 7-15
In recent years, the wiki has shrunk down its Super Smash Bros. coverage, compiling non-Mario related fighters, stages, items, etc. into lists instead of seperate articles, and reducing the trophies and stickers down to just the ones from the Super Mario series. However, we still have pages related to the Spirits in the game, with a massive amount of them coming from beyond the Mario series. In fact, the page for the Spirits numbered #501 to #1000 contains absolutely no Mario spirits at all.

Thus, in line with the previously mentioned trophy and stickers pages, we should consider narrowing the Spirits down to the franchises we cover and still featuring those adjacent in cases where needed, getting rid of the sheer amount of Pokémon PNGs and the rest of the spirits that do not fit within our coverage.

Proposer: MightyMario (talk)
Deadline: July 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Banish the Spirit! (Support)

MightyMario (talk) I hate to be Galeem, but this should be done.
Jdtendo (talk) We're not Smash Wiki, as they say. The list of Spirits could then fit on a single article.
Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per all.
Altendo Spirit (talk) Per all. And I'm ~~Thanos~~ Dharkon.
DryBonesSpirit (talk) Per all.
GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
YoYo (talk) Per all.

~~#Polley001 (talk) Per all.~~

Free the Spirit! (Oppose)

Hewer (talk) Per the opposition last time. It's not as simple as saying that every spirit that doesn't depict a Mario character is irrelevant to Mario: their spirit battles may still feature Mario characters/stages/items, their effect may involve Mario items, they may require Mario spirits to summon or be required to summon Mario spirits, and of course, all of them are usable by Mario characters. I believe the fact that the Smoky Progg spirit battle has you fighting Mario is relevant information for the Super Mario Wiki to cover and don't see why that should be removed. Also, this proposal has some incorrect information: the stickers page has not been trimmed (we've had some failed proposals to do so), and the middle spirit list does contain Mario spirits since it includes the Wario franchise. As has been argued before, trophies are different because unlike stickers and spirits, they're not really interactive at all, so it actually would be fair to call them completely irrelevant to Mario.
Salmancer (talk) I'm with Hewer here. Aside from their points, I also feel this would have grounds to start deleting Events from Melee's and Brawl's Event listing for not having Mario characters, since Spirits are essentially a combination of the sticker/trophy collecting mechanics and events. Pick a character (sometimes), fight opponent(s), themed scenario, (possibly) wacky mechanics. Some of the events don't have Mario related things in any of the four slots, but we're willing to keep a complete list of events, perhaps for things like unlock criteria and general single player progression notes. And there are even parallel in Spirits for unlocking events: summoning spirits using other spirits and spirits exclusive to the shops of Master spirits.
MrHonor (talk) Per Hewer, the spirit battles are a lot more in-depth when it comes to Mario-related material. Not to mention the summoning spirits, in which Mario-related spirits must directly combine and interact with non-Mario-related ones for their effects to even happen.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. There's more to it than "what game does the PNG come from", so taking an axe to the whole thing isn't the best way to trim it. Granted, I do think it would be nice if the main page featured all the Mario spirits instead of a handful of stragglers from the end of the content cycle.
Rykitu (talk) Per Hewer.
Tails777 (talk) Per Hewer and past opposition on similar topics.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Hewer.
Arend (talk) Per all, it's much more complex than Trophies or even Stickers
Camwoodstock (talk) While we definitely agree a trim is necessary (we've made our stance on our Smash coverage needing cleanup in a post-SmashWiki era very apparent before), this is a bit too narrow. Plenty of spirits for stuff outside of the Mario franchise use fighters, stages, or even items from the Mario franchise to depict their source material... And that's when the spirit's own effect doesn't directly revolve around an item from the Mario series, as part of its flavor. All we're saying is, it'd be a bit silly to not mention how the spirit for Paz Ortega Andrade from Metal Gear has the effect of starting you with a Bob-omb, which is very much a deliberate decision. (That being said, though, we definitely need to fix the main page; this much, we agree with. Why is it just Kingdom Hearts and like... a dozen spirits from games from 2023 onwards, when they remembered they could still add new Spirits.)
EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock! as a famed Smash Coverage Hater, this suggested cut feels like too much
Nintendo101 (talk) Too broad.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per Hewer et al. There's too many layers to this situation.
Polley001 (talk) Per all, pretty much. I hadn't considered how Mario stuff affects non-Mario Spirits, so I agree that this is not the right way to go about reducing our Smash coverage.
Shadow2 (talk) I guess Wario is no longer a Mario character? _/s
Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.

World of Comments

@Hewer Maybe we could retain information about the spirits that are related to Mario in some way in a separate table? That would make them stand out way more than currently when they are lumped with a lot of spirits that don't pertain to Mario in any way — aside from "they can be used by Mario characters", an argument that feels to me a bit too shallow to justify keeping that much Mario-unrelated info on the Mario Wiki. Jdtendo^(T|C) 06:51, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

I don't hate that idea, but the argument of "Mario characters can interact with this thing" is the reason for much of our Smash coverage, like the lists of fighters, stages, bosses, items, Assist Trophies, Final Smashes, Mii Fighter costumes and so on. Since the majority of spirits actually do have direct Mario relevance as I explained in my vote, I find it a bit weird to target them first. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 08:03, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

As an alternative idea, perhaps we could incorporate spirit coverage into crossover articles in some way. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 08:08, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

@Jdtendo A page with a list of Spirits that use Mario fighters could work. I'm In favor of that, actually, and it would please both those who support trimming the Spirit pages down and those who wish to keep the Spirits due to it being Mario related. MightyMario (talk)

14:28, July 9, 2025 (EDT)

Decide how to handle images on Mario Party board pages

I kind of alluded to this proposal in Jdtendo's proposal, but I feel like this also needs to be addressed. I was actually planning on doing this earlier, but I didn't know when would be a good time to do so (and I kind of forgot about this) until said proposal was made.

Regardless, the current way that most Mario Party board pages have their images shown is inconsistent. Specifically, the board logo and the image used for other modes (like solo modes). In the Nintendo 64 entries and Mario Party 8, the logos jut into the page, as explained in Jdtendo's proposal, and Salmancer's comment, "Article text starts at the leftmost point of the content area. That's just natural reading, and it makes sense to move the logos away to adhere to it." Jdtendo's proposal aims at moving the logos for consoles to the infobox, which I have planted by support vote in (you can also see the allusion to this proposal there). However, while moving the logo to the infobox will be an option, there will also be options to move them to the gallery (the board pages for the Nintendo GameCube entries and Mario Party DS do this already), put logos that aren't in the top left in the top left (like the Nintendo 64 entries and Mario Party 8), move them below the infobox (like with the Duel Battle image for Koopa's Tycoon Town), or to just leave them as is (jutted logos will remain jutted and gallery logos will remain in the gallery).

Similarly, the solo mode image locations are also inconsistent. Mario Party 5 and Mario Party 8 have them in the main bulk of the page, while Mario Party 7 has them in the infobox. The options to move these image locations will remain the same as logos. You can see examples for both here (I will make every possible version there later).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)

Logos

Move logo to the gallery 2-4-1-0-0
4 out of 5 voters (80%) approve the first place option.

Deadline: ~~July 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ ~~Extended to July 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Extended to July 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Move them to the infobox

Jdtendo (talk) Primary choice. I think that highlighting the logo of the board makes sense considering that the board image usually does not feature the board's logo, contrary to the boxart of a game.
DrBaskerville (talk) Per Jdtendo.

Move them to the gallery

Altendo (talk) I prefer moving the logos here. Some pages already do this. I am not against moving them to the infobox, but if game logos don't appear there, I don't see why board logos should unless there is no image of a board (and why wouldn't there be any?). EDIT ON 07:48, June 27, 2025 (EDT): Rainbow Road Drifter's point about SMP not even having logos is also valid.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Board logos don't add anything to the infobox, and some games (Super Mario Party for example) do not even have logos for their boards, so their infoboxes would be inconsistent.
Jdtendo (talk) Secondary choice.
Arend (talk) I think for this case, we should take a page from any of the Mario Kart: Double Dash!! courses. That game also featured unique logos for each course, yet for those articles (e.g. Peach Beach), the logos have been stuffed in their respective galleries. Besides, the board logos in Mario Party 8 were all the same, and those in Mario Party 4 and Mario Party 10 only had unique backgrounds.

Move them below the infobox

DrBaskerville (talk) Second choice. I think it's a shame to just put them on a gallery page rather than the main page where they will receive more visibility.

Move them to the left side
Keep them where they are

Solo mode images

Move solo mode image to the infobox 5-0-0-0-0
Deadline: ~~July 10, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ ~~Extended to July 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT~~ Extended to July 24, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Move them to the infobox

Altendo (talk) I like how Mario Party 7's board pages handle these the best.
Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Makes sense if the layout is different in Solo Mode.
Jdtendo (talk) Per Rainbow Road Drifter.
Arend (talk) Per all
DrBaskerville (talk) Per all.

Move them to the gallery
Move them below the infobox
Move them to the left side
Keep them where they are

(IMAGE GOES HERE) Comments

Moving sections

canceled by proposer
There are two sections that have been renamed as of this year: "Note" and "Multimedia". "Notes" and "Multimedia" were originally "Trivia" and "List of x media", respectfully. What I'm proposing is to rename at least one of these sections back to their original names, since "Notes" implies that there is no trivia, and "Multimedia" is misleading, as it can lead people to think that are images in there too. Proposer: Tails101 (talk)

Move "Notes" back to "Trivia"

Deadline: August 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Notes are Trivia! (support)

Tails101 (talk) Notes should be simply "trivia".

Notes are Notes! (oppose)

Camwoodstock (talk) We think that the "notes" name is fine. We don't really see how it's "too vague", as functionally, the notes section, while similar to a trivia section, is used rather differently from one. And to be honest, we're worried this might be moreso a matter of personal preference.
Mario (talk) Here is the proposal that passed and renamed the sections[1]. Please make a solid reverting the change rather than basing it off narrow and incorrect semantics.
Altendo (talk) Per the proposal that moved it to "Notes".
YoYo (talk) I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this proposal gets vetoed very soon. Undoing two proposals that passed very recently is obscene because we had reasoning for our picks then, why would we not have them now?

Move "Multimedia" back to "media"

Deadline: August 8, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Multimedia is just "media" (support)

Tails101 (talk) Multimedia should just be "media".

Multimedia is just "Multimedia" (oppose)

Camwoodstock (talk) In addition to our concerns for Notes, how is "Multimedia" misleading? Or, any more misleading than just "media" is? They contain both audio and video, even if video is less common on the wiki, hence, multimedia. As for "someone may assume images are there", that is why the gallery, something directly image-related, is listed first. Media: namespace is also physically impossible in MediaWiki, so, no dice there. The idea of moving those back to a "List of x media" format is an even harder sell, frankly.
Altendo (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
Mario (talk) Just busywork for the sake of busywork.
YoYo (talk) same as what I said in the trivia section
Salmancer (talk) Genuinely not a improvement. "List of x media" prompts the exact same "does it have images?" ambiguity as "multimedia". I'm not sure there's any better word choice here, though if anyone comes up with something I'd consider it.

Comments

@Camwoodstock: "functionally, the notes section, while similar to a trivia section, is used rather differently from one" - Really? As far as I can tell, the only actual change that resulted from that trivia proposal was having a bot change every instance of "Trivia" to "Notes". Even the policy page had no change besides swapping out the word used. (This does confuse me a bit on what the point of the proposal was, but it seems like the main goal was to avoid stigma of the word "trivia", so I guess it achieved that.)
@YoYo: Why would this proposal be vetoed? It doesn't break the rules in any way, it's pretty common for a proposal to reverse the decision of a previous one. I believe a bad proposal that doesn't break the rules should fail rather than being vetoed. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:48, July 25, 2025 (EDT)

Yeah, if it's more than four weeks after a proposal has passed, you can create a new proposal to overturn it if needed. See Rule 9: "Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago." The targeted proposal is from February this year. I also generally favor voting down proposals you don't agree with over vetoing them.

It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:07, July 25, 2025 (EDT)

I believe the text of my proposal laid out my rationale quite clearly but anyways, nah, " it seems like the main goal was to avoid stigma of the word "trivia"" wasn't the main goal. My gist is that there are interesting and valid statements about things from an out-of-universe perspective that weren't written down because there was no clear spot to put them so people would just not include them or awkwardly shove them in inelegant spots. I'll point to the example of the Cackletta page, where a statement detailing how the final boss of M&S is conceptually similar to an earlier non-Mario game AlphaDream made was once awkwardly shoved at the start of the "Battle" section. I did say I suspect switching to something more formal sounding would less incite people to write contrived statements like "Daisy is the 4th female video game character with brown hair" but that wasn't the main thrust. --Glowsquid (talk) 18:25, July 25, 2025 (EDT)

Decide how to handle music with more than one title on Nintendo Music

Keep current music naming policy 5-8
So Mario Kart 64 being added to Nintendo Music has added an interesting wrinkle to the music policy that I think is worth discussing. Sometimes, for not entirely clear reasons, Nintendo Music will list the same track multiple times with different titles for each. The de facto precedent has been to use the "foremost" title in these cases; for example, DS Waluigi Pinball (theme) and Toad Circuit (theme). It isn't entirely consistent and requires some subjectivity, but I think it's acceptable when no other official title for the theme exists.

However, there is the case of Luigi Raceway (theme), which is listed on Nintendo Music as "Luigi Raceway", "Mario Raceway", "Royal Raceway", and "Wario Stadium". While its current name follows the precedent (Luigi Raceway is the one listed on the game's Top Tracks), I had created an earlier proposal to move the theme to its official name on the Mario Kart 64 Race Tracks soundtrack: "3 Raceways/Wario Stadium". This track name encompasses all of the names on Nintendo Music and does so rather elegantly. It was only moved back thanks to catastrophic timing on my part.

There was some discussion on the Discord on how to handle this, since nobody really seems content with cherry-picking one of the Nintendo Music names when a good name that covers all of the topics at hand is available. This leads to my proposal, to add to MarioWiki:Naming: if Nintendo Music uses multiple names for a track, and a more encompassing name from a lower-priority source exists, the more encompassing name should be used. I think that's relatively simple. I can see the arguments for both sides, but I think this solution would help clean up cases where Nintendo Music's approach is confusing while not interfering with titles where there are no other official choices.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: July 29, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per proposal. Nintendo Music is obviously being a lot more utilitarian with these tracks than you would be on a typical soundtrack release. My issue isn't at all that these titles aren't representative of every context where the track plays in the game - it's that Nintendo Music is duplicating identical tracks and using multiple titles simultaneously for one game. To me, that says they care a little more about representing the contents of the game than the soundtrack itself. That being the case, it seems odd to pick "Luigi Raceway" and say that's what Nintendo definitively wants the track to be called when they're also calling it "Mario Raceway" and "Wario Stadium" and "Royal Raceway" in the exact same list - and I know we can get into the nitty-gritty of what's in what playlists but it still doesn't sit right with me. For other games like Mario Kart 7 it's the only source we've got so we have to grin and bear it, but in the case of Mario Kart 64 we already have Mario Kart 64 Race Tracks applying a single title to the composition.
Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us. Why use many name when one name do trick? No that's not a typo, that's just a reference. Per proposal.
Tails777 (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
DrBaskerville (talk) Per all, though I understand the concern with the subjectivity that comes with "a more encompassing name" from lower-priority sources. Still, in cases wherein there is debate on the appropriate name, proposals can resolve any such disputes, as they do already.

Oppose

Hewer (talk) I think this is too close to deciding not to use a name due to personally disliking it. I don't understand why "Luigi Raceway" is being considered an insufficient name when naming a theme after one area where it plays is an extremely common thing in the Mario franchise (no one's upset about "Super Bell Hill" not being called "Super Bell Hill/Mount Beanpole"). I also think "a more encompassing name" is much too subjective. Captain Toad's theme has two names on Nintendo Music ("The Toad Brigade" and "It's Captain Toad!"), but also has another name from a lower-priority source ("Toad Brigade Member"), so would this proposal apply to that? Why did we make a policy for naming music consistently (with Nintendo Music as the highest-priority source) if we're going to immediately break consistency and decide that some of Nintendo Music's names should be ignored because we like the ones from the other sources better? I also think that a high-priority source using multiple names for a subject is a strange reason to resort to a lower-priority source. Imagine if an enemy had two different names mentioned within a game; do you think we'd pick one of the two to use, or go with a different third name from some guidebook?
Wilben (talk) I fully agree with Hewer. This seems too oddly specific of a circumstance if you ask me. At the moment, this proposal would only really effect the Mario Kart 64 musical themes, so making a new rule just for the soundtrack of one game seems very counterintuitive to me. There's also the fact that which is considered the "better" name is extremely subjective.
Arend (talk) I already stated in the prior proposal that I personally think "3 Raceways & Wario Stadium" is a stupid name, and will add that I find it rather clunky and cumbersome (and therefor vehemently disagree that it's "rather elegantly"); the only reason I did support it was that it was the best official title for the track we've got. And now we've got better official track names. I don't see the issue with using these instead. Per Hewer and Wilben. Also, I am under the impression that the proposal was solely made for this specific music track and doesn't really take other music tracks into account, as Hewer and Wilben explained. The only reason I would want to support this is for track titles that are factually incorrect (e.g. how Nintendo Music calls the main theme of Luigi's Mansion "Title Theme (Humming)" when it doesn't even contain the melody of the game's actual "Title Theme" at all), and not for entirely subjective reasons such as "I don't like how we have to call the Wario Stadium theme 'Luigi Raceway'".
Altendo (talk) Per Hewer and Arend.
MrHonor (talk) Per all. Picking from a lower-priority source because multiple names exist in the higher-priority one feels strange and even somewhat biased. I can practically estimate this will only affect Mario Kart-series soundtracks because of how the app developers are going with them currently, but I see no reason to delve further into what will possibly be cherry-picking conundrums if there ever comes the day where supposedly "Peach Circuit (theme)," "Luigi Circuit (Mario Kart: Double Dash!! theme)," "Figure-8 Circuit (theme)" and "Luigi Circuit (Mario Kart Wii theme)" article names become negated for something officially lesser.
Rykitu (talk) Per Hewer.
yoyo music (talk) Per hewer
Nintendo101 (talk) Per Hewer.

Comments

I would like to touch on the reasons I believe Nintendo Music handles shared Mario Kart course themes this way. Race courses in the Mario Kart series tend to have a strong and persisting individuality to them, and taking a strong stance as to which specific course a shared theme belongs to (whether through the track's name or through its associated screenshot) would create limitations. For example, under the current search system, a search for "Royal Raceway" only returns versions specific to that track. Similarly, the character playlists for Luigi and Peach feature the tracks "Luigi Raceway" and "Royal Raceway" respectively, which would not have the same effect were they combined into a track named "3 Raceways/Wario Stadium" with a screenshot of Mario Raceway, for example. While they could probably implement workarounds to these limitations if they wanted to, I personally think they were correct to prioritize the individuality of each race course even if the actual music is exactly the same.

As for why I have yet to vote, I don't particularly feel like either option will lead to things feeling consistent. While I think the "3 Raceways/Wario Stadium" name would be the right move, this proposal passing would presumably lead to "Waluigi Pinball" retaining that name while "Toad Circuit" would likely become just "Circuit", whereas I'd personally much prefer they be referred to as "Waluigi Pinball/Wario Stadium" and "Toad Circuit/Mario Circuit". Polley001 (talk) 13:08, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

I think I would also prefer that, but I did point out that this would specifically exclude Toad Circuit, since arrangements are excluded if the original theme has its own name. I do agree on the lack of consistency and this is something I discussed in the Discord as well. In this case, I'm trying to not really rock the boat, because I imagine the current music naming policy took a consensus to reach, while having an acceptable solution for edge cases like this. DryKirby64 (talk) 13:16, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer and @Wilben: To address the first point, Captain Toad's theme would still be kept at "The Toad Brigade" because that's the name of the theme from the original game, and obviously that takes priority over reuses. For the second point... I mean, either way this case is cherry-picking which name is preferable, right? I figure it would at least be good to go with the less confusing name rather than the one picked because we arbitrarily decided it was more important than the others. As for the final point, I don't think this will be specific to Mario Kart 64, as it's entirely possible this will happen for other games because of how confusing Nintendo Music is with whether it decides to use multiple names or not. DryKirby64 (talk) 13:22, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

Well of course picking a name to use when multiple names exist inherently requires making a decision to favour one of them over the others, but I thought that was the reason the naming policy was recently updated to have a section about musical themes, so that we can be consistent in the way we pick names. I feel that this proposal trying to make an exception to that just because we prefer a lower-priority name defeats the point of the new policy. I also think it's bizarre to argue that Luigi Raceway is a "confusing" name for the music track that plays on Luigi Raceway (I certainly find it less confusing than "3 Raceways/Wario Stadium" myself); again, no one is confused by the fact that Mount Beanpole's music is called "Super Bell Hill". (For the record, as I argued here, I think it's reasonable to say that Nintendo Music treats Luigi Raceway as the "primary" name for the track, since it's the one mentioned in the recent highlights section and included in playlists like "Top Tracks" and "Selects".) Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 13:36, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

Mmhm, yeah, I think that's a reasonable argument. I do think the issue is that it's not like Nintendo Music lists "Super Bell Hill" and "Mount Beanpole" as separate tracks, for example, so it can be difficult to draw the line as to which name is preferable. I don't think Luigi Raceway is a terrible name for the theme now that it has official precedent, I think I just want to iron it out so there's no confusion moving forward. DryKirby64 (talk) 13:42, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

Well, Super Mario 3D World isn't on Nintendo Music yet. But my point is more that I don't understand why a track having a name that mentions only one of the courses it plays in is suddenly confusing and problematic now when this has been pretty standard practice throughout the history of the franchise. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 13:51, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

Fully agree with Hewer on this one. Musical themes being named after solely one of the multiple areas it plays in its debut game is very common in the Mario franchise. Even within the Mario Kart series, "Starting Grid (Time Trials / Battle)" is named after starting a Time Trial or Battle Mode, despite also playing when starting a VS Race. Wilben (talk) 13:56, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

This isn't what's being debated. It isn't that the track is named after only one course—as you mentioned, this is SOP—but rather because the track is named after every course. The track is named "Luigi Raceway", "Mario Raceway", "Royal Raceway", and "Wario Stadium" all at once. This is a relatively unique situation; it isn't comparable to other cases where a track that plays in multiple levels is only named after one level. It requires some sort of consensus on how to handle it. DryKirby64 (talk) 14:03, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

I suppose so, but I think that "our highest-priority source has multiple names so let's pick the one it uses the most" is more logical than "our highest-priority source has multiple names so let's ignore all of them". Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 14:08, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

That's reasonable! That's why it's an option on the poll. I just wanted to be clear on what the proposal is about, since both options were discussed as potential ways to go about it. DryKirby64 (talk) 14:11, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time: So do you agree with the new part of the naming policy saying we should prioritise Nintendo Music's names? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:59, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

Yes, I think that's fine. Aside from what I would consider mishandling of the Mario Kart soundtracks (and my personal preference on the track titles for 64) it's generally a solid resource. I will say that, while I generally favor consistency for wiki decisions, I recognize that consistency is only useful as long as it's beneficial and I don't support consistency for its own sake. As long as exceptions are well-reasoned (and, ideally, documented on the policy page with an explanation, which this sounds like it would be) it's fine to break away from time to time. Priority exceptions are already something we can do under the regular naming policy anyway. --

Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 17:11, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

I don't think we should let personal preferences or subjective dislikes get in the way of enforcing a consistent and accurate naming policy. If consistency isn't desirable, I don't see what the purpose of the new policy is. (Also, in response to your vote, the name "Luigi Raceway" is the one displayed front and centre in the recent highlights blurb at the top of the app's home page, so I wouldn't call going with that "getting into the nitty-gritty".) Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 18:14, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

This has nothing to do with my own preferences, in a vacuum I don't care if "Luigi Raceway" is the name of the page or not. I just think Nintendo Music's approach in this specific case is too convoluted to comfortably prioritize over other acceptable sources. Like I said, I generally value consistency on the wiki but I don't think it's good to be applying guidelines so rigidly that we can't ever make any curatorial decisions - again, source priority exceptions for names are already something we can and do apply. --

Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 18:29, July 15, 2025 (EDT)

I don't necessarily agree with relying on Nintendo Music for naming for its own sake but in the specific case of Luigi Raceway, I do think this one at least has Super Smash Bros. games going for it, as that music track is named "Luigi Circuit" and chances might be good it's more recognizable and searchable than 3 Raceways/Wario Stadium. That being said, I think Nintendo Music isn't doing exactly a good job with from what I'm seeing. For instance, "Title Theme (Humming)" is a suboptimal name for the Luigi's Mansion theme, and it doesn't do our wiki favors to stick with this one based on a music app that has different priorities than a wiki imo; lord have mercy if Nintendo Music hypothetically arbitrarily went for "The Secret Aquarium" rather than "Dire, Dire Docks (theme)" despite the latter being much more commonly used for some reason despite most people being exposed to Jolly Roger Bay's theme due to it being earlier in the game. I'm expressing some frustration at the cards we're being dealt with here, like do we use lousy names from this app in favor of descriptive names from much more widely exposed games like Super Smash Bros.? For maintaining a wiki, it's not always an easy answer in my honest opinion. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 02:30, July 16, 2025 (EDT)

I think this concern is a bit moot, as to my knowledge, games that already had a soundtrack release typically use those same names on Nintendo Music (including Dire, Dire Docks), with these Mario Kart courses being an exception rather than the rule. And while I do think we should prioritise accuracy over using well-known names, the fact that a name for a music track was used in Nintendo's official music app could cause that name to gain some popularity anyway. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 06:34, July 16, 2025 (EDT)

Permit creation of redirects with fan-nicknames for official content

vetoed by the administrators
Proposal lacked a proper status quo option, in violation of rule 23.
There have been times when we removed redirects just for being "fan-nicknames"; we deleted the redirects MP11, MP12, and MP13 for that reason. Now, what I'm proposing is to allow redirects of "fan-nicknames" to lead to official content ?(e.g allow MP11 to lead to Super Mario Party) as long as they have a source. If they don't have a source for the "fan-nicknames", they can't be used as redirects.

Proposer: ~~PawPatroler (talk)~~ (blocked)
Deadline: August 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Fan-nicknames for redirects can be used... with a source. (support)

~~#PawPatroler (talk) Per proposal.~~

Fan-nicknames for redirects can't be used... even with a source. (oppose)

Camwoodstock (talk) ...How does one "cite" a fan nickname? Then it'd just be an official name, wouldn't it? This kind of resolves itself.
Altendo (talk) Per Camwoodstock. If those nicknames aren't used, they are not worthy of being redirects, and if they are used officially... well, they're just official nicknames, which completely moots the "fan nickname" point. Hewer's point in the "delete Mario Party redirects proposal" was because of an official mention in Super Mario Party about it being the "eleventh party", which is not a fan nickname as it is officially said in-game. That said, "MP11" was, in my opinion, still viable for deletion as Super Mario Party was never directly called "Mario Party 11"; it could be reconsidered in the future, especially since fan nicknames can be used in official media in future games.
DryBonesBandit (talk) PER ALL. This proposal asks for the impossible with "citing a fan-name", and I struggle to think it was made in good faith considering behind-the-scenes things done by the user (Not saying it wasn’t, but that it’s hard to think of it that way.)

Comments

There is no rule against using fan names as redirects, those specific Mario Party ones were removed by a proposal. And what do you mean by "a source" in the context of fan names? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:39, July 29, 2025 (EDT)

If there's no rule against that, aren't both of these options technically policy changes? Support requires fan names to be sourced and "opposition" removes fan name–based redirects. I think this proposal unintentionally violates rule 23. Ahemtoday (talk) 02:36, July 30, 2025 (EDT)