View source for MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80

{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/Header}}
===Create a reminder for trimming audio===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|5-8|Do not create template}}
So, if you don't know, we have a policy which prevents audio files from being more than 30 seconds long, and must have fadeout. Right now, there is no reminder template. However, for many other upload issues, we have a reminder template. This reminder could also be given through {{tem|Reminder}}, but all other case-specific reminders can also be given through {{tem|Reminder}}. This could be good because these reminders usually tell the reciever '''how''' to follow these policies. The following will be what the reminder will look like:

{| class="{{#if: {{{overturned|}}}|expandable|notice-template reminder}}" style="background:white;margin: .15em;border:1px solid black;padding: .5em 1em;border-radius:1em" width="100%"
{{!}}-
|-
|
|Dear {{BASEPAGENAME}}.

Thank you for your recent uploads. When uploading [[Help:Media file|audio files]], please trim the audio to 30 seconds long and apply a fadeout. If you don't own software capable of preforming these actions, go {{plain link|1=[https://www.audacityteam.org/ here]}} to install a tool capable of doing this. If these actions continue, you will recieve a warning.
|}

'''Proposer''': {{User|Conkdor}} (blocked)<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>November 1, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Extended to November 8, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support!====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sorbetti}} Just because it doesn't happen very often doesn't mean it can't happen. This saves time from having to create a specific reminder, and I'm fine with that. This brings a benefit, a very small one, but it does. Why would it be beneficial for the wiki to oppose this benefit?
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal. I used to upload audio file for the Score theme from ''Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3'', but the file ended up being deleted due to a copyright violation.

<s>{{User|Conkdor}} Per proposal. (Proposer's note: I give full rights to the user implementing the proposal to modify this template in '''any''' way.)</s>

====Oppose!====
#{{User|Altendo}} Admittedly, this does come down to personal preference, but I don't feel like a notice template is necessary for ''every'' infraction. I feel like {{tem|reminder}} (or other warning templates, seeing how this infraction counts as most unlisted ones that constitute a {{tem|warning}}) with a brief description is good enough for these types of notices. The other issue is that the template shown here isn't as sophisticated as the other upload templates (admittedly, it doesn't have to be), which further adds to my point about how just a warning (of some sort) template and a short message afterwards should be enough. This last point is admittedly a nitpick, but I also don't think that a fadeout ''is required''; it's just recommended, and only the 30-second maximum length is required.
#{{User|PanchamBro}} Honestly the fact that a scenario like this doesn't occur frequently, not to mention that this isn't much a serious infraction than say "creating three sockpuppet accounts" makes me question if this is necessary at all. Illustrating my point further, I've checked the logs for the past month or so, and none of the uploads indicate that they needed to be replaced due to being over 30 seconds. There is some awareness of this rule, even if you think there isn't one. Not to mention I'm put off by the wording of this template, indicating that you "will receive a warning" when on ''some'' user notice templates say that "a warning will be issued", a tonal difference that just screams aggressive compared to being fairly neutral. I know you said people could change this template to fix the wording, I understand this. But at the end of the day, this feels like newbie biting. From my experience...or anyone who had to deal with [[Template:Userspace]] before its repurposing, a informal reminder about audio trimming is better than a template itself.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Especially now that the to-do bar exists to basically fire a signal flare anytime someone fails to properly trim audio so somebody can quickly open Audacity and fix it, we're not quite sure if this is a common enough occurrence to warrant a whole template ''just'' dedicated to telling people not to do it. As the ones that watch said to-do bar, you usually only get an incident like this once every other month, and it's only like, 1-3 files anyways...
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{user|Mario jc}} From what I've seen, this hasn't happened too often; in fact, almost every new upload I've seen has been 30 seconds or less (at one point I even wondered if there was a system in place that prevented media files from uploading if it went over). I've also viewed these notices as quick ways to point the user to certain rules/guidelines without having to manually type a message out; I don't see them as something formal in place of a {{tem|reminder}} and that they should go straight to a {{tem|warning}} if it happens again. [[Template:Threeaccounts-reminder|Excessive account creation]], on the other hand, does happen often and there's more information that needs to be communicated to the user about it, hence the template.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} A lot of new users may not know that audio files can only be 30 seconds long. Plus, a user uploading an audio file for 31 seconds isn't a huge issue. Also, this is not an issue I see occurring a lot. We've definitely made new reminder templates for things that occur often (such as edit flooding and using italics), but uploading an audio file that's too long isn't notable enough for a template dedicated to it yet.
#{{User|Ihavenoideaboyo}} I don't really see the urgency; this seems like a well established rule that newbies would easily grasp after seeing most songs be 30 seconds long. If there's a slip up, a simple audio trim and casual user page notice should do things just fine.
#{{User|Drago}} Per Mario jc.

====The comments!====
At least for the files themselves, isn't this what <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Media-length]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> is for? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:11, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
:{{@|Camwoodstock}} no, this is the reminder for uploading untrimmed audio files. {{User:Conkdor/sig}} 16:41, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
:I think the idea is for this to be a [[:Category:User notices|user notice]], to be put on the talk pages of users who upload untrimmed audio, instead of using a generic reminder template. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:06, October 18, 2025 (EDT)

Has this been a recent recurring problem we need to address, or will this be an anticipated problem in the future? {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:56, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
:: [[user:Mario|@Mario]] A problem that actually just happened today. It doesn't happen very often, but neither does [[Template:Threeaccounts-reminder|people making 3 sockpuppets]]. {{User:Conkdor/sig}} 18:49, October 18, 2025 (EDT)
:::{{@|PanchamBro}} What do you mean "it's not as serious"? If we don't quickly trim untrimmed audio, we could get '''sued'''! {{User:Conkdor/sig}} 07:22, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
::::A simple audio gaffe (one that is over 30 seconds) might be a copyright issue, but can be easily addressed by anyone. A sockpuppet on the other hand can be a major hurdle. From new accounts made numerous times for some reason, to some socks not even making themselves known until they reveal themselves or someone eventually finds out who they are. Of course, an easy way to tell is to see if their editing patterns match, but I find the issue of sockpuppets '''way''' more serious in terms of conduct compared to someone not trimming the audio and posting the full music. This, by the way, is in your response to your comment about how infrequent "making 3 sockpuppets" are in comparison to "not trimming audio correctly", but the former is much, much understandable to warrant a user notice. {{User:PanchamBro/sig}} 10:57, October 20, 2025 (EDT)
===Distinguish more clearly between full British English localizations and simple English text differences in European versions===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|1-1-4-0-8|Adopt Option 5}}
A while back, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/74#Standardize_the_use_of_.22English.22.2C_.22English_.28United_States.29.22_and.2For_.22English_.28United_Kingdom.29.22_as_languages_in_game_infoboxes|I challenged this wiki's inconsistent use]] of "English", "English (United States)" and "English (United Kingdom)" as language identifiers in game infoboxes, and it was ultimately decided that when the English scripts were largely identical between regions, they should simply be listed as "English", regardless if they were still stored separately in internal data and which language files were loaded were technically still dependent on system region settings (or the regional copy of the game itself in many cases, particularly back when region-free releases were not yet the norm). 

However, despite my previous efforts, it largely remains the case in practice that when the English-language versions differ ''at all'' between regions, they are considered separate "American English" and "British English" versions, even when the actual differences have little to nothing to do with the actual linguistic differences between American English and British English. [[Koopa Kid]] having a different name in European versions, including in English, from ''[[Mario Party 4]]'' up to his final physical appearance in ''[[Mario Party 7]]'' is seemingly enough to qualify all of those games as having "English (United Kingdom)" or "British English" versions, for instance. ''[[Mario Pinball Land]]'', ''[[Yoshi Topsy-Turvy]]'', ''[[Mario Tennis: Power Tour]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Strikers]]'' having different titles in Europe are also seemingly what qualifies them as having "English (United Kingdom)" as an available language, despite having little no significant regional differences between English versions beyond the title and, for the former two, the respective European or "British English" titles simply matching the Japanese one instead of the North American one.

The aforementioned examples I gave also notably predate when Nintendo of Europe actually started regularly doing "UK English adaptations" of Nintendo of America's US English localizations, or partially to wholly separate translations from Japanese into British English in the case of some games. That practice is believed to have been largely kicked off by [[List of controversies#Mario Party 8|a certain language-related snafu]] regarding ''[[Mario Party 8]]''{{'}}s release in the UK that ended up prompting an immediate recall. And while it ended up lasting well into the Nintendo 3DS and Wii U eras, this practice had largely stopped as a regular occurrence by the release of the Nintendo Switch. However, that hasn't completely stopped there from being some mostly arbitrary naming differences between English versions in North America and Europe (with Oceania also inheriting Europe's differences since their system regions are typically grouped together), such as Nintendo of Europe insisting on calling [[Toady]] "Magikoopa" in English in recent ''[[Mario Party (series)|Mario Party]]'' games for some reason (to match the other European-language localizations, I suppose?). You also have NoE continuing to add the word "Football" into their title of the most recent ''[[Mario Strikers]]'' game, and seemingly changing a few instances of "soccer" to "football" in the English script to match, but that's not quite the same as the full UK English translation that ''[[Mario Strikers Charged|Mario Strikers Charged Football]]'' got, is it?

So my baseline proposal is this: when those minor differences are present and need to be acknowledged, but the "British English" script is not actually in full-on British English, don't call it that. Call it something like "(the English script used in) the European version" (or "the PAL version", if you prefer, for older home console games that were released when that television standard was still largely a thing over there). I know this term makes many of us wince, but even "the European English version" or "the European English script" would be technically more accurate in a sense. Game infoboxes would also not automatically list "English (United Kingdom)" for simple naming or text differences between English versions; simply "English" would be the only listed language, as when there are no meaningful differences as all.
 
As for what still should be classified as "British English" or "English (United Kingdom)" specifically, I have three potential criteria in mind:
#'''Only use "British English" when actual British English is used''': The key determiner here would be a fairly consistent presence of British English spellings in particular in the European version when the language is set to English, even if the localization is otherwise rather similar to the American English one. Examples of this include ''[[WarioWare: D.I.Y.]]'' and the original Wii version of ''[[Super Mario Galaxy 2]]''. More general vocabulary differences, such as the use of "football" instead of "soccer", as well as noticeable differences in things like punctuation placement between English versions that reflect differing American and British English norms may be used as supporting evidence, but ''should not'' be the sole determiner as there are cases where minor changes are like this are made to English scripts between regional versions, but American English is still predominately used regardless, like in ''[[Paper Mario]]'', ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'', the aforementioned ''Mario Strikers'' series apart from ''Charged'' and the ''[[Super Smash Bros. (series)|Super Smash Bros.]]'' series apart from ''[[Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|for Nintendo 3DS]]'' and ''[[Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|for Wii U]]''.
#'''Only use "British English" if the above is the case ''or'' Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present''': Since "English (UK/Australia)" is now a dedicated language setting on the Nintendo Switch 2, this would include all games (including Nintendo Switch 2 Editions) specifically for that system if there are any text differences from changing said language setting, as well as ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'' since it's an in-game setting for all games included, plus [https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/super-mario-party-switch/ any games] that Nintendo of America lists as having British English as a supported language on their website, again, when there are actual text differences present between the two regions. This would also include games that specifically mention a "UK English" localization in their credits or have a "UK", "en-GB" or equivalent language code denoted in internal data (something like "EU_English" or "EUen" though, more common in recent Nintendo games, does not itself count as I will go into in a moment), as long as this reflects ''some'' text difference(s) between regions beyond date formatting, as per the de facto status quo. I was also considering counting when the in-game language selection menu in European versions uses the Union Jack flag to denote English, but I will currently omit this as criteria given how commonplace this was in the past (and the English language did of course originate what is now part of the United Kingdom at any rate), leading to as many false or misleading positives as there are currently. If you believe this criteria should be counted, please do let me know in the comments.
#'''Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely''': When it comes to actual linguistic differences in spelling and such, it can naturally still be referred to, but "European" and "PAL" will be preferred when referring to broader regional game versions and English script differences between them that don't strictly reflect the linguistic differences between American and British English. If the English-language versions in North America and Europe have any notable differences, "English (Europe)" will be used to differentiate the latter in game infoboxes instead of "English (United Kingdom)". [https://www.nintendo.com/jp/lang/detail.html?id=70010000084607&lngtab=nintendo This also reflects how Nintendo themselves list supported languages for their games on their Japanese website], as well as the most common label they use for "European English" localization data internally (typically "EU_English" or "EUen").

Edit: Added two extra variant options based on private feedback from CarlosYoshiBoi. "Common words and/or accents localized" would count things like changing "soccer" to "football" in ''[[Mario Strikers: Battle League]]'' or Wii Fit Trainer having a distinctly American or British English accent in ''Super Smash Bros. Ultimate'' depending on region as those games having both American and British English support. This would also include certain sensitive terms specific to British English being changed in the English script used in the European version of a game, like the aforementioned ''Mario Party 8'' situation.

'''Proposer''': {{User|PaperSplash}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 13, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Option 1: Only use "British English" when actual British English is used====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} First choice; it's the most straightforward and least misleading approach, even if it doesn't entirely match Nintendo's own.

====Option 2: Only use "British English" if the above is the case ''or'' Nintendo does so themselves and there are English text differences present====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Third choice; the most consistent with Nintendo's (or rather, Nintendo of America's) own public-facing listings on their website and in language settings, but also the most arbitrary and misleading approach aside from our existing one.

====Option 3: Phase out the use of "British English" in reference to in-game English text differences in Europe entirely====
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Second choice; it allows us to largely keeps our existing approach while using more strictly accurate terminology, and "European English" or "English (Europe)" is also more closely in line with Nintendo's own labeling on their Japanese website and in internal data.
#{{User|Altendo}} There are cases when there are text differences between NTSC and PAL versions, but most of them don't actually change that much text, not even using British/European spellings (take [[Mario Finale#Super Smash Bros. for Wii U|Mario Finale]] for example). I think that replacing "British English" with "European version" or "PAL version" makes more sense, as these are regional, not necessarily ''linguistic'', changes (I would support "PAL version" as these "British spellings" are also used in [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/PAL-NTSC-SECAM.svg other PAL countries], as I showed [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/76#Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"|here]]; NTSC is mainly used in East Asia and most of the Americas, while PAL is used in most other places, including Australia and New Zealand, making PAL the preferred prefix for me), and I would also like to mention that Nintendo of Europe is [https://www.nintendo.co.jp/corporate/en/offices/index.html not based in Britain], which means that they might not be the only Nintendo subsidiary localizing games in PAL English, seeing how they localize for many different languages (Nintendo also has offices in Hong Kong and Australia that I can assume also localize into PAL English, alongside Mandarin and maybe Cantonese for the former). As such, I don't think "British English" or even "European English" is accurate given that these changes could be more widespread than Britain and even Europe, and I don't see these as a cultural or linguistic change, as the different texts for most games are likely just the results of Nintendo's different subsidiaries localizing games in different ways rather than sticking with language or culture.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all

====Option 4: Option 1 but also counting any common words and/or accents localized to British English====

====Option 5: Option 2 but also counting any common words and/or accents localized to British English====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I support this, partly due to changes of ''soccer'' to ''football'' in the Mario Strikers games (especially ''Battle League'') plus the Wii Fit Trainers having British English voices in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS/Wii U and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} I ''think'' this is the option I want? I believe any attempt by NoE to localize the game to a British English-speaking audience should count as the game having British English. In a best case scenario, this would consist of accurately changing American spelling to British spelling (color to colour) and American words to British words (soccer to football). Even if the localization isn't complete, like Battle League's, it still shows, to me, that they at least tried. On the other hand, games that have entirely different British scripts are not necessarily more British than games that just Ctrl+F the American script for changes.<small>This Battle League situation reminds me of arguments about how other languages will sometimes use English names due to lack of localization, and if we should count them as names in other languages or not.</small>
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per.
#{{User|YoYo}} per all
#{{User|Altendo}} Second choice, per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per LadySophie17.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} Fourth choice. It's the most popular option at the moment and I find it to be an acceptable compromise. I also think LadySophie17 made a good argument in its favor.

====Option 6: Do nothing====

====Comments====

===Decide how punctuation should be placed at the end of a quote===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|22-0-0|Adopt logical quotation}}
In English, there are several conventions for placing a period or comma at the end of text in quotation marks, including:

;Logical quotation (LQ)
:Punctuation that is not present in the original text must not be added within quotation marks. When punctuation is needed, it must be placed after the closing quotation mark.
:*He said that he was "thirsty", then asked for "something to drink".
:*The choices are "yes", "no", and "maybe".

;Typesetters' quotation (TQ)
:A period or comma must be placed within quotation marks, regardless of whether it is part of the original text.
:*He said that he was "thirsty," then asked for "something to drink."
:*The choices are "yes," "no," and "maybe."

Currently, the wiki's [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] does not specify which quotation style should be used; in fact, it uses LQ for the most part <small>(as in "''[[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Contractions|such as "it's", "can't", and "doesn't"]]''")</small>, but it also contains one occurrence of TQ <small>(in "''[[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Naming|"Internal names" or "Names in other languages," respectively]]''")</small>.
Such inconsistent quotation style can be found throughout the wiki and can lead to dispute between proponents of both styles.
This proposal intends to adopt a quotation style (preferably LQ) that we shall use on the Super Mario Wiki.

{{fake heading|4|Breakdown of both styles}}

;When quoting sentence fragments, words-as-words, or titles
:In LQ, the full stop or comma is placed after the closing quotation mark.
:*'''LQ:''' He warns not to "pinch Wendy's Pennies", because "they pinch back".
:*'''LQ:''' He said "''hakoniwa''", which is Japanese for "box garden".
:*'''LQ:''' They sing "The Pirate Scorn", "Monkey Business", and "I Wanna be a Star".
:In TQ, the full stop or comma is placed within the quotation marks.
:*'''TQ:''' He warns not to "pinch Wendy's Pennies," because "they pinch back."
:*'''TQ:''' He said "''hakoniwa''," which is Japanese for "box garden."
:*'''TQ:''' They sing "The Pirate Scorn," "Monkey Business," and "I Wanna be a Star."

;When quoting a full sentence that ends with a period
:In both styles, the period must be kept within the quotes if it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. <small>(We quote the whole sentence, which includes the period, and we don't put another period after a period.)</small>
:*'''Both styles:''' He said, "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back."
:Otherwise, the period must be omitted.
:*'''LQ:''' "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back", he said.
:*'''TQ:''' "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies, they pinch back," he said.
;When breaking up a full sentence into fragments
:Fragments that end with a comma keep it within the quotation marks.
:*'''Both styles:''' "When you pinch Wendy's Pennies," he said, "they pinch back."

;When the quote ends with a "!" or "?", or a mandatory dot (e.g., at the end of an abbreviation)
:The punctuation must be kept within the quotation marks. In both styles, the quote cannot be followed by a period.
:*'''Both styles:''' Mario said, "Okey-dokey!"
:In both styles, the mandatory dot can be followed by a comma.
:*'''LQ:''' The chapters are called "Mario Bros.", "WarioWare Inc.", and "Bowser Jr."
:*'''TQ:''' The chapters are called "Mario Bros.," "WarioWare Inc.," and "Bowser Jr."
:Exclamation and question marks can be followed by a comma in LQ, but not in TQ.
:*'''LQ:''' Mario's catchphrases are "Here we go!", "Let's-a go!", and "Aren't I done yet?"
:*'''TQ:''' Mario's catchphrases are "Here we go!" "Let's-a go!" and "Aren't I done yet?"

;When placing a <nowiki>"!", "?", ":", or ";"</nowiki> after the quote
:The punctuation must be placed after the closing quotation mark if it applies to the whole sentence. This is true in both styles, even though TQ arbitrarily refuses to apply this logic to commas and periods.
:*'''Both styles:''' I have a "great question": what is a "pizza"? It's not a "pie"; it's "something else"!

;When quoting text that itself quote text
:For accuracy, we should not modify the quotation style used within the quote.
:*'''Both styles:''' Electroquake said, "Notice I said "when", not "If" - gotta think positive."
:*'''Both styles:''' Gaz said, "I'll be "Geno," okay?"

{{fake heading|4|Why we should adopt LQ}}

While LQ is sometimes perceived as "British style" and TQ is more widespread in American English publications (especially for literature and journalism), LQ has been used for decades in technical and scientific writing even in the US (because LQ is needed for accuracy and precision), and is increasingly used by the general public (unconsciously, just because it's intuitive).
{{wp|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation inside or outside|Wikipedia uses LQ}} too and even has {{wp|Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia|a complete essay}} that explains in detail why TQ is illogical and not suited to encyclopedic writing.

The main flaw of TQ is that it distorts the quote by inserting punctuation that looks like it belongs to the original text.
LQ, on the other hand, is much more precise, unambiguous, and accurate to the source material.
For example, look at the following two sentences in LQ:
*Camille thinks that Mario's surname is "Bros".
*Camille thinks that Mario's surname is "Bros."
You can see that Camille thinks that the surname is "Bros" without a dot in the first sentence, and "Bros." with a dot in the second sentence.
When using TQ, both concepts would be written like the second sentence, which would be ambiguous.

LQ is also more intuitive to write: quoted text is a unit, consisting of words ''and'' quotation marks.
Writing the quote and ''then'' placing punctuation after it is probably what you would instinctively do, unless you've been conditioned to use TQ.
Some would say TQ looks more pleasing because LQ creates a gap below the closing quotation mark, but I personally disagree: LQ looks just fine whereas TQ just looks weird to me.
TQ is also harder to scan: when I read text that has a period or comma baked into the quote, I spontaneously assume the punctuation is actually part of the quoted text before having to mentally move the punctuation mark outside the quote.

In conclusion, we should adopt a quotation style for consistency, and adopt LQ specifically, because it is intuitive and accurate.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Jdtendo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>November 24, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on November 17, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Option 1: Adopt "logical quotation".====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} "Per proposal", I said.
#{{User|Polley001}} The logical choice has "logical" in the name, fancy that. Per this logical proposal.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} "Per proposal".
#{{User|Altendo}} "I completely agree with this", I said. "I do agree with disambiguating things".
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I prefer "LQ".<small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small>see?</small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small>
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per all, TQ never made sense to me. It especially grinds my gears when music titles get affected by it (The game has an arrangement of "Ground BGM.").
#"{{User|Ihavenoideaboyo}}." Per all. While we're at it, let's standardize the usage of the metric system over the imperial system!
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} "Per all, especially Hewer!", the Seven Stars wrote, "The conflict with music titles is a great point, honestly."
#{{user|Maw-Ray Master}} I say, "Per all".
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I think this way would be most appropriate for the scope of our coverage.
#{{user|PnnyCrygr}} "Per all", said Penny.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} THANK YOU.
#{{User|Lastro}} TQ literally doesn't exist in French, and there's a reason behind it. LQ all the way.
#{{User|Dominoes}} "Per all." – Dominoes (November 12, 2025). {{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}. Super Mario Wiki (English). Page 80. Retrieved {{#time:F j, Y}} from www.mariowiki.com.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} "Per all", I spoke breathlessly as I rushed in late.
#{{User|Sorbetti}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Dive Rocket Launcher}} Per proposunctuation.
#{{User|PaperSplash}} "Per all", as the saying goes.
#{{User|AgentParadox}} And so in came vote 21, lit up by moon and/or sun, stating the 21÷3 characters including space, and spoke them out of the face: "Per all".
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.

====Option 2: Adopt "typesetters' quotation."====

====Oppose: Do not adopt a quotation style.====

====Comments (punctuation after quotes)====
{{@|Ihavenoideaboyo}} You know, I think that's a great idea as well. I'd say that, whenever there is a measurement using a unit in the imperial system, its corresponding measurement in a metric unit system should included after it in parentheses. {{User:Maw-Ray Master/sig}} 14:21, November 10, 2025 (EST)
:I'd support this, honestly. {{User:The Dab Master/sig}} 14:52, November 10, 2025 (EST)
:Quasi-related: a loooong time back, I recall the idea was floated of giving British/American localization a first-come, first-serve basis (e.g. giving images, names and quotes priority based on whichever released first) rather than the current all American English that the wiki decided at some point. Wonder if that idea would be more favorable now. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 15:07, November 10, 2025 (EST)
::I'd much rather have a consistent preference for one over the other as we currently do, otherwise it's needlessly confusing. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:29, November 10, 2025 (EST)

If a pre-existing text uses TQ rather than LQ, should we mark it with a "<nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki>" template? [[User:Ihavenoideaboyo|Ihavenoideaboyo]] ([[User talk:Ihavenoideaboyo|talk]]) 17:56, November 10, 2025 (EST)
:It's not necessary. TQ is not unusual in general English writing, and readers might get confused about what the "[sic]" applies to. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 00:47, November 11, 2025 (EST)

{{@|LinkTheLefty}} You left a stray "<nowiki></small></nowiki>" in your vote. {{User:The Dab Master/sig}} 18:23, November 10, 2025 (EST)
:There's a perfectly <small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small><small>il</small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small></small>logical explanation for that. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 18:30, November 10, 2025 (EST)

I don't know how to vote for this. I have always used TQ for dialogue and full sentences, and LQ for everything else. '''"I don't know what to buy," Peach said. She was looking at something called an "Ultra Shroom".''' Then again, I tend to use SINGLE quotes for the latter instance anyway, and reserve quotation marks for ACTUAL quotations. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:48, November 10, 2025 (EST)
:well, no matter which wins, you're going to have to adjust anyways (unless status quo wins, of course) {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 22:00, November 12, 2025 (EST)
:I was taught to use this method of quotation for full sentences as well. Though I could also see the logic behind the other way, so I wouldn't mind adopting LQ in this scenario. [[User:Dominoes|Dominoes]] ([[User talk:Dominoes|talk]]) 22:18, November 12, 2025 (EST)

===Stop mentioning direct/enhanced ports and remasters in the "Latest appearance" section===
{{proposal outcome|failed|4-2-3-13|Do not stop}}
Simple as. I just don't think its very useful to have a character's latest appearance be listed as a direct/enhanced port or remaster of a game, because that fact should speak for itself. Some examples include games like [[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]], [[Super Mario Galaxy 1 + 2]], [[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]], [[Donkey Kong Country Returns HD]], etc. To me, it be much more informative to include the latest non-port or remaster apperance in the Latest appearance section instead. Keep in mind however, that this does not include full remakes (e.g. [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)]]) as those kinds of games are not direct ports and thus are technically not considered a "version" of the original game.

The one exception where it would be ok to mention a port/remaster is in the case where said port/remaster contains new content that a character appears in. For example, [[Bully|Bullies]] appear in the [[Bowser's Fury]] campaign, so that would be mentioned as their latest appearance. While [[Madpole|Madpoles]] appear in the full package of [[Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury]], they do not appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign itself, and thus it would not be mentioned as their latest appearance. 

'''Proposer''': {{User|Vivavivi004}}<br>
'''Deadline''': November 19, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Option 1: Remove mentions of direct/enhanced ports & remasters in the Latest apperance section====
#{{User|Vivavivi004}} Per proposal.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} To be honest, this always bothered. We don't include the emulated rereleases on Virtual Console or Switch Online - so why on earth do we count the likes of Wii/''3D All-Stars''? Because it was arbitrarily pressed physically?
#{{User|Shadow2}} Listing a character's latest appearance as a port feels like listing an actor's latest role as a DVD re-release of a film from 1950. Just doesn't feel right.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.

====Option 2: Remove mentions of direct/enhanced ports, remasters, AND remakes====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Second option. The line between remaster and remake isn't always easy to discern. Let's just go for the whole works.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I'm not completely set on this, but I tend to think of remakes as more of an extension of the original game than a new thing in their own right. Forgive me for not finding a better example, but if the Axem Rangers showed up in SPM or something, I'd rather be apprised of that than be told they're in SMRPG and SMRPG.

====Option 3: Keep mentioning ports/remasters/remakes, but also include another "Latest appearance" section that excludes those kinds of games====
#{{User|Ihavenoideaboyo|Ihavenoideaboyo HD}} This way, we could make both parties happy.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} Second option.
#{{User|Vivavivi004}} Second option. This would be a good option that would still keep the more literal approach done currently (as I think that still holds value) while still being informative about a characters true last NEW appearance. 

====Option 4: Don't remove mentions of these kinds of games in the Latest appearance section (Do nothing)====
#{{User|Hewer}} The line between "remake" and "enhanced port" is too unclear for my liking, and it's not unheard of for something to appear in the original version of a game but not a later version, such as [[3-Up Moon Block]] and [[Propeller Platform]].
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. When the state of the definition of what even counts as a [[Reissue]] is as much of a powder keg as it is, we don't really feel comfortable with a ruling like this.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Altendo|''New Super Altendo 3D All-Stars 64K-4D Remake Definitive Edition Super Ultra Deluxe Featuring Dante from the Devil May Cry series''}} The ''most'' I would agree on is removing emulated games from actual releases that have more content besides the emulation (the Masterpieces in ''Brawl'' and ''for 3DS'' / ''Wii U'' and '''''maybe''''' ''Super Mario 3D All-Stars'') as that is just the exact same game but running through an emulator, akin to Virtual Console and Nintendo Classics, in an actual release. But '''even then''', you could make the argument that those emulated games in those full releases count towards their latest appearance, since those games were included in an ''actual'' release of a new title in the same vein as official modern releases, which is also true for ports, remasters, and remakes that are released outside of Virtual Console and Nintendo Classics. Let's just keep things simple and absolute for now.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't think we should be making these types of litmus tests.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per Altendo.
#''[[User:The Dab Master|The Dab Master – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition]] [[Special:Contributions/The Dab Master|+]] [[User talk:The Dab Master|Expert in Mewing]]'' While I can understand that this can feel weird at times, after thinking about this for a bit, I honestly don't think it bothers me THAT much. It's not really a harmful bit of information to have. Per Altendo.
#{{User|YoYo}} I can already see all the edit wars happening
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Fun With Despair}} Remake, rerelease or not, the game came out recently and as such it is their most recent appearance.
#[[User:Dominoes|''Dominoes + Dominoes 2'']] ([[User talk:Dominoes|2025]]) Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.

====Comments (Remove ports/remasters from "Latest apperance" sections)====
What if said appearance is within new content in a reissue, such as [[Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury]]? This game clearly marked new appearances for characters like Boom Boom and Bowser in the Bowser's Fury campaign (I know it's not THE latest appearance for them, I'm just using it as an example). {{User:The Dab Master/sig}} 10:56, November 5, 2025 (EST)
:I believe in that case, it would be ok to mention the game as long as they appear IN the new content. For example, [[Bully|Bullies]] appear in the [[Bowser's Fury]] campaign, so that would be mentioned as their latest appearance. While [[Madpole|Madpoles]] appear in the full package of [[Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury]], they do not appear in the Bowser's Fury campaign itself, and thus it would not be mentioned as their latest appearance. {{User:Vivavivi004/sig}} 11:17, November 5, 2025 (EST)

I have an idea; how about we simultaneously list both the first port/remaster/remake and the first non-port/remaster/remake appearance? [[User:Ihavenoideaboyo|Ihavenoideaboyo]] ([[User talk:Ihavenoideaboyo|talk]]) 11:16, November 5, 2025 (EST)
:Not a bad idea, I will add an option for it in the proposal. {{User:Vivavivi004/sig}} 11:22, November 5, 2025 (EST)

Issue is, there's already a lot of debate and confusion on what counts as a remake vs a port / remaster on this wiki… [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 12:51, November 5, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Hewer}} I feel like a situation where something appears in one game and not its reissue is few and far between enough that it wouldn't really be an issue. I think Option 3 could be a good solution to this. Also, I do understand that there is a big issue with what games to recognize as reissues in the first place, and I can't really argue with that (atleast for some games). But I still would want to see this proposal implemented anyways, because I have always felt that the inclusion of reissues has made the Latest apperance section not really feel like an accurate representation of the characters true history. Nobody would really say that [[Plungelo]]s were last seen in 2020, because they weren't. They just happened to be in [[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]], a collection of 3 games that were already released.{{User:Vivavivi004/sig}} 14:05, November 5, 2025 (EST)
:I honestly don't mean this as me deliberately being a contrarian, but I would definitely say Plungelos were last seen in 2020 because of 3D All-Stars (including outside the wiki context). [[User:Ihavenoideaboyo|Ihavenoideaboyo]] ([[User talk:Ihavenoideaboyo|talk]]) 15:44, November 5, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Vivavivi004}} You mispelled "appearance" as "apperance" several times. You also don't have to pipe for most plurals (like <nowiki>[[Madpole|Madpoles]]</nowiki>), as just adding an "s" at the end (like <nowiki>[[Madpole]]s</nowiki>) will yield the same result ([[Madpole]]s). Piping is obviously required for pluralizations that aren't just the word but with letters added to the end (Bullies are a great example), but for most, piping isn't required at all. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:45, November 5, 2025 (EST)
:This has nothing to do with the proposal... but thanks for the advice regardless {{User:Vivavivi004/sig}}

{{@|Shadow2}} {{@|Ahemtoday}} Even if reissues are counted as "extensions" rather than their own new thing, I still do not see that as a solid argument to dismiss reissues from the "Latest appearance" section. Actual game extensions (like content updates such as [https://www.mariowiki.com/Luigi?action=edit&oldid=2399973 Luigi]'s appearance in [[Balloon World]] in ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]'', as well as the commemorative updates in games like ''[[Super Mario Run]]'' and ''[[Tetris 99]]'') are noted in the "Latest appearance" section, even though they are even ''less'' split than reissues, and they take priority over full games released between the original game's launch and the update that adds the character. Admittedly, they do add new content to the table (while reissues often show content in previous releases, and "Latest appearance" sections don't account for updates unless the character was added in said update), but quoting Hewer, "It's not unheard of for something to appear in the original version of a game but not a later version." I know the proposal said that if it didn't appear in the original, they can appear in the "Latest appearance" section, but I feel like since these are actual releases post-original launch and not part of Nintendo's emulator services, it should be fine to retain how reissues are treated in the "Latest appearance" section. And to quote Camwoodstock, "The state of the definition of what even counts as a Reissue is as much of a powder keg as it is." Let's not risk blowing that up. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:16, November 7, 2025 (EST)

===Restore some of the pages?===
So while most of these pages [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/61#Merge certain non-Mario fighters from the Super Smash Bros. series into game-specific lists and trim away detailed special move information for all non-Mario fighters|were merged]], I've got a few that should be restored and put back into their own articles. For example, I am including crossover stuff including minor appearances in the franchise. I'll be going over the following pages:
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|Captain Falcon]]
**As to why his page should be restored, it's because he makes an actual physical appearance in ''[[Super Mario: Im Rausch der Geschwindigkeit]]'', and he also appears in ''F-Zero X'' which had Rainbow Road in it.
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate#Ken Masters|Ken Masters]]
**Ken himself actually physically appears in a comic, ''[[Super Mario Klemp-Won-Do: Muskeln sind nicht alles!]]''. Why do almost all of the fighters in that comic have pages yet Ken doesn't? Make it make sense. Ken shouldn't have gotten his page merged.
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Pikachu|Pikachu]]
**While I'm barely sure if it counts, Pikachu has appeared in a few ''Super Mario'' media, such as {{iw|bulbapedia|Mario Pikachu (XY-P Promo 293)|this card}} and a poster for the 30th anniversary that replaced Mario with Pikachu.
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate#Steve|Steve]]
**Steve (and maybe Alex if I remember her having her own separate page) should have never gotten his page deleted as the Nintendo versions of ''Minecraft'' might actually count.
*[[Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda#Princess Zelda|Princess Zelda]]
**She also appeared in [[:File:Famicom Wario's Woods commercial 03.png|this commercial]].
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U#Little Mac|Little Mac]]
**He really needs his page restored as he appeared physically in ''Captain Rainbow'', aside from that he was in the Wii version of ''Punch Out'' which had Donkey Kong as a playable character in it.
*[[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U#Bayonetta|Bayonetta]]
**Nintendo did a collaboration with Bayonetta's own games to add Princess Peach and Princess Daisy costumes.
'''Proposer''': {{User|ILoveBFDI1215}}

====Captain Falcon====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-6|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
#{{User|Shadow2}} Captain Falcon's appearance in this comic seems to be a single-panel cameo with no dialogue or anything else significant about it. The comic is only two pages long, so it's nothing ground-breaking or significant unless Captain Falcon actually plays an active ''role'' in the story.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Looking at the comic, Captain Falcon makes a non-speaking (he literally isn't even drawn with a ''mouth'') cameo for exactly 1 panel in a 2-page comic, not very compelling. The F-Zero X thing is already denoted on [[List of references in Nintendo video games]], which we think is fair.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Shadow2. Having ONE line in a two page comic is not notable enough for the character to get a page.
#{{User|Altendo|Captain Altendo}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.

====Ken Masters====
{{Proposal outcome|passed|8-0|Restore page}}
'''Deadline''': <s>November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on November 21, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} While I agree with Salmancer on a lot of other options, this one I feel does deserve to be restored. [[Zangief|Several]] [[Dhalsim|other]] [[Chun-Li|Street]] [[Blanka|Fighter]] characters appear in the exact same comic and they all have their own articles. If Ken has a physical appearance there and the others have a physical appearance there, Ken should get the same treatment.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Seems odd to leave out Ken AND E. Honda while letting Dhalsim have a page.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} This one at least makes some sense, because he played an actually important role in the comic. This merge feels like an oversight.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per the other Street Fighter characters having pages.
#{{User|Altendo|Altendo Masters}} This one I do agree should be restored, per Tails777. The argument for this page being restored is at least actually valid.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal, unlike the other characters brought up Ken has a valid reason to have his page restored.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
;Oppose

====Pikachu====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-9|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.

;Oppose
#{{User|Salmancer}} Hi! I know this proposal was made very earnestly, but I believe you likely aren't aware of this wiki's coverage policy. It is listed on [[MarioWiki:Coverage]], and it explains why the majority of the subjects here do not have articles on the wiki. (I didn't vote on the ones that the coverage policy alone doesn't disqualify, and for those them having pages or not is more of a subjective call) Anyhow, preamble over. Pikachu is an important Pokémon character, but that doesn't make it a relevant ''Mario'' character. In specific, we should have a page about "Mario Pikachu", the branding for the media where Pokémon used elements of the ''Mario'' brand, because it is very related to ''Mario'', but that doesn't mean Pikachu is, especially since it's only role is dressing as the character ''Mario''. Think about it: even though Bulbapedia does have pages about "Mario Pikachu", they don't have a Mario page or a Luigi page even though they would if they followed the philosophy that would mean Pikachu would have a page on Super Mario Wiki.
#{{User|Shadow2}} It's possible that Pikachu may have valid reasoning for having a page. However, as it is outlined in ''this proposal specifically'', the answer is no. You've stated that Pikachu has appeared in "''Super Mario'' media", but the example you provide is a Pokemon card. That's ''Pokemon'' media, not ''Super Mario'' media. Posters do not fall under our coverage policy.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} A [[Crossovers with Pokémon]] page has been on the backburner for months now, waiting to be made so [[Luigi Pokémon]] can be merged into it. Basically any relevant information would be more fit for that page than a dedicated Pikachu page.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Altendo|Altendochu}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.

====Steve====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-9|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.

;Oppose
#{{User|Salmancer}}  ''Minecraft'' is currently noted as a "guest appearance". This means our coverage of the game is complete by having one article: the article for the media itself. (In this case, [[Minecraft]].) Any additional articles relating to media that is a guest appearance exist only because the article is covering something very distinctly based on the ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|Mario]]'' property. So ''[[Sonic Lost World]]'' gets to have an extra article for [[Yoshi's Island Zone]], and ''[[Skylanders: SuperChargers]]'' gets to have an extra article for [[Molten Bowser]]. (Actually Superchargers should have several extra articles, but that's for another day. Steve is not based on the ''Mario'' property in any way, so while we have an article on ''Minecraft'' it does not mean we have to make an article for Steve.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Your reasoning doesn't make much sense. What do you mean "the Nintendo versions of ''Minecraft'' might actually count"? Count for what? In what way? Minecraft has its Mario mash-up crossover, but Steve exists in Minecraft as it is originally published. Nintendo doesn't have any control over Steve, they were granted permission to publish a game featuring the character. Nintendo themselves are really only responsible for the Mario mash-up stuff they included into it, and Steve is not something they "included" in any form or fashion.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Minecraft is not Terraria. There aren't Nintendo console-exclusive references hidden in the bottom-right corners of worlds, there's not Nintendo-specific equipment Steve can use, there's just the Mash-Up Pack... Which is already covered on ''[[Minecraft]]'', and is far more fitting there than a page for a character who may not actually even be a character (if Mojang's internal guideline book is to be trusted.)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Minecraft is a guest appearance, not full coverage).
#{{User|Rykitu}} Please read [[MarioWiki:Coverage]]
#{{User|Altendo|Minecraft Altendo}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.

====Princess Zelda====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-9|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.

;Oppose
#{{User|Salmancer}} While a commercial for ''[[Wario's Woods (Nintendo Entertainment System)]]'' is a a piece of ''Mario'' media, and normally almost every character in ''Mario'' media gets a page on this wiki, the wiki is more discerning regarding characters who are not ''Mario'' characters and that goes double when the media in question is not something important enough to have its own dedicated article. Princess Zelda is not a ''Mario'' character, and the commercial does not have a dedicated article. I'm not convinced that people reading about Wario's Woods on this wiki need any more information about Princess Zelda than what is already on that commerical's entry in the [[List of advertisements]]. (And if they do, there's a little more about Princess Zelda on [[Crossovers with The Legend of Zelda#Princess Zelda]].
#{{User|Shadow2}} [[:wikirby:Kracko|Kracko]], [[:wikirby:Bonkers|Bonkers]], and [[:wikirby:Axe Knight|Axe Knight]] also appear in this commercial, but we don't have pages for them either. Furthermore, in watching this commercial, it's a combination commercial for both Wario's Woods and The Legend of Zelda. The idea seems to be "These games are already on our system but we don't have Wario and Link yet, so here they are!" (Although admittedly I don't know why Zelda's already there)... It's not indicative in any way that Zelda has a direct connection to the Mario universe or any Mario characters in this context.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Salmancer and Shadow2. We will at least add in that the reason there was emphasis on ''Wario's Woods'' and Zelda in the same advertisement is because it was one of the final commercial releases for the ''Nintendo Entertainment System''--nothing too complicated, and not really anything relating them in a crossover context.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Shadow2 again.
#{{User|Altendo|Princess Altendo}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.

====Little Mac====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-9|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.

;Oppose
#{{User|Salmancer}} See Steve, all the things I said here apply there. Our coverage of ''Punch-Out!!'' for the Wii is complete with the article [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)]], and our coverage of ''Captain Rainbow'' is complete with the article [[Captain Rainbow]]. An article for Little Mac is not necessary. (Also as far as I'm aware Donkey Kong isn't playable in ''Punch-Out!!'' for the Wii; he's one of the CPU opponents and in ''Punch-Out!!'' being a CPU opponent does not imply playablity because in single player mode the player is Little Mac and in two player mode both players are Little Macs.)
#{{User|Shadow2}} Can confirm that Donkey Kong is ''not'' playable in Punch Out for Wii, he's just an opponent. Either way, Captain Rainbow has a lot more characters than just Little Mac in it, but we don't have pages for them either. Like with Zelda, Little Mac doesn't have any direct connection to Mario or Mario characters. He is a guest in the game, just as Birdo is a guest in the game.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Basically anything worth denoting is already more clearly covered on [[Crossovers with Punch-Out!!]], and we don't think making it a character page would improve its form factor.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Captain Rainbow and Wii Punch-Out are both guest appearances, not full coverage).
#{{User|Rykitu}} Once again, per [[MarioWiki:Coverage]]
#{{User|Altendo|Little Altendo}} Per Rykitu.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.

====Bayonetta====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-10|Do not restore page}}
'''Deadline''': November 28, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{User|ILoveBFDI1215}} Per proposal.

;Oppose
#{{User|Salmancer}} ''Bayonetta 2'' is not a guest appearance. I believe it is not a guest appearance because the ''Mario'' content is just costumes and skins, which are deemed to be minor. This means it gets less coverage than the guest appearances, such as how there isn't a article called "Bayonnetta 2". Rather, ''Bayonetta 2''{{'}}s ''Mario'' content is considered a "cameo" and cameos are universally covered one of the [[Lists of references]], in this case [[List of references in third-party video games (A–M)]]. It should also be on [[History of Princess Peach]], [[Daisy]], [[History of Bowser]], and [[Chain Chomp]] in "Other appearances" sections. There is not a need for a page about Bayonetta the character, given that those pages should be describing everything that is relevant to Super Mario Wiki about the crossover content.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Just because someone gave Bayonetta a Peach outfit doesn't magically make Bayonetta a Mario-related character. By that logic, you could make a page for Jimmy down the street who dressed as Daisy for Halloween. As covered before, a lot of our crossover articles are characters who were somehow injected into the Mario universe, or came into direct contact with Mario characters such as in a comic. They're mostly "guests" who ventured into or near the Mario universe. Bayonetta has done no such thing, because it's the other way around. Mario content "guested" into her game, nothing more. So we cover that Mario content specifically (on the references page) and that's that. Bayonetta is still just doing her own thing.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We realize a lot of our votes probably just read the same, but, really, there's only so many ways we can say "A 'crossovers with X' page or 'list of references in' page has already covered this, in a better form factor than a character page could ever provide"... But, y'know, incidentally, [[List of references in third-party video games (A–M)#Bayonetta 2 (Wii U, Switch)|yeah, it's already on the third-party games references]] in a pretty suitable format, and moving it to a page all about Bayonetta specifically wouldn't really be much of an improvement in our opinion.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Hewer}} No major appearances in media that the wiki fully covers (Bayonetta 2 is considered a cameo appearance, not even a guest appearance).
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. An easter egg in a game licensed by Nintendo referencing the ''Mario'' series once is not enough for us to give full coverage on that franchise.
#{{User|Altendo|Bayoaltendo}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Martendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Arend}} The given reason does not warrant a page for Bayonetta herself, but rather a [[Crossovers with Bayonetta]] type page. Look at our [[Rayman]] page for instance: in ''Rayman Legends'' Rayman and Globox get a Mario and Luigi costume respectively, which should put them on the same level as Bayo and her Peach and Daisy costumes. However, Rayman did not get a page on the Wiki at all UNTIL he himself made a ''physical appearance'' in the Mario series: being, the [[Rayman in the Phantom Show]] DLC for ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]''. Therefore, only ''that'' game gets covered on Rayman's page, and ''not'' Rayman Legends. Bayo didn't make a single physical appearance in the Mario franchise, so she shouldn't get a page yet.

====Comments====
Although I don't necessarily disagree with the objective of this proposal, it is very much improperly formatted (for example, there is no "neutral" option, there was no comments section before I added one, there are no deadlines, votes, or proposer name, and the sectioning is very much off). Signatures also aren't supposed to be on the proposer itself. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 19:33, November 14, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|ILoveBFDI1215}} You really need to [[#Poll proposal formatting|fix your proposal]] so it becomes votable. If you cannot make a properly formed proposal, I recommend that you withdraw this proposal in order for it to not take up space (something similar [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&direction=prev&oldid=4894786 happened before], and that proposal ended up getting vetoed due to it similarly being malformed). I really recommend that you read the proposal formatting section of this page and fix it per their directions. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 20:59, November 14, 2025 (EST)
This will likely get deleted and reposted with proper formatting, so I'd like to share my thoughts with the proposer beforehand... Only Captain Falcon and Ken really seem to have valid reasoning. Cameos on merchandise (Pikachu) certainly do not necessitate the creation of a page, or we'd have a bajillion pages for unrelated characters. The same goes for television commercials (Zelda). The fact that Nintendo published versions of Minecraft (Steve) doesn't even have anything to do with the Mario series in the first place... you're saying they would belong on a Nintendo wiki, not on a Mario wiki. The same reasoning goes for Nintendo's collaboration of Bayonetta, even though they added some costumes to the game doesn't magically make Bayonetta a Mario character. She existed on her own and was just given costumes. The "time and effort" of the game developers is irrelevant to our page creation processes. Captain Rainbow is not a Mario video game, and so there's no reason for us to care that Little Mac is in it. There's a LOT of characters in Captain Rainbow besides Little Mac, and we don't need to create pages for each of them. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:43, November 14, 2025 (EST)
:Honestly the only reason why this is poorly made because I don't know how to make a proposal. [[User:ILoveBFDI1215|ILoveBFDI1215]] ([[User talk:ILoveBFDI1215|talk]]) 23:56, November 14, 2025 (EST)
::On this very pages are templates for [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Basic proposal formatting|regular proposal formats]] and [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Poll proposal formatting|poll proposal formats]], which you can copypaste and fill in the blanks and such. Since this proposal has support/oppose options for various options, I suggest using the poll proposal format for this one. Either of the formatting templates at least includes the most necessary things, such as a comments section and a deadline.<br>Also I don't think "Neutral" options are really a thing in proposals at all. These don't really help in the slightest with vote counts (for example, if the Neutral option wins, ''what's gonna happen then?'' Is it like when no consensus is reached and the proposal fails anyway? Or do we like, ''not count'' those votes? If so, then what's even the point of having those?). We don't need an extra column for neutral votes, it only complicates things. If someone feels neutral on a specific proposal, they simply abstain from voting, and if someone wants to explain ''why'' they feel neutral or want to abstain from voting, the comment section exists. {{User:Arend/sig}} 05:08, November 15, 2025 (EST)

So I didn't vote on Captain Falcon or Ken Masters since I believe those characters don't have articles because they only have minor roles in the stories in question. Since I can't read German, I can't form an opinion on the importance the characters have to the story, and therefore cannot dispute what I believe is the current reasoning. (Don't say "The [[Blue Falcon]] has a page because of the same story Captain Falcon is in and therefore Captain Falcon should have a page", the Blue Falcon's situation is complicated.) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 17:54, November 15, 2025 (EST)
:Captain Falcon being in ''F-Zero X'' doesn't help his case for the same reason the Mario items and cosmetics in ''Bayonetta 2'' don't help Bayonetta's case: while ''F-Zero X'' has ''Mario'' content in it is only in a cameo capacity and thus our coverage is complete with the notes on [[List of references in Nintendo video games]], [[Rainbow Road]], and [[Rainbow Road (Mario Kart 64)]]. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:01, November 15, 2025 (EST)
::I'll probably make a proposal to restore all Super Smash Bros. pages. [[User:ILoveBFDI1215|ILoveBFDI1215]] ([[User talk:ILoveBFDI1215|talk]]) 19:26, November 15, 2025 (EST)
:::Just being in Smash Bros. alongside Mario is not enough reasoning to give them a page. The purpose of this wiki is to cover the Mario universe. If you have a page for Corrin, how much "Mario universe" content do you think could be put on this page? "Corrin appeared alongside Mario in Smash Bros." and that would be the end of the page. We can't just copy and past all of Corrin's Smash Brothers info from the Smash wiki. It doesn't belong here. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:18, November 15, 2025 (EST)
::::That's terrible reasoning. Two wikis can cover the same thing without one of them being wrong for doing so, see Donkey Kong Wiki. Or er... saw Donkey Kong Wiki considering Super Mario Wiki ate it, but the point stands. And we would never copy information from Smashwiki for any reason, let alone because of a coverage overlap. If you want my advice, ILoveBFDI1215, the answer most likely to create the result you want is a proposal to have characters from all microgames get pages. ''WarioWare'' does get full coverage, and each microgame is basically a fictional work in itself in addition to being a component of an overall ''WarioWare'' game. (And we do give articles for every component of the minigame [[Pyoro (minigame)]], such as [[Bean (Pyoro)]] and [[Tenshi]], even if it might be because of the full game release [[Bird & Beans]]. (But that release consists of two ported minigames, so maybe we're right back where we started and we are covering components of minigames in Pyoro's case but in no other cases for inexplicable reasons.) This incidentally would result in a number of the articles in question being recreated. (Including Corrin, because they are in [[Fire Emblem Engage]].) [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 07:34, November 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::Pyoro's a minigame, not a microgame, so I don't see the inconsistency. And I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Corrin's cameo appearance that lasts for literally one second could justify an article, there's nothing to cover there that the microgame article couldn't already cover. The [[Talk:Costume Mario#Create articles for all Costume Mario characters|Super Mario Maker costumes]] would have a better argument for splitting than that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:56, November 16, 2025 (EST)
:::::I'm confused. It seems like you're yelling at me for having a bad take, but then agreeing with my point in the fourth sentence? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:01, November 16, 2025 (EST)
:::The reason we used to cover Smash Bros. stuff is because there used to not ''be'' a dedicated Smash Bros. wiki. [[smashwiki:Main Page|There is one now]]. Thusly, a lot of this information was moved over to SmashWiki, and the pages on here were merged because it'd just be either redundant, or an inferior version to, what's already on SmashWiki. We ''would'' say you're more likely to get SmashWiki merged into this wiki, but that would have to be instigated by SmashWiki's own staff and userbase, not just one user, and certainly not via proposal. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 00:04, November 16, 2025 (EST)
::::::About Corrin's page it could cover how they look like in the microgame. Right down to it saying they can walk and move their arms. [[User:ILoveBFDI1215|ILoveBFDI1215]] ([[User talk:ILoveBFDI1215|talk]]) 17:20, November 17, 2025 (EST)
:::::::No. We don't have pages for every single minor character that appears in every microgame. Those pages would be like three sentences long. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 00:05, November 18, 2025 (EST)

===Determine which game pages with the full title to rename===
This proposal aims to determine which game pages with a full title to rename. Rumor has it that both the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/63#Rename pages with the full Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars title|respective]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for Donkey Kong Country 2 and Donkey Kong Country 3 pages|proposals]] for using the disambiguation identifier without the subtitles for ''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG]]'' and both ''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest|Donkey Kong Country 2]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!|Donkey Kong Country 3]]'' have passed. The [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Shorten the disambiguation identifier for Yoshi's Island pages with the subtitle only - take two|last proposal]] for using the disambiguation identifier without the label for ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island|Yoshi's Island]]'' pages, however, was declined.

Just as [[User:Hewer|Hewer]] said to [[User:Dive Rocket Launcher|Dive Rocket Launcher]]:

{{quote|I feel like that's a bit more of a stretch since it replaces (and reorders) the subtitle rather than just removing it. Also, "Yoshi's Island" isn't quite as immediately obvious what it refers to compared to "Super Mario RPG" and "Donkey Kong Country 2/3".|[[User:Hewer|Hewer]]|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/67#Comments 12|Use shorter disambiguation identifier (without subtitle) for ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' and ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' pages]]}}

This will only affect the pages ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'', ''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'', and ''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' and its subpages, with ''Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island'' excluded.

The affected pages are as follows:

{|class="wikitable"
!rowspan="2"|Namespace
!colspan="2"|''Super Mario RPG''
!colspan="2"|''Donkey Kong Country 2''
!colspan="2"|''Donkey Kong Country 3''
|-
!Before success
!After success
!Before success
!After success
!Before success
!After success
|-
!(Main)
|
*''[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]''
*[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars bestiary|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' bestiary]]
*[[List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars glitches|List of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' glitches]]
*[[Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars level up progressions|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' level up progressions]]
*[[List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars pre-release and unused content|List of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' pre-release and unused content]]
*[[List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars quotes|List of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' quotes]]
*[[List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars special moves|List of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' special moves]]
*[[List of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars staff|List of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' staff]]
|
*''{{fake link|Super Mario RPG}}''
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' bestiary|Super Mario RPG bestiary}}
*{{fake link|List of ''Super Mario RPG'' glitches|List of Super Mario RPG glitches}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' level up progressions|Super Mario RPG level up progressions}}
*{{fake link|List of ''Super Mario RPG'' pre-release and unused content|List of Super Mario RPG pre-release and unused content}}
*{{fake link|List of ''Super Mario RPG'' quotes|List of Super Mario RPG quotes}}
*{{fake link|List of ''Super Mario RPG'' special moves|List of Super Mario RPG special moves}}
*{{fake link|List of ''Super Mario RPG'' staff|List of Super Mario RPG staff}}
|
*''[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]''
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest glitches|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' glitches]]
*[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (Nintendo Music)|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' sound test (Nintendo Music)]]
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest pre-release and unused content|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' pre-release and unused content]]
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest quotes|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' quotes]]
*[[Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest sound test|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' sound test]]
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest staff|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' staff]]
|
*''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 2}}''
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' glitches|List of Donkey Kong Country 2 glitches}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' (Nintendo Music)|Donkey Kong Country 2 (Nintendo Music)}}
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' pre-release and unused content|List of Donkey Kong Country 2 pre-release and unused content}}
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' quotes|List of Donkey Kong Country 2 quotes}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' sound test|Donkey Kong Country 2 sound test}}
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 2'' staff|List of Donkey Kong Country 2 staff}}
|
*''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]''
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! glitches|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' glitches]]
*[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! (Nintendo Music)|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' (Nintendo Music)]]
*''[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Original Soundtrack]]''
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! pre-release and unused content|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' pre-release and unused content]]
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! quotes|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' quotes]]
*[[Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! sound test|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' sound test]]
*[[List of Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! staff|List of ''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' staff]]
|
*''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 3}}''
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' glitches|List of Donkey Kong Country 3 glitches}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' (Nintendo Music)|Donkey Kong Country 3 (Nintendo Music)}}
*''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 3 Original Soundtrack}}''
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' pre-release and unused content|List of Donkey Kong Country 3 pre-release and unused content}}
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' quotes|List of Donkey Kong Country 3 quotes}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' sound test|Donkey Kong Country 3 sound test}}
*{{fake link|List ''Donkey Kong Country 3'' staff|List of Donkey Kong Country 3 staff}}
|-
!Category
|
*''[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]''
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars accessories|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' accessories]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars armor|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' armor]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars artwork|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' artwork]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars assets|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' assets]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars bosses|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' bosses]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars characters|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' characters]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars concept art|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' concept art]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars consumable items|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' consumable items]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars enemies|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' enemies]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars images|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' images]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars locations|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' locations]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars media files|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' media files]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars minigames|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' minigames]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars moves|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' moves]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars music|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' music]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars objects|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' objects]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars screenshots|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' screenshots]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars species|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' species]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars stats|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' stats]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars status effects|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' status effects]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars weapons|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' weapons]]
*[[:Category:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars worlds|''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'' worlds]]
|
*''{{fake link|Super Mario RPG|Category:Super Mario RPG}}''
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' accessories|Category:Super Mario RPG accessories}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' armor|Category:Super Mario RPG armor}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' artwork|Category:Super Mario RPG artwork}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' assets|Category:Super Mario RPG assets}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' bosses|Category:Super Mario RPG bosses}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' characters|Category:Super Mario RPG characters}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' concept art|Category:Super Mario RPG concept art}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' consumable items|Category:Super Mario RPG consumable items}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' enemies|Category:Super Mario RPG enemies}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' images|Category:Super Mario RPG images}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' locations|Category:Super Mario RPG locations}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' media files|Category:Super Mario RPG media files}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' minigames|Category:Super Mario RPG minigames}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' moves|Category:Super Mario RPG moves}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' music|Category:Super Mario RPG music}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' objects|Category:Super Mario RPG objects}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' screenshots|Category:Super Mario RPG screenshots}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' species|Category:Super Mario RPG species}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' stats|Category:Super Mario RPG stats}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' status effects|Category:Super Mario RPG status effects}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' weapons|Category:Super Mario RPG weapons}}
*{{fake link|''Super Mario RPG'' worlds|Category:Super Mario RPG worlds}}
|
*''[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest|Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]''
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest artwork|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' artwork]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest assets|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' assets]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest bosses|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' bosses]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest characters|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' characters]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest concept art|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' concept art]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest enemies|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' enemies]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest images|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' images]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest items|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' items]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest levels|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' levels]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest media files|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' media files]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest music|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' music]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest objects|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' objects]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest screenshots|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' screenshots]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest user icons|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' user icons]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest worlds|''Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest'' worlds]]
|
*''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 2|Category:Donkey Kong Country 2}}''
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' artwork|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 artwork}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' assets|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 assets}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' bosses|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 bosses}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' characters|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 characters}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' concept art|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 concept art}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' enemies|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 enemies}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' images|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 images}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' items|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 items}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' levels|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 levels}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' media files|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 media files}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' music|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 music}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' objects|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 objects}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' screenshots|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 screenshots}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' user icons|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 user icons}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 2'' worlds|Category: Donkey Kong Country 2 worlds}}
|
*''[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!|Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]''
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! artwork|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' artwork]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! assets|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' assets]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! bosses|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' bosses]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! characters|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' characters]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! enemies|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' enemies]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! items|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' items]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! levels|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' levels]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! media files|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' media files]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! music|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' music]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! objects|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' objects]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Original Soundtrack images|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! Original Soundtrack'' images]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! screenshots|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' screenshots]]
*[[:Category:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble! worlds|''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' worlds]]
|
*''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 3|Category:Donkey Kong Country 3}}''
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' artwork|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 artwork}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' assets|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 assets}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' bosses|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 bosses}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' characters|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 characters}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' enemies|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 enemies}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' images|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 images}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' items|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 items}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' levels|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 levels}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' media files|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 media files}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' music|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 music}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' objects|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 objects}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3 Original Soundtrack'' images|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 Original Soundtrack images}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' screenshots|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 screenshots}}
*{{fake link|''Donkey Kong Country 3'' worlds|Category: Donkey Kong Country 3 worlds}}
|-
!Gallery
|''[[Gallery:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]''
|''{{fake link|Super Mario RPG|Gallery:Super Mario RPG}}''
|''[[Gallery:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest|Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]''
|''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 2|Gallery:Donkey Kong Country 2}}''
|''[[Gallery:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!|Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]''
|''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 3|Gallery:Donkey Kong Country 3}}''
|-
!Multimedia
|''[[Multimedia:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars|Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars]]''
|''{{fake link|Super Mario RPG|Multimedia:Super Mario RPG}}''
|''[[Multimedia:Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest|Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest]]''
|''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 2|Multimedia:Donkey Kong Country 2}}''
|''[[Multimedia:Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!|Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!]]''
|''{{fake link|Donkey Kong Country 3|Multimedia:Donkey Kong Country 3}}''
|}

That way, if one option has decided that one page will be renamed without a game's subtitle, then we won't need to worry about that subtitle.

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}

====Can the ''Legend of the Seven Stars'' subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "''Super Mario RPG''" in its title?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-10|Do not remove subtitle}}
'''Deadline''': <s>December 17, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No
#{{User|Hewer}} Why should we not use the full titles of these games? The proposal doesn't even give an argument for this, just a list of things that would change.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. There's no real reason given to rename these, and presently, just "Super Mario RPG" is [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|used for the Switch remake]] (albeit, with a parenthetical to clarify it's for the Switch remake).
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Change for the sake of change.
#''[[User:Altendo|Super Altendo RPG:]] [[User talk:Altendo|Legend of the Seven Proposals]]'' Per.
#{{User|Shadow2}} No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} This really feels like GuntherBayBeee saw the aforementioned proposals about shortening the identifiers, and didn't exactly realize ''why'' these passed in the first place and drew the wrong conclusion. For the record: these proposals passed because a rerelease officially shortened the game's title to the most relevant portion, so it made sense to shorten the identifiers for these articles too given that the subjects they were about also appeared in that game. This isn't about shortening the title JUST for the sake of shortening it, and there's no reason why we shouldn't keep the full title of ''Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars'', especially for ''the actual page''.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu RPG: Legend of the Chaos Emeralds}} Per all, especially Power Flotzo.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy|Kaptain Skurvy RPG: Legend of the Crystal Coconut}} Per all
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.

====Can the ''Diddy's Kong Quest'' subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "''Donkey Kong Country 2''" in its title?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-10|Do not remove subtitle}}
'''Deadline''': <s>December 17, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No
#{{User|Hewer|Hewer's Kong Quest}} Per first vote
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} See our first vote, and, funny enough, "the game's name without the subtitle is used for a remake later down the road, and is only distinguished on the wiki via parenthetical" is [[Donkey Kong Country 2 (Game Boy Advance)|also true for this game]].
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per my vote above.
#''[[User:Altendo|Altendo Country 2:]] [[User talk:Altendo|Lil' Altendo's Quest]]'' Per all of the opposition.
#{{User|Shadow2}} No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Idem to the SMRPG thing but with DKC2
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu Country 2: Rykitu Jr.'s Conquest}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy|Kaptain Skurvy Kountry 2: Kutlass's Krem Quest}} Per all
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.

====Can the ''Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!'' subtitle be removed from pages, subpages, and categories with the "''Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!''" in its title?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-10|Do not remove subtitle}}
'''Deadline''': <s>December 17, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on December 10, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No
#{{User|Hewer|Hewer's Double Trouble}} Per first vote
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} See our first and second votes, [[Donkey Kong Country 3 (Game Boy Advance)|yeah, it's true for this game too]].
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per my two votes above.
#''[[User:Altendo|Altendo Country 3:]] [[User talk:Altendo|Lil' Miss Altendo's Double Trouble!]]'' Ditto.
#{{User|Shadow2}} No sufficient reasoning given in proposal.
#{{User|Arend}} Idem to the above things but with DKC3
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu Country 3: Double Trouble!}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy|Kaptain Skurvy Kountry 3: Green Kroc's Double Trouble!}} Per all
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per all.

====Comments Country RPG====
===Do not use partial italics in titles===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|8-0|Remove partial italics in names and titles}}
The [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Italicizing titles|Manual of Style]]'s current rules for title italicisation apply to video games and series (among other media not relevant here). However, the rules do not clarify whether this should apply to titles within titles — e.g., the title of a game or series used within the title of a song or board game.

In practice, the wiki tends towards italicising game and series titles within other titles (see [[:Category:Physical games]] for many examples), but is not fully consistent either (the song "Mario Kart 8 Title Screen" has no italics on its relevant [[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe (Nintendo Music)|soundtrack page]], but does [[Super Mario Kart Title Screen#Mario Kart 8|elsewhere]]). This practice, sensibly enough, also does not extend to ''WarioWare'' microgames (e.g. [[Super Mario World (WarioWare: Get It Together!)|Super Mario World]]) or ''Mario Kart'' tracks (e.g. [[Animal Crossing]]).

This proposal aims to end the practice of using italics within titles for media that is not typically italicised, and to clarify/codify this stance in the Manual of Style. My reasons are as follows:

;Partial italics are misrepresentative of actual titles.
I believe that italicisation should only be used to wrap around a full title, and that titles largely should otherwise be written as-is. ''[[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' and ''[[Mario Kart Tour]]'' are not misrepresentative, since they do not introduce any extra formatting within the title itself; [[Das Super Mario Spiel|Das ''Super Mario'' Spiel]] and "[[I Love Mario Kart Tour|I Love ''Mario Kart Tour'']]", on the other hand, are less appropriate.

;Partial italics can cause title ambiguity.
The name of this [[Donkey Kong (Dynatech Play2O)|Donkey Kong water game]] is consistently written as ''Donkey Kong'', which gives the impression that names of physical games are italicised. Other examples include a [[Mario Kart DS (lenticular jigsaw puzzle 1)|''Mario Kart DS'' jigsaw puzzle]] and a [[New Super Mario Bros. Wii (pachinko game)|''New Super Mario Bros. Wii'' pachinko toy]].

;Titles are less readable with mixed use of italics.
Mixing italics into (for example) a song title creates visual noise that makes it harder to parse as a single title, especially when the title is used in the text repeatedly/alongside actual game titles; one look at the page for "[[Super Mario Kart Title Screen]]" shows the extent of this.

My proposed revision to the Manual of Style is as follows (additions in '''bold'''):
<blockquote>
Song titles, book chapters, and episode names (i.e. of television series) are not italicized, but written in quotation marks. The wiki applies the same principle to [[mission]]s from the 3D ''Super Mario'' games. '''Titles within titles (e.g. game titles within song names) should not be italicized; this also applies to products whose names do not use italics or quotation marks, such as physical games and toys.'''
</blockquote>

'''Proposer''': {{User|Reese Rivers}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>December 21, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on December 14, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support: Remove partial italics in names and titles====
#{{User|Reese Rivers}} Per proposal.
#{{User|The Dab Master|''The Dab Master'' Title Screen}} Per proposal. I might also add that this makes things a little harder to link to (especially on mobile), since you have to fully type <code><nowiki>[[Super Mario Kart Title Screen|''Super Mario Kart'' Title Screen]]</nowiki></code>.
#{{User|Hewer}} Very much per proposal, this has been bugging me for some time. "''Super Mario Kart'' Title Screen" feels like a hypercorrection, and we also don't apply this consistently, e.g. the credits theme of ''Super Mario Galaxy'' is just "Super Mario Galaxy" (and if we ''did'' italicise that then it could lead to confusion with the game itself).
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} "per all"
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per proposal. The purpose behind italicizing media in other contexts is to denote what is a container, vs. its contents. For example [[Super Mario World (WarioWare: Get It Together!)|Super Mario World]] is a minigame (content) within ''[[WarioWare: Get It Together!]]'' (container). It is named after and based on ''[[Super Mario World]]'', but it is not literally the same thing just because it’s the same combination of words. The former is a component within a video game. The latter actually is a video game. The same principal is applicable to song titles and the like. To partially italicize the titles of contents like this (or even of containers, as I sometimes encounter in citations for full books that happen to include the names of video games in their titles) dilutes the utility of italicizing the names of media in the first place.
#{{User|Rykitu|Das ''Rykitu'' Spiel}} Per all.
#{{User|Polley001}} Per all.
#{{User|Altendo}} Per all.

====Oppose: Do nothing (status quo)====

====Comments (Do not use partial italics)====
For reference, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Clarify how to italicize merchandise titles in articles|here's a relevant previous proposal]] where it was decided that video game titles within physical game titles should be italicised. I don't believe there was ever a discussion about formatting music titles like this, though. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:38, December 7, 2025 (EST)


===A Format For Footnotes===
{{Proposal outcome|passed|5-0|Adopt specified format}}
Footnotes. So similar to citations in format, but so dissimilar to them in purpose. Currently, we do these one of two ways on the wiki, each falling on one half of this divide.

Firstly, we have {{Tem|Footnote}}, a dedicated template for footnotes. You'd think this would be the end of it, but the template is not consistent with the formatting of citations, which is very noticeable when seeing the two on the same article. This wouldn't be the end of the world, but it's also not as fully featured, only being capable of going back to the first instance of a footnote rather than being able to scroll up to multiplate instances like citations can. Multiple instances of the same footnote are not at all an uncommon use case for footnotes, so this downside is quite unfortunate.

The other method is using grouped <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags with something like "group=note" or "group=a". This ''does'' have the format and functionality of citations — after all, they ''are'' citations. I would call this clearly superior to the first one, and worthy of adoption over it. However, I'm not ''just'' going to suggest standardizing to the second method. There's a little tweak we can make to make this method even better.

See, there's two things that bug me a little about the second method: first off, the use of numbers combined with the fact that it's using the same code as citations make the footnotes look as though they're a ''type'' of citation; while in the code, they are, in spirit one providing additional information and the other one providing the ''source'' of information makes them quite different in purpose. Secondly, the group label makes it wider than your average citation, or anything done with {{tem|Footnote}}, which doesn't sound like a big deal, but the biggest use case for footnotes is tables, tight grids of information; the less a footnote has to stretch a column or move its contents, the better it looks.

I have a solution to both of these problems, and if I understand [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Cite#Citing_different_parts_of_the_same_source this page] correctly, it lies in this site's rarely used MediaWiki namespace. Bear with me; this will be a bit technical but I'll explain what this will accomplish afterward. We will create four pages: {{fake link|MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes}}, {{fake link|MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes2}}, {{fake link|MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes3}}, and {{fake link|MediaWiki:Cite link label group-footnotes4}}. All four pages will share the same text:

<blockquote>a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk hl hm hn ho hp hq hr hs ht hu hv hw hx hy hz ia ib ic id ie if ig ih ii ij ik il im in io ip iq ir is it iu iv iw ix iy iz ja jb jc jd je jf jg jh ji jj jk jl jm jn jo jp jq jr js jt ju jv jw jx jy jz ka kb kc kd ke kf kg kh ki kj kk kl km kn ko kp kq kr ks kt ku kv kw kx ky kz la lb lc ld le lf lg lh li lj lk ll lm ln lo lp lq lr ls lt lu lv lw lx ly lz ma mb mc md me mf mg mh mi mj mk ml mm mn mo mp mq mr ms mt mu mv mw mx my mz na nb nc nd ne nf ng nh ni nj nk nl nm nn no np nq nr ns nt nu nv nw nx ny nz oa ob oc od oe of og oh oi oj ok ol om on oo op oq or os ot ou ov ow ox oy oz pa pb pc pd pe pf pg ph pi pj pk pl pm pn po pp pq pr ps pt pu pv pw px py pz qa qb qc qd qe qf qg qh qi qj qk ql qm qn qo qp qq qr qs qt qu qv qw qx qy qz ra rb rc rd re rf rg rh ri rj rk rl rm rn ro rp rq rr rs rt ru rv rw rx ry rz sa sb sc sd se sf sg sh si sj sk sl sm sn so sp sq sr ss st su sv sw sx sy sz ta tb tc td te tf tg th ti tj tk tl tm tn to tp tq tr ts tt tu tv tw tx ty tz ua ub uc ud ue uf ug uh ui uj uk ul um un uo up uq ur us ut uu uv uw ux uy uz va vb vc vd ve vf vg vh vi vj vk vl vm vn vo vp vq vr vs vt vu vv vw vx vy vz wa wb wc wd we wf wg wh wi wj wk wl wm wn wo wp wq wr ws wt wu wv ww wx wy wz xa xb xc xd xe xf xg xh xi xj xk xl xm xn xo xp xq xr xs xt xu xv xw xx xy xz ya yb yc yd ye yf yg yh yi yj yk yl ym yn yo yp yq yr ys yt yu yv yw yx yy yz za zb zc zd ze zf zg zh zi zj zk zl zm zn zo zp zq zr zs zt zu zv zw zx zy zz</blockquote>

What this will do is define the labeling of citations specifically in the groups "footnotes", "footnotes2", "footnotes3", and "footnotes4". They will not appear with prefixes, and will instead appear something like this.<sup>{{fake link|[d]}}</sup> Which I think is '''perfect'''. It's letters to contrast the numbers of true citations. It's narrow so it slots much nicer into tables than <sup>{{fake link|[note 4]}}</sup> or even <sup>{{fake link|[a 4]}}</sup>. And of course, there's all the benefits of using the citations template for everything still. Does my excitement come through here? I'm quite proud of finding this.

{{tem|Footnote}} will be marked a deprecated template and eventually replaced on all articles where it is currently present. I considered putting this new system into that template instead, or offering that as an option, but considering to be easy to use it would need to have all the same functionality as a <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tag anyway, I... don't think it would be worthwhile to keep.

Obviously, any preexisting ref-footnotes will have to be changed to use the four specific functional groups. I don't know if I'm willing to set much more than that in stone regarding footnotes. I think I'm fine with it generally suiting the needs of the article. Articles where large footnote set(s) are localized to specific tables, such as [[Mario Kart]], can use multiple footnote sets lying right below the pertinent tables; whereas articles with small, scattered footnote sets, such as [[Mario Kart 8 Deluxe]], may be better served with its footnotes as a single set placed next to the citations.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 15, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support (footnotes)====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal.
#[[User:Altendo|a]] [[User talk:Altendo|lt]] [[Special:Contributions/Altendo|en]] [[Special:Editcount/Altendo|do]] This creates 702 footnotes, and while I don't think we can use all of them, we do have a lot of additional space here (not like we'll use all of them, but still).
#[[User:Dominoes|Dominoes]]<sup>[[User talk:Dominoes|[tk]]][[Special:Contributions/Dominoes|[ct]]]</sup> Seems like a pretty reasonable and elegant solution to me.
#{{User|Arend}} The whole <sup>{{fake link|[a 6]}}</sup> and <sup>{{fake link|[b 10]}}</sup> stuff always looked clunky on tables featured on pages such as [[Standard Kart]]; it would've looked much better if it were shortened to things such as <sup>{{fake link|[f]}}</sup> and <sup>{{fake link|[j]}}</sup>. I think we might need more than four footnote classes later, though.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.

====Oppose (footnotes)====

====Comments (footnotes)====
I would rather shorten the group names to "n1", "n2", etc. (which are currently unused) instead of "footnotes", "footnotes2", etc., so that you could type <code>&lt;ref group=n1&gt;</code> instead of <code>&lt;ref group=footnotes&gt;</code>. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 04:31, December 3, 2025 (EST)
:Hm. I see that, but I feel like something like this is best served by maximal clarity rather than making concessions to brevity. These are group labels that cause the ref function to behave unusually, so I want their purpose to be clear and for them to be impossible to stumble upon accidentally. Although, I don't think I've ever seen citation grouping used in any way ''other'' than footnotes... [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:03, December 3, 2025 (EST)

===Rename "Notes" sections "Additional information"===
{{proposal outcome|failed|1-9|Do not rename}}
"Notes" were initially named "Trivia". I wonder why "Notes" sections containing notes, trivia, allusions, cultural references, and/or continuity information are considered a naming error. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to rename "Notes" sections "Additional information", likened to be named similarly to the "{{plain link|http://theinfosphere.org/Infosphere:Manual_of_Style#.22Additional_Info.22|Additional info}}" sections on articles on {{plain link|http://theinfosphere.org/Main_Page|the Infosphere}}.

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>December 27, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on December 20, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support: Notes are additional information!====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

====Oppose: Notes are notes!====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Notes is more concise and fairly accurate. In addition, we do have concerns about the stigma the name "additional information" could bring; [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73#Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents|the push to rename from "Trivia" to "Notes"]] was, partially, because "trivia" had a stigma for being a section of "yeah, no, this should be shuffled to other parts of the page if it can be helped." The name "Notes" makes it clear that it's perfectly fine to have it in its own section so long as it doesn't really fit anywhere else; by literally calling it ''additional information,'' you're practically begging editors to ask, "why is this ''here'' and not the main information?", and once a stigma like that becomes ingrained, it's hard to undo it.
#{{User|Sorbetti}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Reese Rivers}} Per above.
#{{User|Polley001}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Arend}} To me, it appears that GuntherBayBeee doesn't seem to have a lick of understanding ''what'' the "Additional info" section on the Futurama wiki that they've based this whole proposal after even entails. If you {{plain link|http://theinfosphere.org/Infosphere:Manual_of_Style#.22Additional_Info.22|follow the link to the Additional info section of the wiki's Manual of Style page that he provided}}, as well as browsing through the wiki in general, you will immediately notice that the "Additional info" section on the Infosphere is NOT just another term for "Notes" or "Trivia", but in fact a whole ''supersection'' of various multiple subsections... INCLUDING "Trivia"! ''And'', it can include a whole ''slew'' of other sections if episode pages such as "{{plain link|https://theinfosphere.org/Related_to_Items_You%27ve_Viewed|Related to Items You've Viewed}}" or character pages like {{plain link|https://theinfosphere.org/Philip_J._Fry|Philip J. Fry}} are to be believed, including "Quotes", "Appearances", "Continuity", "Allusions", etc. So "Additional info" is in fact ''a much too broad of a term'' and would not cover ''just'' notes, but also ''other'' typical staples on our wiki pages, which, if I get this right, goes completely against what [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/73#Rename Trivia section to "Notes" and allow broader coverage in their contents|the rename to "Notes"]] was striving for. This feels like yet another "change for the sake of change" type of proposal we've seen various times from this guy, and proposing something such as this without (visible) understand of said change, perfectly encapsulates why you SHOULDN'T propose changes ''just'' for the sake of making changes.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Camwoodstock and Arend.
#{{User|YoYo}} this is very pedantic at best and unnecessary at the least.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} Per all.

====Additional information comments====
===Use the world flag if a game/console releases everywhere on the same day===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|4-6|Do not use the world flag}}
I was once on ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]''{{'}}s page and saw that the game released everywhere on the exact same day but we still used many country/region (including their sources) albeit them stating the exact same day (October 17, 2024). Same for the Switch Lite on the Switch's page.

;Why use all those flags when we could just use the world flag?
This has honestly bugged me for a while cause it just makes more sense to have a world flag if a game releases on the same day everywhere in the world. I mean that's why we included the {{flag|World}} (World) flag in our list of flags for the [[Template:Flag|Flag template]], right? Why would we (still) include it if we never use it? Since the [[Switch]] we've had several opportunities (since several games release everywhere on the same day) to use the {{flag|World}} flag yet we still don't use it, even if it is overall more convenient to use and finally gives the {{flag|World}} flag a good purpose on our wiki.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': December 27, 2025, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support: Add the World flag to games/consoles that released on the same day everywhere in the world====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Sargent Deez}} As Hewer said, we already do this on most pages. Fully rolling it out would make things more consistent and infoboxes easier to read.
#{{User|SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA)}} +1 for consistency. Per all.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.

====Oppose: Leave as-is (status quo)====
#[[User:Altendo|Altendo]]<sup>[[User talk:Altendo|<nowiki>[1]</nowiki>]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|<nowiki>[2]</nowiki>]][[Special:Editcount/Altendo|<nowiki>[3]</nowiki>]]</sup> I see several problems with this. The first, and most obvious, would be that this would contradict the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Require citations for dates|proposal that mandated citations for dates]], therefore either clogging up a single flag, forcing them into subcitations within a larger one, or providing inaccurate information based on only a few regions' release date. The second issue is that the usage of this flag could be limited, because games can still release in different regions on different days, and sometimes [[Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle|multiple regions can do this at once]], meaning that this flag's usage would likely be controversial based on which regions it should cover. The third, and biggest issue, though, is that this could misguide users into thinking that a game could release in regions where it hasn't, like ''[[Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope]]'' not releasing in as many regions as ''[[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'', and using a world flag to represent the "majority" could misguide people into thinking that a game released in regions it really hadn't been, which makes it more difficult to accurately determine where a game has been released in. I think a better option would be to double down on Hewer's suggestion and consolidate all of these flags into a collapsible section, but instead of using a potentially misleading or inconsistent world flag, to instead list the game's first release date in its first region outside of the section (personally, if many countries share the same worldwide release date, I think that the American release date should take precedence as it's where most readers are based in, but I also wouldn't mind having the American release date alongside a potentially earlier initial release date, likely Japanese), which gives a quick insight on its initial release date in its initial region (and maybe America) while also allowing readers to see every country a game has released in.
#{{user|Shadow2}} If it's not released in every country in the world, then we shouldn't use the world flag. I doubt these games were released in North Korea.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Altendo
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Altendo. I'm not particularly moved by the idea of a collapsible because... well, I don't see the point in collapsing the information. It's basically just doing what we were going to do anyway except now there's an extra, redundant entry that encapsulates all the others. Is it a crime for an infobox to be tall?
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Altendo. The point about some games releasing at the same time ''only in certain regions'' is a pretty big one; what groups should get the world flag and which ones just get their own ones isn't explained, and to be honest, we wouldn't be particularly enthused even if there was a method to that madness. (We're also not exactly keen on a collapsible, but that's its own thing.)
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.

====Comments (Using the world flag)====
We already do use the world flag for this though, check out the [[:File:Flag of World.svg|list of pages that use the file]] (and I guess [[:File:Flag of World.png|this one]] too). I guess it wasn't being used on the Super Mario Party Jamboree page so that all the citations could be included, but look at how [[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]] handles it. This seems to be an already solved problem. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:43, December 13, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Hewer}} Yeah I see but there are still many games (and the Switch Lite) that don't use this. I guess this rather means that this proposal is meant to fully roll this out over all page. I once tried to enforce this to [[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]'s page but a bureaucrat reverted my edit and told me that it would be better if I proposed this first. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 10:26, December 13, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Altendo}} I don't see any reason why this proposal passing WOULDN'T allow us to do it how {{@|Hewer}} suggested / how it's handled in Luigi's Mansion 2 HD. In fact, I feel like that would actually benefit from this passing. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 11:11, December 15, 2025 (EST)
:I wrote in my vote, "instead of using a potentially misleading or inconsistent world flag, to instead list the game's first release date in its first region outside of the section". Instead of a world flag, using the flag where the game first launched works much better. I also don't see how this is currently done as an issue, and the proposed "solution" could actually be a detriment, as a world flag could be misleading due to the reasons I brought up. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 12:00, December 15, 2025 (EST)
::Yes, but I see nothing that says we can't do it how Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page does it if this passes, though. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:16, December 15, 2025 (EST)

@Altendo: I do agree with your point about preserving the list of regions that a game released in, but are you saying you would want to use collapsible sections for cases where the release date isn't the same worldwide? I don't see the need for that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:24, December 15, 2025 (EST)

:I don't remember saying that. I only remember mentioning collapsible sections as an ''alternative'' solution; I never '''outright''' mentioned this as something I wanted to do. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 13:36, December 15, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Altendo}} and {{@|Shadow2}}, clearly there's some sort of disconnect here. Yes, the arguments of "not releasing in every country" is valid, but then shouldn't we be removing the world flag from the Luigi's Mansion 2 HD page, as well as every page that uses it when it comes to release dates for consistency if we can't use the world flag for release dates? And people getting confused about it? Yeah, ok, I get that that would happen, but only if we use JUST the world flag. I feel like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page gives us a good look at how it should be with other pages like it. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:14, December 16, 2025 (EST)
:I agree with {{@|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)}}. This was actually another point I tried to make with this proposal. If this proposal doesn't pass I guess we have to make [[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]]'s page to look like [[Super Mario Party Jamboree]]. That's why I still don't really get your points, {{@|Altendo}} and {{@|Shadow2}}. It clearly works on Luigi's Mansion 2 HD's page. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:02, December 16, 2025 (EST)
::Wow, I...didn't actually expect a reply...but yeah, I agree. It clearly works with Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, so why not other pages? [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 15:16, December 16, 2025 (EST)
::If the proposal fails then no pages would be changed. Proposals need a "do nothing" option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:53, December 16, 2025 (EST)
:::Yes, you say that, but literally down below {{@|Shadow2}} says that if this fails then actually pages WOULD be changed. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 07:30, December 17, 2025 (EST)
:"but then shouldn't we be removing the world flag from the Luigi's Mansion 2 HD page, as well as every page that uses it when it comes to release dates for consistency if we can't use the world flag for release dates?" ...Yes? I thought that would be obvious. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 06:31, December 17, 2025 (EST)
::Then that would make the pages LOSE simplicity. It's better for those pages to be consistent AND simple. Sure, not EVERY country has had games released, but that doesn't mean we have to sacrifice simplicity. We can keep the simplicity of having the world flag AND still be able to not have people confused about games releasing in, say, Vatican City or North Korea. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 07:28, December 17, 2025 (EST)
:::Just remove the World flag and keep the collapsible menu? If it's a simultaneous release in multiple places, then write "Release date: June 27, 2024" and change the collapsible menu to say something like "Regions released:" [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 21:50, December 17, 2025 (EST)
::::Uh...what? I get it if it's a few regions, but when it's a lot of regions, it's better to just have the simplicity of using the world flag. We can keep the collapsible too, since I don't see that being removed if this passes. And since you want the flag to be removed from all the pages that use it, that means you probably want it deleted, too. Also, the "Amiibo" page uses the flag too. What do you think would happen to THAT page? You'd have to replace it with A WHOLE LOT OF FLAGS. That makes the size of the page bigger. I don't know if it'll end up being big enough to hit the "this page has to be split in some way" mark, but it might. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 10:41, December 18, 2025 (EST)
:::::Do you want factual accuracy or do you want simplicity? [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 23:53, December 18, 2025 (EST)
::::::You're assuming those are mutually exclusive, when in fact, it's actually not. The page for Luigi's Mansion 2 HD has both the simplicity of the world flag, AND the factual accuracy by also having the collapsible. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 08:17, December 19, 2025 (EST)
:::::::I don't think the world flag has any simplicity at all. It's an entry on the release date list that doesn't actually represent any particular country and has a collapsible to put ''other'' release dates beneath it. What I find simple is "here are a bunch of countries and here are the dates this game released there". [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 11:51, December 19, 2025 (EST)
::::::::So, what, make the infobox go more into the page than needed? The "world flag + collapsible" combo is simply a "hey, this game was a simultaneous release because there was no differing release dates in different regions, click the collapsible to see the specific regions" kind of thing. NOT having the world flag and the collapsible just doesn't seem right. And what about pages that use the world flag and nothing else?  That's just extra bytes in the pages that don't really seem needed. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:00, December 19, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::The real list of flags has to exist or else it isn't clear which countries a game released in. The world flag and collapsible are the extra bytes here. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:04, December 19, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::I was talking about the pages that use just the world flag for the "extra bytes" bit. You misunderstood and thought I meant all pages. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 12:22, December 19, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::Okay, but we shouldn't have pages like that, is my stance. They should all have full flag lists. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:41, December 19, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::::Then have an admin end the proposal and you and the others in the opposition do it yourselves. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 13:04, December 19, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::::There's no need for administrator action on this? I'm not sure what the reason to bring this up is. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:51, December 19, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::::::Because the proposal ends on the 27th. Just have a admin end it today since you clearly want this over with. [[User:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)]] ([[User talk:SONIC123CDMANIA+&#38;K(B&#38;ATSA)|talk]]) 20:03, December 19, 2025 (EST)
:::::::::::::::Proposals can only be vetoed by admins if either the original author requests it (Ahemtoday is not the original author of the proposal), if the proposal is set up in such a way where it's impossible to use as an actual proposal (even if some staff, such as us, oppose it, it's a perfectly fine proposal in terms of how it's set up), or in the event the proposal is outright unnecessary or detrimental in the first place (which, it isn't, and this would most likely be determined when the proposal was new, rather than a week later.) A request for cancellation would have to come from Yoshi18. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:36, December 19, 2025 (EST)
::::::::::::::::I will not cancel this proposal (it likely will need to be extended anyway). I think that the fact that [[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]] does it this way is already good enough of an argument on why this proposal should pass. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:33, December 27, 2025 (EST)
===Rename every series from "[game series] (series)" to "[game series]"===
{{anchor|11}}
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
While I was going through [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive#2025 proposals|the talk page proposal archive of 2025]] when I found a proposal wanting to rename "Mario Kart (series)" to "[[Mario Kart]]".<ref group=Proposal>Proposal "[[Talk:Mario Kart#Move to "Mario Kart"|Move to "Mario Kart"]]" (failed on September 27, 2025, but was eventually enforced on an unknown date for unknown reasons)</ref> The proposal failed but was eventually still enforced. Now my question is: Why was this proposal still enforced? It creates major inconsistency with other series article, like for example ''Mario Party'' is still named "Mario Party (series)" rather than simply "Mario Party". That’s why this proposal aims to return the consistency for series articles.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on December 28, 2025, 16:50 UTC

====Option 1: Rename every game series to "[game series] (series)"====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal. First choice since the [[Mario Kart|''Mario Kart'' series]] article is the only article to not be named like this.

====Option 2: Rename every game series to "[game series]"====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal. Second choice.

====Option 3: Leave as-is====

====Comments (game series renaming)====
The reason ''why'' it's enforced now, is because of [[MarioWiki talk:Article naming#"Series" identifer Re-proposal|another proposal]] that passed earlier this month, which aims to remove the "(series)" identifier from series pages ''when they don't need it''; you would've known this if you scrolled a bit further down [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive#2025 proposals|the aforementioned TPP archive]].<br>I'm going to abstain for the moment, but I'll say that I'm completely opposing Option 2, because the reason why pages such as "Mario Party (series)" are named like this because a page without an identifier like "Mario Party" [[Mario Party|already exists]]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:27, December 28, 2025 (EST)
:Besides, considering it's less than two weeks since said proposal, I feel like this one should be vetoed, per [[MarioWiki:Proposals#Rules|Rule 9]]. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:31, December 28, 2025 (EST)

====References (game series renaming)====
<references group=Proposal/>

===Add reception sections for song and level articles===
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
Reviews are one of the more undercooked areas of our Wiki. Take the featured article, ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'', which has only two sentences and three reviews in its reception section. While game articles need improvement in this regard, it's worth noting that there's also plenty of reviews for songs and levels. For example, IGN's ranking of [https://www.ign.com/articles/10-best-mario-levels-of-all-time The 10 Best Mario Levels of All Time] and Nintendo Life's list of the [https://www.nintendolife.com/guides/best-mario-music-ever-our-top-10-mario-songs-super-mario-playlist Best Mario Music Ever]. So, why not make reception sections the standard for them, too? The song articles "[[No Sleep till Brooklyn]]" and "[[Take On Me]]" already have them, and serve as good examples of how they could look.

Also, I'm not suggesting that we roll this out immediately. Most song and level articles are lacking in other aspects, so it's just something to keep in mind for the future

'''Proposer''': {{User|Sargent Deez}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 2, 2026, 17:59 UTC

====Support====
#{{User|Sargent Deez}}
<s>#{{User|The Dab Master}} Per proposal.</s>

====Oppose====
#{{User|Hewer}} Where is the line drawn? If we're allowing this for levels, why not locations or items or characters? There's probably more to say about fan reactions to the latter than the former anyway. But I think the primary purpose of this wiki should be to provide information about official Mario media, not fan reactions to it (which is the kind of thing you can go to Wikipedia or another website for). I also think Camwoodstock brings up a valid concern in the comments about how this could easily lead to users just adding their own opinions to articles and claiming them to be "popular fan opinion" or whatever to make them seem more legitimate. Presumably we'd have to come up with some kind of criteria to determine which random websites' top ten lists should be considered notable enough to cite, which would be basically impossible to do objectively and, in my opinion, a waste of time and effort. I just don't really think "some IGN writer really liked New Donk City" is the kind of information that's noteworthy or relevant for us to cover, and I don't want to end up with our otherwise neutrally-written articles being filled with fan opinions. For the record, I wouldn't mind removing the "reception" sections from the licensed song articles too, I was iffy about them since they were [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/79#Make articles for the licensed songs in The Super Mario Bros. Movie|proposed]] (but didn't mention it then since it wasn't a focal point of that proposal).
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} In this state, we don't think we can support this proposal. We don't particularly enjoy the idea of having to cite various Listicles and. ''Tubers.'' For the sake of something like these, and in the case of levels, that is all you would be able to fall back on; there's not exactly a Rotten Tomatoes for Video Game Levels, so these more wishy-washy "top 10" or "bottom 10" articles or videos are really all you'd have. Music would at the very least least have aggregate reviews to fall back on, and, if it was just that, we could earnestly see some merit... Though, in the case of [[Super Mario Bros. Special (album)|more obscure albums]] that have as low as ''one'' review on sites like Discogs, tracking these aggregate reviews may be a bit of an exercise in futility for them.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} Per Camwoodstock.

====Comments====
...It's a nice idea, but we have a lot of concerns if there are actually enough few actual dedicated "reviews" for video game songs to warrant this, in part due to the general stigma they have. The closest you'd get are aggregate review percentages for entire game soundtracks, sourced from sites like Discogs, which. Hey, is better than the alternative; outside of simple aggregate reviews of entire soundtracks, we imagine this would be more-or-less devolve into citing various "Top 10" tabloid site articles and... ''Tubers.'' We, personally, do not want to have to do the legwork of verifying said YouTuber ranking [[Gusty Garden Galaxy (theme)|Gusty Garden Galaxy]] "The Top 1 Mario Song" has 100,000 subscribers, and it's not an instance of some kid with the username "FNFSprunkiFan2012" adding a video they made to the page as a shameless attempt to plug said YouTube channel. In other words, '''Do we actually ''have'' enough sources to justify this, beyond just listicles and YouTube videos?''' {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 17:38, January 1, 2026 (EST)
:There's a good amount of reviews for soundtracks, such as this one of [https://www.squareenixmusic.com/reviews/jonturner/mariokart64best.shtml ''Mario Kart 64 Greatest Hits'']. There are probably not enough sources to have tables for most songs and levels, but I see no harm in archiving what is there. Also, I thought we had more quality control with our sources to keep scenarios like your YouTube example from happening. Regardless, it's a criticism that could also be applied to games, so I don't think it should be a determining factor.  {{User:Sargent Deez/sig}} 17:56, January 1, 2026 (EST)
::Game reviews are much more numerous than individual game level reviews or game music reviews, I'd argue it's not quite the same thing. (To be honest, I already see the "Reception" sections on game pages as something of an anomaly on this wiki, which usually dislikes including unofficial content or fan opinions.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 22:06, January 1, 2026 (EST)
I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty understanding your points, {{@|Hewer}}. Firstly, it's important to note that reviewers aren't just fans; they are professionals who are qualified and paid for their work, and they often have connections with companies like Nintendo that provide them with early access to content. I thought it was common knowledge that user-generated reviews on YouTube and blogs should be avoided, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up as if it's an issue exclusive to this. Using a random YouTube video to source a release date would be no better. And your comment that this would boil down to "some IGN writer really liked New Donk City" is just wrong. Again, these people are paid professionals, and they usually give more insight than that. Also, no, you can't just go to Wikipedia for this information, as they barely have articles for ''Mario'' songs and levels. It seems like you have a vision of the Mario Wiki as just an official archive, when that's not entirely the case, since Reception sections have been the standard on game articles for years, and there's been no major backlash against them. Also, reviews can play a role in official content. For example, the unfavorable reviews of the ''Paper Mario'' games in the 2010s likely influenced how Nintendo approached the series. 

Oh, and if there are reviews for items and characters, I see no problem with including them. It sounds to me like you're against Reception sections at large, not just in this context. {{User:Sargent Deez/sig}} 12:41, January 2, 2026 (EST)

===Make everything on the wiki use UTC===
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
Per [[MarioWiki talk:Featured articles#Make all nominations use UTC|my proposal on the Featured Articles article]] for nominations to use UTC (like most of the wiki) rather than EST. After making that proposal I realized that signatures use EST ("~~&#126;~~" = "19:15, December 31, 2025 (EST)"). Now to avoid needing to make another talk page proposal and then realizing that yet ''another'' thing on the wiki uses EST, I'm now making a main proposal to change it all once and for all.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 2, 2026, 20:00 UTC

====Support (use UTC)====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal. It keeps things consistent. The wiki used to use EST for basically everything but now the wiki barely uses EST and uses UTC for basically everything (including the deadline of proposals). UTC is also more international and easy for everyone (doesn't matter from which timezone they are) to understand.

====Oppose (status quo)====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} While a nice idea, it's kind of a nightmare in terms of actually... Implementing this, especially when considering how much "everything" actually ''is.'' The pages that rely on UTC heavily (namely, proposals) already come equipped with tools to show the time in UTC, and if a specific timezone is wanted, it's specified beside the time, like in signatures, and that's working just fine.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Using a UTC time zone is ok, but it should be an option or choice to use that time zone, not mandatory. Asides from that, users should be able to use the time zone that matches the location they are currently in, rather than just UTC all the time. Not everyone on the MarioWiki lives in a UTC time zone.
#{{User|Altendo}} As someone who lives in Manhattan and uses Eastern Time, this will definitely complicate things a lot, not just for me, but for everyone who doesn't live in UTC time zones. Page revisions, logs, and the block list are all tailored to preferences, so if someone wants to use UTC, they can, but it shouldn't be ''forced'' onto every user. I am unsure if initial time preferences are UTC or based on the IP address, because if the former is not the case, I don't mind setting the default time to UTC, but allowing users to change it should remain an option. For me, I easily remember UTC for things like proposals (5/4 hours ahead depending on the month compared to ET).
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Completely unnecessary and more trouble than it's worth. Per all.

====Comments (Coordinated Universal Time-rs)====
Local time zones should be used to refer to events taking place within a specific region, but this proposal as written would prevent usage of other time zones in such cases. A more feasible solution would be to use templates to better indicate time zones and provide automatic conversions. [[User:B700465189a9|B700465189a9]] ([[User talk:B700465189a9|talk]]) 19:24, December 31, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|B700465189a9}}, while I like the idea, it has one major problem: Almost the entire wiki uses UTC and making the signatures use different timezones would mean we would (eventually) have to make a whole system for this (something probably only the {{color link|magenta|MarioWiki:Proprietor|Proprietor}} can do). UTC is just the server (and most international) time and everyone just has to adapt to it (which is easier than adapting to EST). {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:54, December 31, 2025 (EST)

I don't know much regarding the technical side, but if the fact that [[mw:Help:Signatures]] shows signature timestamps in the UTC timezone, and the fact that [[mw:Manual:Timezone]] also is a page, I think it should be doable? Of course, it's probably something that only [[User:Porplemontage|Porplemontage]] could do here, but hey, there have been proposals passed before which requires the assistance of the proprietor.<br>Now I think it would also be neat if a bit could convert all already-placed timestamps from signatures (on, like talk pages and such) from EST to UTC, too, but it would also be a bit of a handful I suppose. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:17, December 31, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Mari0fan100}} {{@|Altendo}} From what I can gather, the proposal ''only'' would affect the signature's timestamps (the ones made with the tildes), nothing else. And I should know that this wouldn't affect [[special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering|the time offset preferences]] at all, as I have my time zone set to Europe/Amsterdam; if what you said is correct, that ''should'' mean my sig timestamps should be shown in CET, yet for some reason they're still in EST, for years at this point. Not to mention that in the same time offset section, it shows that the server time is one hour off from my local time, perfectly reflecting the difference between UTC and CET, rather than the difference between EST and CET, which is a 6 hour difference. So one could tell from this that UTC was always supposed to be the correct timezone for the server, yet for some reason, the timestamps enforce EST instead. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:22, January 1, 2026 (EST)
:To be fair, I completely understand the confusion. After all, the title of this proposal is "Make '''everything''' on the wiki use UTC"; when really, the proposer is confused why the signature timestamps made with tildes are always in EST whereas the rest of the wiki (proposals mainly) use UTC instead, reflecting the server time. I feel like Yoshi18 could try to reword their proposition to have just the signature timestamps adjusted. {{User:Arend/sig}} 08:49, January 1, 2026 (EST)
::Yeah maybe I should cancel this proposal and apply it to the signature talk page instead. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 14:59, January 2, 2026 (EST

===Character introduced year category===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|0-11|Do not create categories}}
With so many Mario characters, what do you think about including established year in categories? I'd like to hear our opinions.

Example: {{Fake link|Category:1985 introduced characters}}

'''Proposer''': {{User|Windy}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on January 4, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support: Necessary====

====Oppose: Unnecessary====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Slippery Slope Sal here. There's no reason to not then make categories for items by year of introduction, categories for location by year of introduction, categories for moves by year of introduction, and so on. Doing all of that sounds like which sounds like a lot of work. (Why do we not have to do this right now even though we have [[:Category:Games by date]]? Games are non-fictional, so the implication of Category:Games by date are categories for other non-fictional things like Category:Books by date and Category:Episodes by date. There are fewer articles about non-fictional products that would need these categories than articles about fictional subjects that would need these categories.)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Salmancer, this feels a little too broad for its own good, especially when you happen to hit years that have RPGs in them, and thusly cause that year's category to basically boil down to "the cast of this RPG, and also some other guys are in here." You wouldn't really get much from having a second copy of the [[:Category:Super Paper Mario characters|''Super Paper Mario'' characters]] category with added [[Terrormisu]].
#{{User|RickTommy}} The very definition of both trivial and irrelevant.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. I don't even really get what this proposal is meant to mean or change (as in; change something useful).
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Camwoodstock
#{{User|Wandering Poplin}} Per all. Especially since the "year" some characters can vary widely depending on the region, especially during the early years.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all, especially RickTommy. The closest you've got to this is [[List of characters by first appearance]] (which is very incomplete compared to [[List of characters]], but it is something)
#{{User|Arend}} Whereas "established" (the initially proposed word) would get too vague at a certain point, "introduced" would get redundant and category-bloating very quick when you realize ''every single character'' would get such a type of category. I honestly cannot tell how many characters we precisely have on the wiki, but I'm pretty sure it's at least thousands. And most of them already have categories in which games they appear. While on paper it sounds neat and organized, it really falls apart when you think about it.
#{{User|Altendo}} I love how the proposer didn't even vote on his own proposal. Anyways, per all.
====Comments====
Who would you consider "established" or a "character"? [[Goomba]] is established, but I wouldn't consider it a character per se. I feel like the definition of "established" can also be quite blurry the further you go down the list. Is [[Candy Kong]] still an established character? How about [[Toadsworth]]? Are recurring characters with large absences that have recently come back still "established"? {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:40, December 28, 2025 (EST)
:I thought "established" was being used to mean "introduced", as in "characters introduced in 1985". And the question of whether we should categorise entities like Goomba as "characters" is not specific to this proposal, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 12:50, December 28, 2025 (EST)
::From what I can gather, "to establish" means that something is being set up for a prolonged if not permanent time, and/or for the foreseeable future. Like, the seven kings were introduced in ''[[Super Mario Bros. 3]]'', but considering that's their ''only'' appearance, I wouldn't call them "established".<br>And, I dunno, Goombas are established parts of the franchise and often considered by Nintendo as part of the main cast. I could see why someone would want to include a Goomba as an "established character". {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)
:::I'm not saying I don't personally think Goomba should be categorised as a character, I'm saying that's an entirely separate issue that doesn't make much sense to bring up as if it's a problem with this proposal. The way the wiki is currently organised, we have [[:Category:Characters|character categories]] and [[:Category:Species|species categories]] as separate things, and this proposal isn't trying to change that. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:28, December 28, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah I know, I guess I was trying to think too much ahead of any potential "broadification" of the scope. {{User:Arend/sig}} 15:49, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I don't really get what this proposal is meant to  mean. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 14:32, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this proposal needs additional clarification. What use would this have? Why exactly do we need this? And what do you mean by "established"? You don't even provide any reasoning for this. {{User:The Dab Master/sig}} 14:45, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Renamed "established" to "introduced" right now. The category is based on "Video game characters introduced in (year)". [[User:Windy|Windy]] ([[User talk:Windy|talk]]) 15:01, December 28, 2025 (EST)

===Remove images from infoboxes of musical themes that aren't in Nintendo Music===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-11|Keep the images}}

In short: unlike themes that have an official NM screenshot, they're unofficial and have potential for subjectivity.

'''Proposer''': {{User|RickTommy}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on January 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support====
#{{User|RickTommy}} Per proposal.

====Oppose====
#{{User|Altendo}} While I do agree with the proposer's take on "officialness", making sure that the only images attached to a musical track are from Nintendo, I still feel like some sort of image would be nice to guide users into a quick introduction to the track, including where it plays. This would also create a weird inconsistency with tracks that have yet to be added to Nintendo Music, and some tracks might never be added, not just because of the dripfeed, but because some games do have their tracks on official streaming services (the ''[[Mario + Rabbids]]'' games have their soundtracks there due to Ubisoft being the owner of Rabbids). And if every infobox image has to be "official", then this will affect level pages ''en masse'', since most of the screenshots are unofficial. I think retaining "unofficial" screenshots in the infoboxes is fine.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} these tracks do not exist on their own, they are part of an audiovisual medium in which sound and images interplay to create a complete experience. the images serve as an illustrative example of when the theme plays.
#{{User|Tails777}} I wouldn't say anything about using non-Nintendo Music images is considered unofficial. Using an image of Delfino Plaza in the infobox for the Delfino Plaza theme is as clear as clear can get. So long as the image showcases a scene of where the song originally plays, I don't see anything wrong with using any proper image to convey the points, at least until they're added to Nintendo Music.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} So long as it's properly distinguished that the image in question is ''not'' sourced from Nintendo Music, we couldn't particularly care to remove it if they weren't sourced from Nintendo Music so long as they do an adequate job of showing where the song plays.
#{{User|Arend}} Per all. As long as the infobox image properly depicts where the theme plays, it should be OK to include.
#{{User|Cloudwalker}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I don't feel like this proposal really gives a good structured reason as to why images should be removed. Per all.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per the others.
#{{User|Sorbetti}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} A song not being on Nintendo Music does not mean the track names are unofficial at all. For example, most of the ''Mario Party'' games have a music shop or some other feature which allows someone to listen to all of the soundtracks the player has unlocked, and they have official names. Per all.

====Comments====
@RickTommy re: "unlike musical themes that have an official NM screenshot, they're unofficial and have potential for subjectivity"
<br>
That's not fully true. Multiple ''Mario Party'' songs/themes do not have an official NM screenshot, but that doesn't make them unofficial since the official names can be easily accessed by going into the music shop or some other equivalent and checking the names of songs/tracks the player has unlocked. For example, songs with board names (such as "Mega Wiggler's Tree Party 1") are the official name(s) of the song(s). [[User:Mari0fan100|Mari0fan100]] ([[User talk:Mari0fan100|talk]])
:...are you aware this proposal is not about names? [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 01:08, December 31, 2025 (EST)
::This is what happens when I fail to properly/thoroughly read a proposal during a late evening. Regardless, I still feel opposed to this, mostly because there are other official music websites asides from Nintendo Music that various soundtracks have been listed or released on. [[User:Mari0fan100|Mari0fan100]] ([[User talk:Mari0fan100|talk]]) 22:40, December 31, 2025 (EST)
:::What does that have to do with the proposal, either? As shown in the proposal's very title, this is about removing the ''images'' from infoboxes on articles of songs that aren't on Nintendo Music yet (e.g. removing [[:File:WWMM DribbleSpitzStage.png]] from the [[Drifting Away]] infobox), ''purely'' because they're "unofficial Nintendo Music screenshots", unlike those officially released on the app (such as [[:File:NM SMW2 Athletic BGM.png|this one]] for [[Athletic BGM (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)]]). Why are you mentioning "other official music websites" instead? {{User:Arend/sig}} 18:33, January 1, 2026 (EST)
::Also, I'm well aware that (nearly) every track in the ''Mario Party'' series has an official name (in-game, no less), thank you very much, having 1) been one of the most prolific users in adding track names to mini-game articles (in fact, [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/RickTommy&target=RickTommy&offset=20141106&limit=650 doing so was when I was at my most active on this Wiki]), 2) created the [[List of Mario Party series music names in other languages]] article, 3) created most of the ''Mario Party'' [[:Category:Sound tests|sound test]] articles, and 4) shown an interest in this very subject since before MarioWiki even existed. <!--And 5) been probably the only player of ''Island Tour'' who has repeatedly self-StreetPassed just to unlock all the tracks.--> As for "potential for subjectivity", I'm referring to an image being chosen solely out of personal preference. <span style="font-family:Mario Party 2/3 Textbox">[[User:RickTommy|RickTommy]] ([[User talk:RickTommy|talk]])</span> 00:41, January 2, 2026 (EST)

===Remove the Community Poll===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-28|Do not remove the community poll}}
We are now at a time where heated debates can happen with anything at any time, and there are people like myself who just want to enjoy themselves without even thinking about them. The polls themselves have also become increasingly cliché'd, to the point where it's predictable on which vote most will vote for (e.g. #WaluigiForSmash) and other votes feel like "joke votes" that some only ironically vote for (e.g. liking the free update model in Mario sports games, not liking any 2D Mario art style, etc.). Stopping polls altogether would help not only those who get mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion, but also higher-ups of the wiki like administrators, bureaucrats, etc. to focus more on anything else. For those who still want to share their opinion with others, they can visit forums, social media, the talk page (if others want to, of course), and so on. But thinking about the opinions of each person should not be one of the first things a user wants to think about when they visit an editing site like this, especially if they go through the main page.

'''Proposer''': {{User|Sarantis}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on January 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support====
#{{User|Sarantis}} Per proposal.
<s>#{{User|SGoW}} woke has ruined opinions</s>

====Oppose====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ...This is quite possibly the first time we've ''ever'' heard somebody acknowledge the community poll on the front page. Admittedly, we're not too versed on the broader "community" on the wiki, for all we know people on Twitter are mailing napalm to one another over saying they prefer CDs to Plushies in terms of merchandise, but looking at the [https://www.marioboards.com/threads/45007/latest poll discussion thread on the Mario Boards] that we actually link to on the poll itself, the entire thread is just. A lot of people, very civilized, saying their votes and occasionally explaining rationale. What few replies there even are in the last 5 pages of responses are mostly people replying to... The post that mirrors what the current poll was, and the closest you get to any sort of vitriol is. A single Simpsons meme, that was clearly directed at Nintendo, rather than any individual in the community. If the argument is literally just that "people can argue about ''anything'', so we need to stop that before it can start", we have bad news about what happens when you make a '''''collaborative''''' writing project like a wiki.
#{{User|Sparks}} Hi! Member of the Poll Committee here. Removing polls altogether would result in the loss of a group of people who want to create fun polls for everyone to vote in. For fun! There's no debating whatsoever. The polls we make are harmless.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I don't see any good reasoning for this other than "I don't like this so it should get removed" or you can't accept that people have different opinions than you.
#{{User|Cloudwalker}} Hi, another Poll Committee member here. What they said.
#{{User|Wandering Poplin}} While I understand and very much agree with your sentiment, this reaction feels this is a bit... extreme. I think there are other ways of addressing the matter than removing the feature altogether. Especially considering the users (or visitors) who may actually enjoy using the polls.
#{{User|The Dab Master}} P(er) oll
#{{User|Arend}} [https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/731/143/3e3.jpg This you], proposer?
#{{User|LadySophie17}} There is absolutely nothing wrong with the polls, people are free to share what they like or dislike about anything at anytime. Also what an ''insult'' it is to insinuate there are "joke" options. Just like every Pokémon is someone's favorite Pokémon, everyone's opinions are different. The polls are being thorough and there's no reason not to cover such options even if no one would vote for them. Or are you implying no one is "allowed" to enjoy the free updates to sports games? Is everyone mandated to enjoy at least one art style of a series they might not even like? How ''rude''.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Now, I could write a whole paragraph here, overexplaining my opinion on the matter, but somehow "Per all" feels more eloquent. Well actually I can't resist adding some more context. The people who are making the polls choose to make them. That's the [[MarioWiki:Polls#About|Poll Committee]]. No one loses time they aren't willing to spend on making polls. At that point, any community oriented feature is bad because it takes away from people editing the wiki, and that's going overboard. I guess to end this: think about that poll thread, and think about The Shroom's Poll section. Think about the Mario Awards, which technically isn't part of the community poll but has the same spirit behind it. Is removing the poll from the Main Page worth taking away those other things that bring many users joy outside of editing the wiki? ...Darn it I wrote a paragraph.
#{{User|Hewer}} It's a harmless feature of the main page that gives it a little more interactivity. Also, this proposal makes no effort to explain what the main page would look like if it were to pass. With the way the main page is designed, removing a large element of it such as the poll would mess up the look of the whole thing unless we added something else to replace its spot, and I don't see much of a reason to bother doing that.
#{{User|Spencer_PK}} To me, the community poll has always been something fun to have on the front page of a wiki covering a franchise this big. The polls are quick and easy for someone just passing through the main page to add a vote, and these votes can give some interesting data about certain games. It has always been a fun surprise seeing a new poll, voting, and moving on. I don't want the fun and community insight this brings to go away.
#{{User|BMfan08}} Shall we also remove the ability to have conversations in other people's talk pages for fear of those being heated as well? Or am I going too overboard?
#{{User|1468z}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Mario}} No offense but the issue with polls here seems very much of a "you" problem.
#{{User|Meta Knight|Meta}} This has inspired me to go vote in the poll.
#{{User|Hooded Pitohui}} Earnestly, I do think there is value in assessing the benefits and operation of community projects now and again. It's to the community's benefit to examine something like the Poll Committee and its main page polls on rare occassion, and to freely discuss it, debate it, and affirm that it is something that ought to continue. That all said, I would recommend starting conversations about the Poll Committee or its work within the Poll Committee itself. It would be most courteous to raise concerns and open a dialogue with the Poll Chairperson or to otherwise reach out to a PC member, giving the PC a chance to give input and (in the event there ''is'' a change to be made) to have a hand in finding a path forward. All of ''that'', in turn, said, to address the specific concerns and reasoning raised in this proposal... Well, Camwood has already stated it well. There are no major disputes which have arisen over any poll options, and it's simply a necessity of life that one becomes accustomed to navigating disagreement and vigorous-but-polite discussion and debate.
#{{User|Ninja Squid}} Per all. This proposal also seems to lack a total understanding regarding the structure of this project.
#{{User|Axii}} Removing a part of wiki culture over people "who get mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion" feels ironic, as the proposal itself centers on avoiding exposure to different opinions.
#{{User|Altendo}} Per all.
#{{User|Tails777}} Who cares if some polls end up with incredibly obvious answers? Yeah, lots of questions will have that. You ask anyone what their favorite ''Mario Kart Wii'' track is and 9 times outta ten, you'll likely hear Coconut Mall. But part of the fun is having a different opinion, sharing it and just being satisfied knowing you're in a different boat. I fail to see how the poll section causes any sort of issue, as I've yet to see anyone get heated over how the results of the polls go.
#{{User|Sorbetti}} per all.
#{{User|Reese Rivers}} Per all.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi|Yoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} I've always found community polls to be more fun than heated. Removing them would be a killjoy. Per all, especially the Poll Committee members who oppose this.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Nothing more to add, this was overall a poor reading of the room.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Dominoes}} Per all.

====Comments====
{{@|Sarantis}}, why is this proposal even a thing? Just because you don't like a community feature doesn't mean that most don't (or can't) like it as well. With this proposal you basically just proofed that you can't accept people having different opinions than you. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 16:33, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:{{@|Yoshi18}}, if I ever '''dared''' to tell my opinion to a wild crowd out there, they would haunt me for eternity. Trust me, I've seen comments from others complaining about the toxicity in games like Super Smash Bros. [[User:Sarantis|Sarantis]] ([[User talk:Sarantis|talk]]) 16:42, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:I personally don't get the impression that they hate it when people disagree with their takes. Rather, it feels more like they think these polls will somehow cause a community-wide discourse on the wiki itself (which is stupid because opinions on the series itself are handled on the forums, and the polls don't really extend to the wiki beyond the main page), on top of being a fun-hater in general with a grudge on """joke votes""". {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:44, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:{{@|Sarantis}}, trust me: if people would do that here they would definitely get blocked (either for a while or forever) in a hour or max a day. And if they still didn't get blocked yet, you could just go to the [[MarioWiki:Staff noticeboard|Staff Noticeboard]] and report them there. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 16:48, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:I do understand the concerns about "toxic fandoms," but I think a better solution, if one were necessary, would be to change '''how''' we construct polls, rather than trashing the feature altogether. Mind you, it doesn't look like truly divisive polls are even a very common occurrence on this wiki. (I also think the ''"fun-hater with a grudge on 'joke votes'"'' comment was a little uncalled for...) [[User:Wandering Poplin|Wandering Poplin]] ([[User talk:Wandering Poplin|talk]]) 17:01, January 3, 2026 (EST)
::Sorry if that comment of mine came over as rude (and, by extension, if my vote with the "No Fun Allowed" meme came over as rude as well). I felt like that when they've been complaining about "joke votes", and said "joke votes" merely being relatively normal options that, while yes, wouldn't get a lot of votes, but are expected to be included anyway merely to cover everything just in case; in addition of them also not liking increasingly predictable and cliché votes. Removing options like those is like removing the "Yes" or the "No" in a "yes-or-no" type of question, which is extremely biased and not fun. And these polls are made in good fun and are ultimately harmless, despite what the proposer fears.<br>It kinda feels like the proposer didn't make this proposal in good faith (as if they believe the polls themselves aren't made in good faith either), and thus the rest of the community reacts accordingly. {{User:Arend/sig}} 09:19, January 5, 2026 (EST)

I'm going to be frank. This proposal is more of a brow-raiser than any one of your likely-dime-a-dozen milquetoast opinions concerning the biggest video game franchise in the world. {{User:Mario/sig}} 17:22, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:IDK, sounds like a harmless proposal to me. I don't agree with it, but I also wouldn't disapprove of it. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 17:51, January 3, 2026 (EST)
::I just wish more users had been a bit more polite about it. Several remarks from the opposition ended turning this entire situation even '''more''' toxic than the very polls this proposal wanted to remove. It's honestly some depressingly painful irony... [[User:Wandering Poplin|Wandering Poplin]] ([[User talk:Wandering Poplin|talk]]) 18:01, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:::I see more users expressing astonishment at the severity of the proposal's aims, the puerile reasoning for it, and the clear lack of understanding about how [[MarioWiki:Polls]] is even run; people also express defensiveness over what are personal projects ran by other users. What is immediately noticeable is that, from the surrounding discussions of other proposals, people will be constructive. If one wants more reasoned comments, make a better proposal. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:46, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:::{{@|Wandering Poplin}} Believe me, I understand how you feel about this: I've wanted to cancel this proposal immediately specifically for these reasons and as per rule 18 (had I been home the day it was conceived, I would have already binned this) but apparently some community members think there will be worthy, respectable, snarkless discourse that'll come out of this. {{User:Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior/sig}} 14:22, January 4, 2026 (EST)
::::I just don't want the proposer to feel demeaned one way or another just for opening the topic. Or to make them feel as though they're to blame for "inviting" snark. Already there's some pretty heavy wording being levelled their way. Someone's arguments may be poor and I think pointing that out constructively is fine (EDIT: and, indeed, the claims in the proposal are quite severe and poorly founded, as other users have pointed out), but calling these arguments "puerile" is likely to just make that person resentful--at any rate, I can't possibly see how that fosters good discourse at all, especially seeing as how the proposer's language is pretty mild and doesn't attack other users. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:23, January 4, 2026 (EST), edited 18:30, January 4, 2026 (EST)
::::I'm also just noticing that the proposer was called ''rude'' literally just for stating their personal dislike for virtual polls. I... rest my case. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:40, January 4, 2026 (EST)
:::::As I said, I'm no fan of the dogpiling and the snarky votes either. It's very obvious that the community thinks the poll is a bad idea, myself included, because it's inline with rule 18: as a 'crat, I think getting rid of polls in a hastily written proposal is a massive change to ask for that I think would have a highly detrimental impact to the community at large, and I detest the idea that we're even entertaining this at all, and most of the comments section complaining about overall community etiquette than healthy, serious discussion speaks volumes. {{User:Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior/sig}} 18:49, January 4, 2026 (EST)
:::::{{@|Koopa con Carne}} to reiterate what I said in my comment, I called the proposer rude for ''literally'' being dismissive of opinions they consider "joke votes" that people "only ironically vote for". As you can see, that comment evidently is not related to their opinion on virtual polls. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 09:00, January 5, 2026 (EST)
::::::Maybe the next poll should have a joke option instead of a "I don't care" option to see how much users fall for the honey trap. {{User:Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior/sig}} 20:26, January 5, 2026 (EST)
:::::{{@|Koopa con Carne}}, the reason why they were called was because this proposal pretty literally says "I don't like this feature so it should be removed for everyone (even if they do like it)". Plus, part of the reasoning behind this proposal doesn't even go about their personal opinion. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 12:28, January 7, 2026 (EST)
::::::I appreciate your concern but I've already defended my message, and you have misread my comments just as Koopa con Carne did, making your reply also misguided. Finally, please place further replies ''down'' the comment chain, not at the top. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 14:48, January 7, 2026 (EST)
:::::::Sarantis does imply a view of "I dislike this, therefore nobody should" in stating that they find some of the voting frivolous, but I'm still inclined to assume it was an honest mistake. The user has not edited this page since the posting of the proposal, therefore having neither doubled down nor apologized for it, so jumping to conclusions and attacking them with invectives just comes across as assuming bad faith. There are other ways to signal this possible mistake. ''That's'' what ultimately bothered me. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 16:43, January 7, 2026 (EST)
::::::::{{@|Koopa con Carne}}, I understand your concerns, but I guess the vibe of the reasoning behind this proposal made people think something bad about the proposer. Even if community members harass others for having different opinions than them, they can just report them at the [[MarioWiki:Staff noticeboard|Staff Noticeboard]] and they will definitely get blocked within a day. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:32, January 9, 2026 (EST)
::::::::I mean, Sarantis ''did'' reply to Yoshi18's question to them [[Special:Diff/5157955|even when there already was heavy opposition]]... (although to be fair, it ''was'' on the same day as them posting the proposal) {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:27, January 8, 2026 (EST)
Reading this proposal has raised a lot of concerns in my eyes. The front page poll does not reveal the opinions of anybody until you either (a) visit the forum, (b) click on "View Results", or (c) cast a vote yourself. In short, it's your choice as a user to see the opinions of others with the poll. I'm concerned about your choice of language in the final sentence of this proposal. "Thinking about the opinions of each person should not be one of the first things a user wants to think about when they visit an editing site like this, especially if they go through the main page." As I mentioned, you don't even get to see the opinions of others, either through text or a graph, unless you actively choose to do so. Otherwise, it's just presenting a question that you can choose to publicly answer or not. But the way you wrote your sentence, it sounds to me like you are getting strongly stressed out or anxious just from seeing the poll itself. As in, you see something that you know will involve the opinions of others, and it stresses you out without even seeing the opinions at all. That's rather concerning to me, and it makes me worried about your overall well-being. I know it's not really my place to say, but I feel compelled to say it anyway as someone who's gone through something similar in my life. The vast majority of people do not get stressed out simply from thinking about the unseen/unheard opinions of the masses about innocuous questions, and we as a wiki cannot cater to every single trigger point that any individual person may have. We can't get rid of the [[Rattly]] page because some people have a snake phobia, for example. I'm not going to accuse you of having any real life difficulties that you may very well not have at all, but I can just tell you that talking to people and seeking help if necessary does a lot for a person's mental health. There are plenty of ways to get help for people who are "mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion" (Whether you fall into that distinction or not), but it is not the Mario Wiki's position to facilitate that help. We are here to Mario. (Again I'm sorry if I'm out of line here, but I just felt strongly compelled to share these words) [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 22:09, January 6, 2026 (EST)

{{@|SGoW}}, what even is your reasoning behind this? Like it geniunely feels like you're trolling here. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 12:28, January 7, 2026 (EST)
:{{@|SGoW}} I would also like ask for an elaboration, per rules 6 and 7. [[User:Dominoes|Dominoes]] ([[User talk:Dominoes|talk]]) 23:28, January 9, 2026 (EST)
::I hate woke {{User:SGoW/sig}} 06:37, January 10, 2026 (EST)
:::It really doesn't sound like it should have anything to do with the proposal... well, mostly, it sounds kinda bigoted to complain about "woke" stuff (like those far-right people on social media complaining about minor things in movies), especially when it's about harmless polls and opinions. And this response doesn't really explain anything beyond saying that you might be a bigot too, so ''please'' tell us that this is some sort of elaborate joke. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:08, January 10, 2026 (EST)
::::yes it's a joke lol. the proposal has almost 30 oppose votes I think I can shitpost a little. {{User:SGoW/sig}} 07:46, January 10, 2026 (EST)
:::::In that case, I think we can remove your vote before the proposal ends. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 10:36, January 10, 2026 (EST)

===Decide how to add the "fandom" interwiki prefix===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-2-7|Keep as-is}}
Fandom launched in 2016 and Wikia was fully phasing out from 2018 to 2021. I was wondering if we could rename the <code>wikia:c:</code> interwiki prefix <code>fandom:</code>, like we did with the {{tem|Fandom}} template on the [[Template talk:Fandom#Move "&lbrace;&lbrace;Wikia&rbrace;&rbrace;" to "&lbrace;&lbrace;Fandom&rbrace;&rbrace;"|last proposal that succeeded]].

I offer three options:
;Option 1: Add the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix remove the <code>wikia:c:</code> prefix.
;Option 2: Only add the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix.
;Option 3: Keep as-is.

This is what an interwiki link that starts with <code>wikia:c:</code> currently looks like:

<blockquote>
;<code><nowiki>[[wikia:c:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]</nowiki></code>: {{fandom|gravityrush|Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush}}
</blockquote>

As such, this is what an interwiki link that starts with <code>fandom:</code> currently looks like:

<blockquote>
;<code><nowiki>[[fandom:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]</nowiki></code>: {{color link external|#FF1A1A|https://www.mariowiki.com/Fandom:gravityrush:Gravity_Rush|Gravity Rush}}
</blockquote>

Once this proposal passes with either options 1 or 2 having the most votes, then this is what the interwiki link that starts with <code>fandom:</code> will look like:

<blockquote>
;<code><nowiki>[[fandom:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]</nowiki></code>: {{fandom|gravityrush|Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush}}
</blockquote>

Possibly, if this proposal passes with option 1 having the most votes, this is what the interwiki link that starts with <code>wikia:c:</code> will look like:

<blockquote>
;<code><nowiki>[[wikia:c:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]</nowiki></code>: {{color link external|#FF1A1A|https://www.mariowiki.com/Wikia:c:gravityrush:Gravity_Rush|Gravity Rush}}
</blockquote>

I figured since Fandom got rid of the name "Wikia", the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix would either be a suitable replacement for <code>wikia:c:</code> or a new feature.

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': January 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

====wikia:c:option1:Add "fandom" and get rid of "wikia:c"====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} My preferred choice.
<s>#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Salmancer.</s>

<s>#{{User|Salmancer}} I guess, since it makes things more consistent and more approachable for people unfamiliar with Fandom's past.</s>

====wikia:c:option2:Only add "fandom"====

#<code>'''<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User talk:Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|t}}]]:[[Special:Contributions/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|c}}]]:[[Special:Editcount/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|e}}]]:[[Special:Log/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|l}}]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User:Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|Altendo}}]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki>'''</code><br>Second choice.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Secondary choice. Having both would avoid confusion if this proposal passes.

====wikia:c:option3:Keep as-is====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} ↓ Per Arend (I'd quite like to overturn the previous proposal too).
#{{User|Arend}} I don't want to overturn the other proposal like LTL, but I feel that I ''have'' to oppose this per my comments below. Given that he proposed to have the <code>:c</code> removed from the interwiki link when [[Special:Interwiki]] ''doesn't list it as part of the interwiki link anyway'' (and is in fact something from Fandom's part) feels like a change GuntherBayBeee proposes without understanding ''why'' it is like that in the first place (which, uh, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80#Rename "Notes" sections "Additional information"|isn't exactly uncommon for his proposals, either]]). Also, I REALLY don't like the idea of ''outright REMOVING the old interwiki code''.
#<code>'''<nowiki>[[</nowiki>[[User talk:Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|talk}}]]:[[Special:Contributions/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|c}}]]:[[Special:Editcount/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|editcount}}]]:[[Special:Log/Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|Altendo}}]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User:Altendo|{{color|black|dark=white|Altendo}}]]<nowiki>]]</nowiki>'''</code><br>Per Arend. I would much rather have the new prefix added than the old one replaced entirely (although {{tem|fandom}} does make even this questionable).
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Arend. We really shouldn't be outright deprecating interwiki link code senselessly like this, and the fact that one of the suggestions (removing the "c:" portion) is ''actually impossible to do without fundamentally reworking MediaWiki'' really doesn't give us the vote of confidence that this is motivated for any reason beyond "change for change's sake."
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all (also syntax editor causes this text to show up as pink, meaning the coding is likely broken).
#{{User|Salmancer}} Going with the crowd on this one. (I think the arguments on this side are very convincing.)

====wikia:c:comments:Suggestions====
On Fandom wikis, <code>wikia:c:</code> and its shorter equivalent <code>w:c:</code> are ''still'' in use there to link to other Fandom wikis ''to this very day''; they didn't rename this to <code>fandom:</code> in the slightest, which is instead attributed to [https://www.fandom.com/ Fandom the main site] (which ''isn't'' actually a wiki). Beyond that, the <code>c:</code> in both <code>wikia:c:</code> and <code>w:c:</code> is actually ''really important'' for linking to other Fandom wikis, since that is the actual parameter that makes it happen. If you were to use <code>wikia:</code> or <code>w:</code> without the <code>c:</code> at the end, the page would link to the [https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Community_Central Fandom Community Central wiki] ''regardless of what other wiki prefix you add at the end''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:32, December 27, 2025 (EST)
:In addition, [[Special:Interwiki]] only appears to list <code>wikia</code>, without the <code>:c</code>, which would then link to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/$1, just like how it normally works on Fandom wikis. This only cements the fact that <code>c:</code> does all the heavy lifting of linking to other Fandom wikis, and we don't have ANY power to change that, as this is mostly on Fandom's side and we don't even have that as part of our own interwiki list. Frankly, I think it's not even possible for us to link to other Fandom wikis if we link it to anything ''other'' than the Fandom Community Central wiki, meaning the <code>:c</code> is pretty much ''mandatory'' for the interwiki link to ''actually work''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:50, December 27, 2025 (EST)

{{@|Altendo}} Your name in the oppose vote is barely readable in Dark mode. Since you're using the {{tem|color}} template to change the text color, may I suggest you to make use of the <code>dark</code> parameter as well? (e.g. <code><nowiki>{{color|black|dark=white|Text goes here}}</nowiki></code>) {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:06, December 27, 2025 (EST)
:Thanks for the heads up! I changed it to fit more with the text. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 03:02, December 28, 2025 (EST)

{{@|GuntherBayBeee}} Given Arend's comment and the oppose votes, I recommend that you add a third option, which would add the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki link without outright replacing the  <code>wikia:c:</code> one currently in use. I would support that compared to an outright replacement. [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 04:53, December 28, 2025 (EST)
:I would also recommend to exclude the <code>c:</code> from the <code>wikia:c:</code> interwiki link, because, again, it's not part of said code being listed on [[Special:Interwiki]] and is on Fandom's side of the coding, making it pretty much required to include <code>c:</code> if we want to link to other Fandom wikis regardless of what our interwiki link for it is. {{User:Arend/sig}} 07:23, December 28, 2025 (EST)
{{@|LinkTheLefty|Arend|Altendo}} I respectfully disagree. FANDOM got rid of the name "Wikia" between 2018 and 2021. Also, adding the third option to add the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix is actually a bad idea because that prefix is a duplicate interwiki prefix for <code>wikia:c:</code>. To me, [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] said that renaming the <code>wikia:c:</code> prefix <code>fandom:</code> already makes things more consistent and more approachable for those who aren't familiar with FANDOM's past. By the way, I added an additional option on adding the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix without getting rid of <code>wikia:c</code> aside from not only an option to both add the <code>fandom:</code> interwiki prefix and remove the <code>wikia:c:</code> prefix, but also keeping <code>wikia:c:</code> as is. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 10:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)
:You are still completely ignoring the fact that you ''cannot get rid'' of the <code>c:</code> part of <code>wikia:c:</code> like you are proposing. As I said multiple times before, the code is listed as just <code>wikia</code>, without the <code>:c</code> portion, on [[Special:Interwiki]], and it links to https://community.fandom.com/. This means that the <code>c:</code> portion is entirely on Fandom's side, not ours. In turn, that means including <code>c:</code> is the only way linking to other Fandom wikis will actually work. Hence why I'm suggesting to leave the <code>c:</code> out of this mess, as we cannot do ''anything'' about it.<br>Also, again, <code>wikia:c:</code> its shorter version <code>w:c:</code> are still in use on Fandom wikis with the exact same function as our interwiki link, and <code>fandom:</code> links to [https://www.fandom.com/ the non-wiki main site] instead, so keeping <code>wikia:c:</code> as-is is closer to how Fandom wikis do it than you think. {{User:Arend/sig}} 10:21, December 28, 2025 (EST)
::Not to derail the conversation but is the bolding, italics, and all-caps really necessary? I've noticed you doing this fairly often in discussions, I find it usually distracts from your points and comes across as a bit aggressive. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:23, December 29, 2025 (EST)
:::I've noticed I tend to do that (well, typically I do just italics when it's available) to emphasize on certain important points (especially if they're being ignored like in that instance). Admittedly, I suppose it's also partially due to frustration of these points being ignored at all like here, or other certain factors. I'm sorry for sounding too aggressive or making it too distracting. I think I'm getting way too easily agitated about these things. I'll tone the previous message down a bit, and I'll try to mind it in the future. {{User:Arend/sig}} 17:26, December 29, 2025 (EST)
::::Okay then. Sorry for the late reply. I was wondering if there's a possibility to cancel the proposal so that you'll try to mind it in the future. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 10:13, January 3, 2026 (EST)
:::::You are aware that the "I'll try to mind it in the future" was from a response directed at Hewer question, and not you, right? And that Hewer's question in turn was about my behavior, and is not actually relevant to your proposal, right? {{User:Arend/sig}} 16:13, January 3, 2026 (EST)

===Reception sections for characters===
{{Proposal outcome|failed|1-13|No character reception sections}}
We already have reception sections for games, and characters have also received critical analysis. This would not be a requirement of course, but a possible addition. Characters like [[Bobby]] from Origami King have gotten a lot of discussion and including at least a bit of it at the bottom would improve the articles; personally I believe the sections should be shorter than the average ones on Wikipedia articles, which seem to heavily focus on them which isn't good for a fan wiki.  Characters with minimal notable reception should not get super minor stuff crammed-in as that is not helpful for an article. A random Paper Mario enemy, for example getting ranked on a content-mill "top ten best enemies" list should not get included. Inclusion criteria would be roughly what the game reception sections seem to have; from what I've read, none have low quality reception like that in the quotes. We could be a little less strict than Wikipedia on sources, which I see is [[Paper Mario: Sticker Star#Reception|already done]] for games. [[User:Sylux|Sylux]] ([[User talk:Sylux|talk]]) 12:25, January 4, 2026 (EST)

'''Proposer''': {{User|Sylux}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 18, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Closed early on January 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

====Support====
# {{User|Sylux}} Supporting as creator

====Oppose====
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} I do believe certain characters can get a legacy and cultural impact section, especially the main cast (Mario already has such a section and it should be far more expanded upon than it currently is right now, being the most recognizable video game character, plus others like Luigi or Peach or Bowser could use one) but I don't believe we have enough tangible information and sources for a general reception for most characters overall outside from anecdotal sources (such as random social media posts that gaming journalism just reports on purely for engagement) and convenience sampling polls, as opposed to video game reviews which are much more quantifiable as a source for information. In Wikipedia, much of the reception of several characters are tied as a mechanic to the video game they're in than a general reflection of the character himself (Nabbit's reception in his {{wp|Nabbit|Wikipedia article}} mostly goes over his role as the easy mode character in New Super Mario Bros. U article rather than the character himself, with only some sparse editorial quips in the end with his roles in Dr. Mario World). Plus, it's just very difficult to write analysis about these characters in a series that historically portrays their characters as vessels for gameplay than actual defined characters, hence why there aren't many online pieces written about why Mario is a great character in the Mario movie or something.
#{{User|Arend}} Thing is, most official game publication websites really only review the ''games'', not individual characters, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80#Add reception sections for song and level articles|songs or levels]] (nor soundtracks for that matter), so there's not a whole lot of critical reception on Mario characters, considering it's sprinkled in the reviews every now and then. This means that such a section on a character page would have to be mostly covering ''fan'' reception, which is quite large and could differ a lot, but most of all is extremely subjective with varied reasons; hence why we don't cover such things at all in the reception sections on games (after all, the wiki already doesn't cover fanmade content (''normally'', at least)). If we do allow this side to be covered due to a lack of official reception, this would additionally open the floodgates to cover a wiki user's own bias towards a certain character, which similarly may also differ from the overall reception.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per Arend.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per my vote [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80#Add reception sections for song and level articles|here]], more or less.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Hewer. That is to say, per our own vote on [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/80#Add reception sections for song and level articles|the similar proposal for song/level pages]]. It's not like there's a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for fictional characters, so the only real sources you'd have for these are from assorted listicles and. ''Tubers.'' Making arbitrary top/bottom lists for fictional characters. We feel like just mentioning the fundamental concept of a "reception" section on [[Birdo]]'s page where sources indiscriminately include what Tubers circa 2008-to-2012 thought of her is enough to tell you that "reception" sections for these sorts of things just... Aren't really that smart of an idea, at least in a form that actively relies on rankings such as this.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Xiahou Ba and Arend. There very few characters in Mario that span enough games and have had enough of an impact to warrant a reception/legacy section in their own page. Certainly not Bobby. Anything noteworthy about a particular character's reception can most likely be covered in the relevant game's reception section.
#{{User|Wandering Poplin}} I think I only need to link to [[:Talk: Pink Gold Peach#Critical Reception|this page]] to explain why that would be a terrible idea.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I sadly do not have a vote on the level/song reception proposal to refer back to. But as with everyone else, the same sentiment applies. Aside from the core cast, there probably isn't enough per character analysis on the internet ''that we are willing to cite'' to make this work. What exists is probably better off being sentences within paragraphs of game reception sections. "The character whatever is noted to be a highlight of the experience as..." and other similar structures. (I fear loosening the standards on what we are willing to cite just to have reception sections will lead to anachronistic reception sections, which plague people's understanding of gaming history as it is. I don't want to contribute to that.)
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per all.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
#{{User|Mari0fan100}} Unlike the games themselves, characters have way more subjective views from others. For example, I like Yoshi and Koopa Troopa, but others may not like those characters. I also don't like Bowser, but others may think he is awesome. Asides from that, new characters could be added, and people's opinions on them can drastically change if they take on different roles. For example, characters like Boo and Dry Bones are considered enemies in some games, but playable characters in other games, and people could have a different opinion on those characters depending on which Mario games they play. So, I believe allowing character reception sections (for characters other than Mario) would allow for too much bias and fan/opinionated content.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all, especially the above vote.
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't have anything else to say here that hasn't already been said.

====Comments====
To elaborate a bit further on how the wiki doesn't cover fan reception: You see the [[Paper Mario: Sticker Star#Reception|reception section of ''Paper Mario: Sticker Star'']] you've linked? Notice how the section only covers reviews from actual critics and journalists from those publication websites, such as IGN and GameSpot. Notice how the wiki only covers Metacritic's generally favorable Metascore of 75, which was aggregated from those reviews by critics and journalists, and not at all mentions the rather middling user score of 5.3 (or how those user reviews have come in as late as November 2025 when the critic reviews are from at the time of ''Sticker Star'''s release, with February 2013 at the latest). Notice how the only YouTuber mentioned in the reception section is André Segers of GameXplain, which in of itself is also presented as a publication website on top of being a YouTube channel.<br>This goes on to show that we on the wiki do not cover fan reception, only those of critics and journalists. And given that none of these publications have reviews on certain characters, that means that, if we continue not covering fan reception and not risk the potential outcome of user bias being included, these character reception sections are going to be completely empty for 99% of the time, making them unnecessary to be included. {{User:Arend/sig}} 09:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)
:The body text in Sticker Star's article *does* talk about the noticeable discrepancy in user vs aggregate score in Metacritic, and imo, I think it should be noted because there is quantifiable data there than vague gossip you read on social media sites. A lot of games get meta-bombed on Metacritic if they're controversial, one of the worst examples are Warcraft III: Reforged and Diablo Immortal, which are enough for games journalists [https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2020/01/31/warcraft-3-reforged-has-a-record-low-08-score-on-metacritic-as-fans-are-furious/#1fc6cd8776fc to note] and [https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/diablo-immortal-now-has-blizzards-lowest-ever-user-score-on-metacritic/ write articles about]. Now I don't think Mario games will ever got on that scale of metabombing, but I do think it's at least worth noting if there is a noticeable gap between critic satisfaction and anonymous reviews. How big should that discrepancy should be until it is noteworthy to opine about is another topic I guess. {{User:Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior/sig}} 20:21, January 5, 2026 (EST)

===Determine which ''Nintendo Comics System'' character page to rename===
This proposal aims to determine to which ''Nintendo Comics System'' character to move to. As you see, there are only two articles regarding characters from the ''[[Super Mario Bros. (Valiant Comics)|Super Mario Bros.]]'' comics by [[Valiant Comics]] that use their respective full names: [[Stanley the Talking Fish]] and [[Dr. Waldo Bloom]]. Likewise, the seven articles regarding every character from the ''[[Game Boy (comic)|Game Boy]]'' comics that is not an alleged character use their respective full names: [[Herman Smirch]], [[Tannis Rhodes]], [[Rebecca Rhodes]], [[Greg Campbell]], [[Michael Hallis]], [[Nanette Hallis]], and [[Rodney McCorlde]]. I wonder if this is an error. I humbly ask if there's a possibility to determine which character to rename:
*[[Stanley the Talking Fish]] &rarr; {{fake link|Stanley (''Nintendo Comics System'')|Stanley (Nintendo Comics System)}}
*[[Dr. Waldo Bloom]] &rarr; {{fake link|Dr. Bloom}}
*[[Herman Smirch]] &rarr; {{fake link|Herman (''Nintendo Comics System'')|Herman (Nintendo Comics System)}}
*[[Tannis Rhodes]] &rarr; {{fake link|Tannis}}
*[[Rebecca Rhodes]] &rarr; {{fake link|Rebecca}}
*[[Greg Campbell]] &rarr; {{fake link|Greg}}
*[[Michael Hallis]] &rarr; {{fake link|Michael (''Nintendo Comics System'')|Michael (Nintendo Comics System)}}
*[[Nanette Hallis]] &rarr; {{fake link|Nanette}}
*[[Rodney McCorlde]] &rarr; {{fake link|Rodney}}
That way, the proposal will work like [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Change full names of crossover characters to the more often used shortened versions in article titles|the last proposal]].

'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}

====Can "Stanley the Talking Fish" be renamed "Stanley (''Nintendo Comics System'')"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Dr. Waldo Bloom" be renamed "Dr. Bloom"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Herman Smirch" be renamed "Herman (''Nintendo Comics System'')"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Tannis Rhodes" be renamed "Tannis"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Rebecca Rhodes" be renamed "Rebecca"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Greg Campbell" be renamed "Greg"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Michael Hallis" be renamed "Michael (''Nintendo Comics System'')"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Nanette Hallis" be renamed "Nanette"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Can "Rodney McCorlde" be renamed "Rodney"?====
{{proposal outcome|cancelled}}
'''Deadline''': <s>January 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 16, 2026, 22:43 UTC

;Yes
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.

;No

====Comments Comics System====
Most of these pages were made around a month ago by [[User:Maw-Ray Master|Maw-Ray Master]], long after these proposals passed. I doubt this is an error.

Anyways, these are the full names of the characters, not just prefixes (like "Princess" or "The Hedgehog"). I know that the Koopalings got them removed but I feel like their justification for removal is just as valid as Sonic or Fox, as they are rarely called their full names in-game. I don't think that removing the last names here are necessary, especially because characters just being referred to by their first name is common in comics (like Rocket Raccoon, Jeff the Land Shark, and Drax the Destroyer, just to name a few). [[User:Altendo|Al]][[User talk:Altendo|ten]][[Special:Contributions/Altendo|do]] 15:02, January 16, 2026 (EST)

:Agreed, I think this whole thing mainly depends on what is more primarily used within the comics themselves.
:If [[Stanley the Talking Fish]] is more frequently refered to as {{fake link|Stanley}} <small>(Not [[Stanley|this one]])</small> then we can move it. But if he's almost exclusively known as Stanely the Talking Fish across all his appearances, then that's what the page title should remain as.

:...Or at least, I believe that's the criteria we used when renaming [[Grodus]], [[TEC]], [[Grape (character)|Grape]], [[Daisy]], and other characters like that. [[User:Wandering Poplin|Wandering Poplin]] ([[User talk:Wandering Poplin|talk]]) 15:24, January 16, 2026 (EST)

as stated by the comments above, this proposal completely ignores that there might be a reason WHY the inconsistency is there, and just tries to iron everything out with no regard for the source material. did you verify whether each character is known by their shortened or full name more commonly before making this? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 16:11, January 16, 2026 (EST)

{{@|GuntherBayBeee}} if you are using the same reasoning across all characters, '''just make this into a normal proposal'''. I highly doubt anyone has a strong enough opinion about exclusively only one of the seven characters from the same comic you provided. At least merge all these options into one for each comic. On that note, you did not provide any reasoning for the changes. Please provide some explanation or reasoning explaining why you believe those changes should be made. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 19:33, January 16, 2026 (EST)

===Consider reused voice clips as references but only if all voice clips are reused===
{{Proposal outcome|cancelled}}
This proposal is mainly aimed at [[Mario Party (series)|Mario Party]] articles. While I do understand why [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually)|this proposal]] wanted to change how reused voice clips, I feel like it can still be noted if a game reuses all the voice clips (for the veteran playable characters at least). It's indeed annoying if nearly every page on the wiki vaguely says "some voice clips are reused", but all voice clips is just a different scenario. It's like the annnouncer being reused. The announcer is technically a voice clip too and we note that it's reused in several games (''[[Mario Party 3#References to other games|Mario Party 3]]'', ''[[Mario Party 5#References to other games|Mario Party 5]]'', ''[[Mario Party 7#References to other games|Mario Party 7]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour#References to other games|Mario Party: Island Tour]]'', ''[[Mario Party: The Top 100#References to other games|Mario Party: The Top 100]]'' and ''[[Mario Party Superstars#References to other games|Mario Party Superstars]]'', respectively, which reuse the announcer, and ironically also the voice clips of the veteran characters (except for ''Mario Party 3''. Ironically that game had new voice clips, while ''[[Mario Party 2]]'' reused the voice clips from ''[[Mario Party]]''), from ''[[Mario Party 2#References in later games|Mario Party 2]]'', ''[[Mario Party 4#References in later games|Mario Party 4]]'', ''[[Mario Party 6#References in later games|Mario Party 6]]'', ''[[Mario Party 9#References in later games|Mario Party 9]]'', ''[[Mario Party: Star Rush#References in later games|Mario Party: Star Rush]]'' and ''[[Super Mario Party#References in later games|Super Mario Party]]'', respectively).

'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': <s>January 31, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)</s> Cancelled on January 19, 2026, 22:05 (UTC)

====Support: Reused voice clips count====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal.

====Oppose: Status quo====
#{{User|Wandering Poplin}} Unless the line is specifically calling back to a noteworthy earlier usage, it's not a reference, it's just recycled assets.
#{{User|Arend}} Per Wandering Poplin. Recycled voiceclips don't necessarily equal intentional reference. (Side note: how is this a new feature, and not a change in policy?)
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all. If reused voice clips count as references, then we would have to include reused models (e.g. basically every time Mario appears in an N64 game).
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We fundamentally disagree that asset re-use counts as a "reference" by default, considering there are many far more pragmatic reasons to reuse assets than to make a reference. Being honest, we've had a poll proposal planned to clamp down on these sorts of "asset reuse" references, namely for engine re-use and sound effect re-use (though we've been staring at the "same narrator" and "same animations" "references" that have been listed for a few of the Mario Parties with ''quite a bit of scrutiny''), and from that, you can probably gleam we're not enthused about the idea of deciding that voice clip re-use counts as a "reference" again.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Cam. If the reuse of voice clips is notable enough to warrant ''something'' being said about it (which I heavily doubt), then it can be decided on a case-by-case basis and included somewhere in the article. They are not references in the sense people usually think of them as.

====Reused Comments====
How does the game reusing all the same voice lines as a previous game make it a reference?
I don't think ''[[Mario Party|Mario Party 1]]'' was specifically referencing ''[[Mario Kart 64]]'' because it reuses nearly all its voice lines for the playable characters from the Japanese release of the latter game.
It also takes Nintendo a long time to phase out older voice lines, as seen by the fact that many voice clips recorded by [[Charles Martinet]] are still being used in titles where [[Kevin Afghani]] is credited instead. [[User:Wandering Poplin|Wandering Poplin]] ([[User talk:Wandering Poplin|talk]]) 00:46, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:{{@|Wandering Poplin}}, isn't the thing you said about [[Mario Party 1|Mario Party]] a bit invalid? It's reuses ''nearly'' all the voice clips. But still not ''all'' like the Mario Parties I mentioned. @Waluigi Time's proposal tried to stop this being noted but I feel like that removal should only count if not all the voice clips. And ''Mario Party 1'' didn't reuse ''all'' the voice from ''Mario Kart 64'' like later Mario Parties do with the previous one. I feel like if we're not gonna note the fact that veteran playable character voice clips are reused, we should also not note that the announcer (voice clips) is/are reused. Als if you look at it like that, that would mean the game engine being reused isn't a reference to an earlier or later game either. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 00:55, January 18, 2026 (UTC)

The thing about voice clips as references is that unless a voice clip is specifically made for a certain game, like Mario shouting the title of the game, there are several cases where there is no definite way to otherwise tell if a voice clip was recorded for the game or just as archival years ago before the game finally used it in the library. I recommend narrowing on determining if a voice clip is a reference or not based on this, unless a particular voice clip is so well-known and associated with one game; for example if there was an "It's a me, Mario!!" from Super Mario 64, which isn't really used outside of Super Mario 64, I'm sure if it were to crop up in a 2020s game, it would be a reference to Super Mario 64. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:52, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:But what about the announcer then? That's also a voice clip that's reused yet we still note it. What makes that different? {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 00:57, January 18, 2026 (UTC)

...no seriously, ''why is this proposal listed under "New features"?'' That would imply that this is something that has not been added before. But recycled voice clips being counted as references was something that frequently happened on the wiki until [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually)|another proposal]] put a stop to that and [[MarioWiki:References#What aren't references? 2|policy got amended accordingly]], so this. isn't. new. I also think it would be pedantic if the "but only if all voice clips are reused" part is the one thing that makes it a """new feature""", as it's basically nothing more than just a minor exception to the "no voice clips as references" rule... as well as something that was ''also'' on the wiki before (e.g. previous proposal noted "''Mario Kart 7'': Flutter's voice clips are recycled from Wiggler's voice clips in this game." as an example). {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:18, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:I moved it to writing guidelines. Also once again. What about the announcer then? That's technically also a voice clip that's reused because they didn't want a new one to record the voice lines. And if you look at it like this, the game engine being reused also isn't a reference to an earlier or later game.{{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 02:51, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
::I would personally move it to "Changes", because this is clearly a ''change'' in policy, as well as a ''change'' that affects earlier proposals that previously made a ''change'' in policy (after all, [[Special:Diff/4427370|the proposal on voice clips not being references was ''also'' listed under "Changes"]]), and it doesn't really have much to do with ''writing'' from what I can gather.<br>Also; what ''about'' the announcer voice clips? ''And'' the game engine, for that matter (which nothing to do with voice clips, what the heck)? You literally said it yourself: they're reused assets and tools, so they shouldn't count as references either, and should be removed from the references sections (frankly, I was unaware that they still were listed in those). This does not change my opinion on the matter. {{User:Arend/sig}} 11:07, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:::To be fair "changes" is such a vague header that it could probably encompass every proposal that gets put on this page. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 22:58, January 18, 2026 (UTC)

{{@|Mushroom Head}}, could you clarify a bit more on your reason of opposing? “If we’re gonna note reused voice clips, we should note reused models as well”, but we note reused announcers (which are technically voice clips) and reused engines as well. Should we stop noting these as well? {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 02:51, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:I feel like these are not actual references. For example, the models in MP2 are just reused to save on development, while Odyssey’s Mario 64 Cap and Suit were indeed made for nostalgic reasons. Therefore, unless the models were made as a clear reference to  another game using the same models, we should stop noting them. {{User:Mushroom Head/sig}} 02:55, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
::Agreed. And to answer the other question, Yes. I '''do''' think we stop considering the "announcer voice clips" as references unless it's '''specifically''' calling back to a previous appearance in a '''noteworthy''' way. 
::It feels more like something we just forgot to remove, rather than a valid inclusion in the references section, and I highly doubt that something like ''[[Super Smash Bros. Ultimate|SSBU]]'' is specifically referencing the [[Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS|3DS]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl|Wii U]] entries just because it didn't change the announcer this time around. [[User:Wandering Poplin|Wandering Poplin]] ([[User talk:Wandering Poplin|talk]]) 06:19, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
{{@|Yoshi18}}, I am reverting this proposal to its original state. You're not allowed to entirely rewrite a proposal, completely change its context and options and delete all of its comments. This is effectively erasing it from existence. If you want, you may still cancel it within the allowed time frame, but due to the increase in the number of self-cancelled proposals this year, a new rule (as part of '''rule 18''') has been implemented so you won't be allowed to make another proposal for three days. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 17:45, January 18, 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this is a hot take but I've never understood the idea that reference sections absolutely must be limited to things that the developers intended to be "proper" references to past media. I think reuse of voice clips is an interesting thing to make a note of (the wiki is currently not very clear a lot of the time on whether a character's voice clips in any given game are new recordings or reused), and reference sections are a handy place to put some of that information. That said, I don't feel inclined to support this proposal as I don't think the "but only if all voice clips are reused" clause makes much sense. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 22:48, January 18, 2026 (UTC)
:Personally, I'd prefer introducing a section exclusively listing reused assets, over lumping them all among the References. {{User:Arend/sig}} 01:36, January 19, 2026 (UTC)