MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/84

All past proposals are archived here. Please add archived proposals to the bottom of the page.

Determine if certain "notable" versions of characters and species without their own articles should have their specific sections linked to

Establish policy discouraging such linking 1-9-0-0
To quote myself from a year ago:

So, a user (who I will not name to avoid harassment of them) has been updating links for Pauline in the context of her younger appearance in Donkey Kong Bananza so that they link to that game's section of her article, like so:
[[Pauline#Donkey_Kong_Bananza|Pauline]]
My sentiment on doing this is...more negative than positive. While I see the rationale behind it—a prominent younger version of a character that isn't portrayed as a distinct entity is somewhat unprecedented for this franchise, and thus linking to a page where the infobox artwork depicts said character with their usual adult appearance could be considered a little weird—it also has problems of its own. There's no indication that these links would lead to just a section of Pauline's article instead of the beginning of it until they are hovered over—and said article beginning happens to include relevant information for her appearance in Bananza, such as her voice actress, Jenny Kidd.

My biggest complaint with this, however, is also my hook for this discussion: Why single out Pauline? While we often link to certain sections of recurring locations in the context of specific games (though this is becoming less common as more iterations of such locations are being split off via proposals), this is the first time (to my knowledge) we're consistently doing this with a character. One would think some of the articles we chose to merge—such as some of the 1993 live-action film versions of characters and species (relevant proposal here) or the various representations of species as individual characters in the Mario Party series (relevant proposals here, here, and here)—would be ripe for this treatment. However, besides articles where we forgot to update links following a merge like John Leguizamo, the only article I could find with such a link was Koopa Krag in reference to his grandson...but Koopa Troopa is already linked there twice without a redirect in reference to Koopa Krag's species, so that probably doesn't count either.

I do recognize that we have no rule for or against linking to a specific version of a character or species when needed. Still, given the potential user-unfriendliness of doing this with Pauline, yet also considering the possibility of applying it to more versions of characters and species, I do think some action must be taken. Heck, even though I agree to merging the 1993 film characters with their main counterparts, they're probably more at odds with them than 13-year-old Pauline is with her adult self. Assuming we do establish an official policy for this kind of linking instead of nipping it in the bud, where would we put said policy? Could it be added to one of our existing policy pages, or would it take a new one? How would we determine if a version of a character or species is notable enough to have their specific section linked to? Such a policy may well encourage people to link every instance of King Boo in the Luigi's Mansion series to King Boo#Luigi's Mansion series (or a specific game therewithin) because of his different design and crueler characterization there, or further subjects down the slippery slope.

One year later (and with some advice from LadySophie17 (talk) on Discord), I'm finally ready to discuss adding a potential policy for this! To summarize my long spiel above, there have been a few instances where a character or species is portrayed in a way that is exceptionally different from their usual depictions, yet this portrayal is not treated as distinct from their usual self in the way that, say, Baby Mario is considered a distinct subject from adult Mario. Whether or not links for such depictions of a subject are piped to the specific section involving said depiction is inconsistent across the wiki; there are pros and cons to each approach, yet we have no official policy encouraging one or the other. This proposal seeks to remedy that.

If the addition of a policy encouraging piped links to specific version of characters passes, this paragraph (or a reworded version of it) would be added to the "Linking, linking, linking!" section of MarioWiki:Manual of Style:

Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. For such instances, it is encouraged to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article where this depiction applies (e.g. [[Pauline#Donkey Kong Bananza|Pauline]]), or that of said subject's history article if they have one (e.g. [[History of Bowser#Super Mario Bros. (film)|President Koopa]]). This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.

Inversely, if we choose to discourage piped links to specific version of characters, something like this would be added instead:

Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. While it may be enticing to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article (or separate history article) where this depiction applies to avoid possible confusion, doing so is discouraged to avoid confusing those looking for more general information on the subject instead, as well as to prevent skipping information earlier in the article that may also be relevant to the specific version of them in question. This also applies to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.

Proposer: SolemnStormcloud (talk)
Deadline: August 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on August 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Establish a policy encouraging linking to such sections

1. Wandering Poplin (talk) I think I prefer this option the best. For instance, if I am currently trying to find information and images relating to Nurse Toadstool, it would be more helpful to be redirected the the relevant section of the History of Princess Peach page which covers the character (albeit somewhat poorly, but that's a separate issue for another time.) than immediately being linked to Princess Peach, wasting time fruitlessly searching the page for any info on Nurse Toadstool and not finding it, opening the History of Princess Peach article, and then having to scroll through walls and walls of text until I finally find what I'm looking for.

Establish a policy discouraging linking to such sections, and remove piped links in question

1. Hewer (talk) Full vote reasoning moved to comments per request. Tldr, this style of linking is unhelpful for finding information and invites weird inconsistencies.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer. Pauline and President Koopa seem like reasonable use cases but Goombob and Nurse Toadstool being brought up as examples convinced me this guideline will be abused from the start. As per Arend in the comments, I also disagree with the use of section linking in navboxes.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Hewer, as well as myself from a year ago. Unless we were to have dedicated proposals on who should or shouldn't receive this treatment, it'd just be a slippery slope as to who does.
4. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
5. Arend (talk) Per all. As I explained in the comments, I would prefer to avoid linking to specific section of an article in navbox templates (at least until we have a link template that can convert anchor links to bold text when you're on its page, which may be more trouble than it's worth), and with Hewer pointing out that certain notable versions of a character can appear in multiple games (sometimes alongside the character's normal version!), then I think even splitting that notable version in its own article would be more preferable than this. Also, as they and LadySophie pointed out, this could be further abused to a ridiculous degree.
6. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
7. Wilben (talk) Per all.
8. Dominoes § 2026 (talk) Per all.
9. Yoshi18 (2026 appearance) (talk) Per all.

Notable comments that should be linked to specifically

My main concern is whether or not navigation templates will be affected. Navboxes are usually a whole collection of links, and normally, when you check such a template on a page featured in there, that link will be made bold and unclickable to indicate you're already there, which helps quite a bit with navigating through the template. However, when you make it a link to a section instead, this does not happen: instead, it's an anchor link, which means you can still click it when you're still on said page, given that it directs you to a specific section instead of the page as a whole (even when you're already in that section). This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine given that it makes navboxes more difficult to navigate than necessary, and in the end wouldn't be all that helpful: it's kind of like putting a redirect link in a navbox template.

So if we were to make a policy in which linking to sections like this is encouraged for specific versions, I'm kinda hoping that navboxes would be exempt from this. rend (talk) (edits) 23:24, August 8, 2026 (UTC)

Huh. I originally imagined that the piping would apply to navboxes as well (I can imagine it would make sense to link Goombob in {{MPA}} to the Mario Party Advance section of Galoomba's article, especially since "Goomba (Super Mario World)" is also linked in the "Enemies and species" row), but this is a valid issue. Honestly, something like this seems like it would require a second proposal—lest I complicate this one any more. Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}. (See what I mean by this piping currently being treated inconsistently?) — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 23:42, August 8, 2026 (UTC)

Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}.

That's because one uses an anchor link while the other uses links proper, the former perfectly showcasing the problem I'm talking about. I'm really not talking about how we're treating the linking to specific versions thing inconsistently (that much is obvious and should be handled), but rather how we should treat this in navboxes. While I think using anchor links is really useful in various cases, I personally think we should avoid using them in navboxes for the reasons I stated earlier. Again, it's like using redirects in navboxes. rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

I was mainly just pointing out an instance of an anchor link currently in one of our navboxes. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

@Wandering Poplin: I think this issue is better solved by using Ctrl+F than by implementing these sorts of links. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:48, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Or simply using the table of contents... rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But that "solution" assumes that the average casual reader would:

• Know which page the information is stored on to begin with. (The main page, the History of [subject] page, etc.)
• Knows which section of the table of contents that the information is contained in. This issue isn't the most important point, but it is a supporting problem found on pages with literal dozens of listings.
• Actually knows about the "Ctrl+F" feature, and what it does. (I didn't until you brought it up, just now. And I doubt the average casual viewer knows about it either.)
  • Is actively using a device which even has the aforementioned "Ctrl+F" feature. Not all devices do.

This issue also gets worse if you account for [subject-the-character], alter-ego appearances, and other such subjects which do not have their own pages, or even their own redirects. (Which is something I wish I'd brought up when casting my vote.)

I do acknowledge the concerns brought up by the opposition, but I feel that abolishing these links outright isn't the most favorable solution, as it does not provide a (suitable) alternative for the navigation issues which these links had otherwise resolved. I am not saying this system should be used everywhere, and for everything, but it does have some use cases which should not be ignored. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

I had also assumed that the fact that a guideline for "what subject qualifies for being specifically linked to" and would need to be created ... was kind of a given.

The reason I never brought it up during my vote is because I'd assumed it was something we were already planning to do if this proposal succeeded. Perhaps I was mistaken. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that creating such a guideline would be more trouble than it's worth due to all the arbitrary judgement calls it would require about what is and isn't a "notable version". It's not something that can be easily defined, and I can't imagine there being a consistent set of criteria that would determine whether or not something "counts".
Regarding your other comment: if the reader actually knows what information they're looking for when they click on a link (which I think is a reasonable assumption) then they should probably be able to find it with a little scrolling. In the Nurse Toadstool example, I assume a reader who knows what Nurse Toadstool is would know that she's from the Dr. Mario series, so they could go to Peach's history page and click the section for the Dr. Mario series. Or alternatively, if they were really trying to find Nurse Toadstool coverage, they could just type "Nurse Toadstool" into the search bar. I don't think it's the job of regular links to do this kind of basic navigation for the reader, especially since, as I've already pointed out, linking to history sub-sections like this will usually still miss out other relevant information that the reader could've been looking for, due to the way character articles are organised. (I will note that I'm actually not a huge fan of the history page splits myself because of the hindrance to navigation, but I don't think this is the solution to that issue.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:58, August 10, 2026 (UTC)

@Hewer Could please truncate your vote and leave your entire comment here? It is a bit too lengthy for a vote section. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 11:52, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a length limit for votes now, but sure I guess. Here's my full vote reasoning:

I don't like this style of linking because I find it strange and unhelpful to link to a specific part of a character's history section rather than linking to the character normally, as the way that character articles are structured means not all information specific to that appearance will necessarily be confined to that section on the article (such as the proposal's example of Bananza-specific information being covered in the intro to Pauline's article, and other cases like profile and statistics sections). It's especially annoying for characters like Bowser whose history sections are now split into separate articles, meaning the link doesn't even take you to the article about the character. Another problem with linking things in this way is that it arbitrarily implies some appearances of the character to be more "distinct" than others, despite the fact they're all appearances of the same subject, otherwise they wouldn't be covered on the same article. What actually determines whether any given appearance is a "notable version" or not? There's really no more reason to always link Pauline's appearance in Bananza to that game's section than there is to always link her appearance in, say, Mario Tennis Aces to that game's section, or to distinguish her appearance in the original Donkey Kong (after all, her name and design were different in that game). I also don't like the mention in the proposed policy addition that "This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters", because those concepts really aren't as distinct as the wiki often makes them out to be. Would that apply to, say, Koopa Troopa's appearance in Super Mario Kart? Better to cut out the ambiguity and just link to things normally. EDIT: Oh yeah, another issue is that sometimes the same "notable version" will make multiple appearances, meaning linking to a single appearance in a history section doesn't even encompass all the appearances of that version of the subject. For example, links to Dr. Bowser originally led to Bowser's Dr. Mario World section, which was later complicated by Dr. Bowser showing up again in Mario Kart Tour. What do you do in that situation? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

There is no strict length limit for votes (yet), but making several paragraph-length arguments opposing a proposal can be disruptive to the voting section, and might not provide a decent space for debates and clarifications. Typing the reasoning in the comments section also allows voters to use paragraph breaks, which make for better legibility. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 16:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

I'm just now realizing: If the policy to discourage this usage of piped links passes, how would we treat the one on Koopa Krag's article in reference to his grandson? Since Koopa Troopa is already linked in the context of Krag's species, should we remove the link outright; have a redundant, second link to Koopa Troopa; or even keep the piped link anyways? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:26, August 9, 2026 (UTC)

Just unlink it, I suppose. That's how it was initially presented anyway, after all, until a link was added six years ago when it turns out MPDS Koopa was split into its own article years prior... until 2022 that is, when it merged back to Koopa Troopa. rend (talk) (edits) 15:26, August 10, 2026 (UTC)