MarioWiki talk:Proposals

Proposals talk
Archive 1 (1-67) Archive 2 (68-101)

Welcome to the proposals talk. Feel free to discuss the proposal system, or get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it.

Identifier template?

A month ago, there was a proposal that aimed at removing identifiers from series that didn't need it. It was a draw at 13-13, and I do understand a lot of the points against removing the identifier, such as the fact that some people might think that a game simply known as "Mario Kart" exists. However, I did support the proposal, and one of the points that made a lot of sense was that it made it easier to link to the series page without pipelinking. There were some good points like having to remember which pages had the identifier or not, as some game series shared the name with the franchise. Therefore, I am going to give an idea (not propose it yet) on making a template (which I currently call {{ID}}) to directly link to pages with identifiers while the identifier is normally not shown visibly; not just for series, but for most pages with identifiers. This is my current code:

[[{{{1}}} ({{{2}}})|{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''{{{1}}}''|#default={{{1}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{name|}}}|<nowiki/> {{#switch:{{{2}}}|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch=for the <nowiki/>|#default=}}{{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|<nowiki/> ({{{2}}})}}}}]]

{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0||{{#if:{{{name|}}}||{{#if:{{{id|}}}||{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''|#default=}}}}}}}}}}[[{{{1}}} ({{{2}}})|{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0|{{{1}}}|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''{{{1}}}''|#default=}}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|''{{{1}}}''|{{{1}}}}}}}}}{{#if:{{{name|}}}|<nowiki/> for the {{{2}}}|{{#if:{{{id|}}}|<nowiki/> ({{{2}}})}}}}]]{{#ifeq:{{{it}}}|0||{{#if:{{{name|}}}||{{#if:{{{id|}}}||{{#if:{{{it|}}}|''|{{#switch: {{{2}}}|franchise|series|pinball|film|activity books|manga|Game & Watch|Nintendo Entertainment System|Game Boy|Nelsonic Game Watch|Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Gamewatch Boy|Nintendo 64|Game Boy Color|Game Boy Advance|Nintendo DS|Wii|Wii U|Nintendo Switch|game=''|#default=}}}}}}}}}}

Parameters include:

• it - If set to 1, it italicizes the name. This is just in case there is a formal name that I somehow didn't put in (yet). If set to 0, formal names are deitalicized.
• name - Adds the name loosely to the end of the linked area. For console identifiers, this adds "for the" between the {{{1}}} and {{{2}}} visible link. Adds the words "for the (console)".
• id - Adds back the identifier. While this sounds useless and against the point of this template, this allows formal names with identifiers to keep their italics without pipelinking just to add them only to the area outside the identifier.

I tested this out on this wiki using the "Show Preview" function, and they work perfectly; any mistakes I found were later fixed.

Here are some examples:

• {{ID|Mario Kart|series}} is a shortened version of ''[[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]''
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|name=1}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' series]] Edit: Crossed this out due to Porple's comment below.
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|id=1}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|''Mario Kart'' (series)]]
• {{ID|Mario Kart|series|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch}} is a shortened version of ''[[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]''
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|name=1}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'' for the Nintendo Switch]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|id=1}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|''Super Mario RPG'' (Nintendo Switch)]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG]]
• {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|name=1|it=0}} is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG for the Nintendo Switch]]

There are also some other possible ones, like {{ID|Super Mario RPG|Nintendo Switch|id=1|it=0}}, which is a shortened version of [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)|Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)]], but seeing as how that is basically [[Super Mario RPG (Nintendo Switch)]] without pipelinking, that is basically useless and in that case might actually make it harder to link than easier, while in the other cases, it is easier.

I'm open on feedback; I might open a proposal about this in the future. I also have some more convenience templates in mind, like a section template that links to the section and uses that section name as the link name without having to pipelink, but I'll focus on this first. Altendo 17:00, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I'd love having such a template. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:04, December 18, 2024 (EST)

Keep in mind that the more things like this you have in the page source, the harder it is to bot link replacements since you're just adding more and more different ways to accomplish the same task of linking to a page. And template parameters don't work with LinkSuggest, but starting a link with [[ does. I know you can't pipe trick the "for the Nintendo Switch" ones, but for the rest of them, it's the reason I prefer to format links in this way (italics and second "franchise" outside the link): ''[[Super Mario (franchise)|]]'' franchise. --Steve (talk) 17:30, December 18, 2024 (EST)

That's something I am willing to change or remove. As for LinkSuggest, I wonder why templates like {{Peach}} and {{Daisy}} exist if so. Altendo 17:43, December 18, 2024 (EST)

@Altendo They were based on the Koopalings templates (e.g. Template:Larry), but those were apparently deleted because their shortened title proposals had passed. Odd that LinkSuggest has been brought up, since there's an ongoing proposal regarding its inclusion. Super Mario RPG (talk) 17:47, December 18, 2024 (EST)

In light of this template being highly supported, I might actually create this proposal. Altendo 21:20, December 23, 2024 (EST)

I made {{id}} btw --Steve (talk) 21:22, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Oh, okay then. Nevermind! Altendo 22:00, December 23, 2024 (EST)

Curators

Note that I am keeping rule 19 in mind, so this is more of a title, similar to but different than autoconfirmed. However, I do wonder what others think about the idea of a Curators title: Basically, non-staff members who are more experienced at handling content on the wiki so that newer users can notice some of the more established and recurring editors on this wiki. Because I've noticed non-staff members do large-scale projects on the wiki, but at the same time it feels there's more scrutiny toward newer users who attempt it. If the idea is approved, "Curators" could be a precedent to perhaps establish more titles based on a user's niches on the wiki.

On a side note, I wondered if there could be more clarity or distinction with non-staff who are formally authorized to give warnings on user talk pages. Super Mario RPG (talk) 09:49, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

This seems like it'd bring more confusion if anything. If editors want to discuss their niches, they can mention them on their user pages. Adding more roles just overcomplicates things. I also have no trouble noticing non-staff active users - I'm sure many others feel the same. And what do you mean by more "scrutiny"? This whole idea could just make new editors more intimidated to try larger projects. Technetium (talk) 10:01, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Do we want newer users to try large projects? I got warned before for making sweeping changes. Super Mario RPG (talk) 10:04, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Considering people have apparently had grievances with projects I've attempted, I can say that "newness" has nothing to do with it in the long run. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

I feel strongly that we should not discourage new users from contributing, even with large-scale edits; and that creating a higher class of user that is "allowed" to do large-scale editing projects would be a huge mistake. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:01, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Hard agree. This would create a big barrier for new users to get involved with the wiki. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 13:07, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

It's also just unclear what counts as a "large-scale change". Consider the work we did on Wario Blast: Featuring Bomberman!, which basically doubled in size from the start of the year to now. But at what point did it hit "large scale"? Was it adding tables? Adding sample level maps to the zone pages? Adding basically double the amount of sprites and screenshots? What would you do after awhile? Do you just revert to a halfway implemented state and say, "come back when you're a Curator"? Do you revert it all? Do you permit it only if the edits were made incrementally, negating the point of being Curator if you just pace yourself? Even if the point is for somebody to check large-scale edits, that's part of why we have Patrollers, which is a much healthier system for that purpose. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 13:31, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Okay, so I'll remove the talk template since there's enough feedback not in favor of it. Super Mario RPG (talk) 13:41, March 21, 2025 (EDT)

Archive

I am currently working on 2025's April Fool's Day archive page for BJAODN. Just thought I should probably mention this somewhere. Nelsonic (talk) 20:04, April 1, 2025 (EDT)

Dark mode issues

Trying to enter this page on dark mode and it seems like this page was not configured for dark mode properly, as it is hurting my eyes.

Can someone please address this? Thanks. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 01:13, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

How does it look on your end? On mine, it looks like any other page in dark mode, with the only thing that's annoyingly bright being the image at the top. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Judging by a Discord message they sent, this seems to be an issue exclusive to the Vector site skin, where the light mode background pattern will appear on darkmode. On MonoBook (the site default), though, the light mode's background pattern is disabled. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 02:18, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Content advisory template

Per here and here, I think it would be a good idea to implement a template that warns readers of potentially unsuitable content. I made an outline of the template in my sandbox. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 03:39, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I think that's a good idea too! Should we make a proposal about this? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 09:53, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

In theory I also think the idea is good. Its implementation per se would promote the idea that less palatable subjects are expected to emerge in discussions over a censorship-free information resource, and encourage people not to find such discussions inherently outrageous should they be initiated in good faith. (I like the screaming Luigi too, lol)
My question is, with how unlikely the Mario wiki is bound to approach such subjects, is such a tag really warranted? I don't foresee much application for it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:40, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Seconding KCC, in regards to skepticism for there being enough of a use-case. The only instances we can think of where this could be used in good faith would be the Super Hornio Section of List of unofficial media acknowledged by Nintendo, and maybe Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō? It doesn't help that, yesterday on the Discord, someone shared they found another Mario-related wiki which had a "sensitive content that may be inappropriate for children" warning for... Birdo's gender. We don't need to tell you why that usage in particular would be a bad idea, right?? ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 11:06, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Yikes. When I brought up the idea in the proposals that Maw-Ray Master mentioned, I had not considered someone could misuse the template for pages that mention (or even slightly hint at) transgenderism. I guess it might still be sensitive to some people though (e.g. bigots). Still, I do think it's worth discussing about whether or not to implement a mature content warning template, but it's fair if some people don't want that in that case it stirs more trouble than it's worth (like say, more edit warring on Vivian). rend (talk) (edits) 14:31, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I think some of the Super Mario-kun stuff could use this template. Nelsonic (talk) 13:33, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

It's a children's series in Japan. Technetium (talk) 14:33, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I made a list of articles which could possibly receive the template. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 21:38, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

We... Don't think we enjoy this list that much, frankly. Running down our reasons against inclusions:

• We do not feel strong language warrants a "sensitive content" warning, so no Bob Hoskins, no Nintendo Kōshiki Guidebook Super Mario World as the nudity is only mentioned, no List of references in music, no Reptiles in the Rose Garden, no Princess Toadstool for President, and especially no mentions of Hell, so no Mario's Magic Carpet or Legend of the Crystal Coconut--Hell isn't even really a swear, it's a place. We've had many proposals about how foul language is perfectly acceptable if it's in the pursuit of accuracy; we don't think we need to, for lack of a better term, baby readers by alerting them that Bob Hoskins had a potty mouth.
• We don't think that King Koopa's Kool Kartoons being marked due to allegations against an actor in it makes much sense; not that we particularly care to put a disclaimer in the article for said actor in the first place, as it's not that much worse than Bob Hoskins in terms of intensity; sure, what Christopher Collins apparently did behind the scenes is a lot worse of a crime than just, being a potty-mouth, but explaining it is just as free an action either way.
• The majority of "List of controversies" does not really fit with this--the fact that the first entry is Birdo's gender identity, literally the example we cited for "potentially horrible misuse", is enough to have us enormously skeptical, and the only entry we can imagine really warranting an outright warning would be, at a stretch, GamerGate, just for the origin of that in particular, and that sounds fair... Until you remember that 4chan is also the source of a good few Mario memes, and the idea of labelling everything from 4chan is... Impractical at best. You could argue sections like "Animal Cruelty" could warrant it for gore, but it's no more extreme than something like the Anthology of the Killer section in List of references in third-party video games, which, when we asked about it in the Discord when first adding that reference, nobody seemed to think it warranted a notice or nothing; we can't imagine PETA's chicanery warrants it either.

This would once again leave us with just Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō and the Super Hornio Bros. section. Even stranger, this lacks Super Mario (Kodansha manga), which honestly has an even stronger argument for it than Super Mario Kun does; albeit, that one still is targeted towards younger audiences, so that's a bit of a moot point. And with just two articles we could understand it being on--both of which, the content in question being limited to only a few sections, rather than the whole page--it begs the question of what exactly is the use-case for a template that will only be used on 2 pages, and only in sections for both. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 22:15, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed with all of this, Camwoodstock. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 23:09, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

I'm surprised nothing related to Donkey Kong Planet is mentioned in that list, given the crude humor it sometimes has. Heck, there was insensitive humor during the production of the DKC TV series before Medialab asked Nelvana to rewrite their stuff. Not that I think either entry should be listed, but still. rend (talk) (edits) 11:59, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

I... think if this were proposed, I would have to oppose it. I find few of the given use cases existing — I don't really think foul language is a good reason to put the template given that the swears themselves will take up far less space on the screen than the template will, and counting references to Hell under the template is stretching it really far. Others bring up a good point about misuse as well. In the end, I just think the template would be rarely used, fuzzily defined, potentially abusable, and... honestly, I don't even think making these kinds of value judgments is our job. We're here to report information, not decide who it is and isn't suitable for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:29, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Well, based on this feedback, I feel that we should probably abandon this idea entirely; a rarely used, vague, and potentially abusable template serves no purpose on this wiki, and the wiki's job is not to moderate information based on its content. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 19:38, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock I think Ask Uncle Tusk could probably benefit from this template. Nelsonic (talk) 17:09, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

Given the conversation has already resolved, admittedly, there's not much a reason to give our own two cents, but just for the sake of being thorough, having skimmed the article... Not really?? Outside of Uncle Tusk coming from a more mature game, it's no more crass than any of the usual 90s promotional materials tend to be, and "being from a video game that was rated M" has not stopped characters like Bayonetta from getting Smash coverage, or an absolute deluge of titles from being mentioned in the List of references in third-party video games, from being entirely uncontested in this conversation as "not worth giving a sensitive content warning". It's nowhere near the level of Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō or Super Hornio Bros., for sure. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 18:41, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

Limit of five ongoing proposals

Huh, when was that added? I'm not disputing it, just curious as I don't recall seeing it before (and once a few years back I made 16 proposals in one night lol). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:46, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Porple added it about a month ago. Maybe a staff decision? Drago (talk) 12:54, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

PAL English

Ok so my Commonwealth English proposal failed. But someone of the opposing team said something I was actually already thinking about before switching to the term "Commonwealth". So what if it would be renamed to "PAL English instead? I'm just pinging some people (since this page is not used much anyway and) so I know of more people (and mainly the ones who voted on my previous proposal) what they think.

@Doc von Schmeltwick@EvieMaybe @Rykitu@Camwoodstock@Nelsonic@Pseudo@SmokedChili@Hewer@LinkTheLefty@Technetium@Mario4Ever@CarlosYoshiBoi@Arend@YoYo@Altendo@Cadrega86@Rainbow Road Drifter

Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:55, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

...PAL is for electrical signals. If someone described something else in the UK as "the PAL version", it would border on nonsensical. Are Euros the "PAL" version of the American Dollar? Obviously not. We... Can't say we really understand calling it "PAL English" by that token. ;P ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:02, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

Per Camwoodstock. Rykitu

Yeah, PAL just stands for "Phase Alternate Line". It just refers to a video format standard used in European countries. To draw a comparison, "PAL English" replacing "British English" would be equivalent to "NTSC English" replacing "American English". Nelsonic (talk) 17:53, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

To be fair, the Smash Wiki uses these terms for the English localizations. rend (talk) (edits) 18:41, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

I think the phrase "PAL territories" is acceptable for regions where PAL is/was used, but you wouldn't refer to a language/translation as PAL/NTSC. If there are version differences in these territories, you sometimes hear "PAL version" for simplicity's sake, but it's pretty informal. LinkTheLefty (talk) 17:04, September 28, 2025 (EDT)

Agreed with this, generally speaking, though I do get Yoshi18's intent with wanting to have a better term than "British" English. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) 19:24, May 21, 2025 (EDT)

Per Camwoodstock and Nelsonic, although since we are on the topic of changing the name for a language, even if this may be unrelated, should we rename French (NOA), French (NOE), Portuguese (NOA), Portuguese (NOE), Spanish (NOA) and Spanish (NOE) on the foreign names template to French (Canada), French (France), Portuguese (Brazil), Portuguese (Portugal), Spanish (Latin America) and Spanish (Spain) like in the playable languages template? CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) 20:24, May 21, 2025 (PDT)

Proposal for defining musical theme name formatting policies

The following text is a draft of a proposal that would aid in standardizing some unofficial choices in how musical theme articles are written while also cleaning up existing references to musical themes across the wiki. As such a proposal would be of interest to several editors, I have posted it here to collect feedback.

Music is a pivotal piece of Super Mario, with games and related media featuring a wide variety of themes across many genres. As a result, music is often mentioned on the articles of games, levels, and other places where it may be heard. However, unlike the game name policy, a defined policy for how musical themes should be referred to does not yet exist. This proposal aims to implement such a policy.

If this proposal is implemented, the following guidelines should be implemented when naming article titles for or referencing musical themes:

• MarioWiki:Naming applies to musical themes. Song titles can come from in-game sound players, official soundtracks, Nintendo Music, or other acceptable sources.
• The same theme may recur in multiple games; as with the existing naming policy, modern names should be used. However, clarity and intent should prevail. For example, "N64 Rainbow Road" is referred to as such because of its appearance in later Mario Kart games despite being named "Rainbow Road" on its own soundtracks. "Bonus Game BGM" is given a modern name from Nintendo Music, but despite its appearance in Super Mario Bros. Wonder, the theme is not renamed "Break Time! Tunes 1".
• As with the existing naming policy, names may be conjectural or derived. For example, Ghost House BGM was given its name based on its name in a Japanese album as well as Nintendo Music's consistency in combining level themes with 'BGM' to create a name for the corresponding musical theme.
• Instances of musical theme names should be surrounded by quotation marks, with the exception of instances of conjectural or derived names. Punctuation may be placed inside these quotation marks following standard English rules.
• Musical theme article titles should not be surrounded by quotation marks, as doing so would make linking to such articles unnecessarily complex and negatively impact the appearance of URLs of such articles.
• When linking to musical themes that have an associated article or a section of an article, the link is placed inside any quotation marks. Likewise, bold text used to indicate the subject of an article should apply to only the text inside any quotation marks.
• Instances of musical theme names should not includes links to subject matter that is not the musical theme itself. For example, the Super Mario 3D World track titled "WORLD 2" would not link to the game's World 2 in the absence of a better link target.

A template similar to Template:Italic title could be implemented to allow quotation marks to visually appear in musical theme article titles. Note that this template could also be helpful in the implementation of the "Include missions (and equivalencies) to subjects we put quotation marks around in our Manual of Style" proposal. To minimize the scope of this proposal, such a template is not included in this proposal.

B700465189a9 (talk) 19:45, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not sure I understand what the point of this proposal would be? Most of this is the same as how we already do things. I'll also note that I am strongly opposed to the idea of having the quotation marks appear in article titles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 21:51, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

Personally — and understand that I say this knowing I don't really have a better solution — I think our current naming policy just isn't a very good fit for most of the recurring themes of this series. The fact is, a lot of video game music, much of Mario's included, don't have real names — ones baked into them from the moment of their conception like Jump Up, Super Star! or Aquatic Ambiance. For themes like these, they're called something in Nintendo Music or Smash Bros, but these are descriptive labels, not proper names as such. Thus far, though, we've been treating them as if they are. That's led to a fair number of disagreeable article titles:

1. We have both Castle BGM and Castle Theme separately, as if there's a meaningful and purposeful distinction between the two; and we're only saved from ambiguity by getting lucky and having two of each.
2. We have Game Start A, a "name" that only describes its position in the game it's in, present completely absent of that game. Implicitly, there's a Game Start B, but we don't seem to mention it anywhere.
3. We have Luigi Raceway (theme) and GCN Yoshi Circuit (theme), Mario Kart songs labeled by only one of the tracks they appear on; and then Luigi Circuit/Mario Circuit, which is the only one to mention both. This is entirely because the sources we pull these "names" from had different conventions. On the subject, I have to specifically mention the sentence "In Mario Kart 8 and its Nintendo Switch port, Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, an arrangement of "Luigi Raceway" plays in N64 Royal Raceway." which I find... egregious. We should not be taking this non-name to be so ironclad that we are describing MK8's version of Royal Raceway's music as an arrangement of the music for a track that is not in it.
4. We have BGM Tride. Or, as it might more sensibly be called, Tower Theme (New Super Mario Bros.). Instead of that, though, we have delved into the files to call it something that it has never been called by English-speaking fans, never been called by Japanese-speaking fans, and likely never been called out loud by anyone involved in NSMB's development except the processor of the Nintendo DS.

A brief note: I'd also like to speak on the practice of using quotation marks to surround song names. I am on record as being against the practice — I find it misrepresentative for little benefit. This has not changed. I would like to say, however, that I find the quotation marks surrounding these non-titles particularly negative — not only do they misrepresent how the title itself is officially written, they also add to the factor of us elevating these descriptions to name status. Heck, we're using them around conjectural names in at least one place.

Sorry if this has been a bit disorganized. To summarize, though: I think we've been taking simple descriptors from various sources and unduly treating them as "true names", which has made the titles of these articles scattered and unpredictable. Like I said, I don't have a real solution to this problem — if the official names of themes are inconsistent with each other, making them consistent with each other would inherently also make them unofficial. This proposal just got me thinking about this sort of thing and I wanted to bring it up. (Maybe I'm deviating a bit too hard from the topic at hand, here, but now I'm considering a proposal that could at least solve this issue for article text by changing the way we mention these themes "by name".) Ahemtoday (talk) 22:43, May 23, 2025 (EDT)

I believe this proposal should deliberately avoid codifying how to deal with multiple potential names for a theme, other than mentioning that blindly taking the name from the latest appearance of a theme should be avoided. Instead, the main focus of the proposal is to structure the formatting of these names wherever they may appear. Surrounding track names with quotation marks follows standard English rules, much like italicizing game names does, so I believe that codifying the rules around quotation mark usage is a reasonable focus. Per the proposal draft, conjectural names such as the Course Clear (New Super Mario Bros.) example would not be formatted with quotation marks.

By restricting quotation mark usage to sourced track names, editors would have more freedom to reference unnamed tracks in a more natural and accurate manner. For example, the music of Mario Kart World includes arrangements of both unnamed and named tracks which can be effectively differentiated by the formatting of each list item. A track name such as "The theme played in Peach Circuit, Mario Circuit, and Luigi Circuit" may not be a succinct article name, but a shorter name that is still clearly conjectural could be used instead. B700465189a9 (talk) 00:19, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

@Ahemtoday: I don't see how most of the "problems" you've described are unique to music. We're often using obscure filenames and inconsistent names. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:24, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

Our Mario Kart track articles are inconsistently named due to official sources, but a bevy of redirects for every possible naming scheme, our policy of using the track's name from the specific game under discussion, and the fact that they're formatted consistently where we present them all together prevents it from a major issue. (That said, MKWorld might cause our whole system to change — IIRC, there's a proposal lying in wait for that.) All in all, these things make them much easier to parse than our "recurring themes" navbox. I don't really know if there's a feasible way to get our music article titles to that level of ease of use, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:45, May 24, 2025 (EDT)

I'd like to know...

Why have people recently taken to giving "Comments" sections in proposals cheeky names instead of just "Comments"? RickTommy (talk) 19:09, May 27, 2025 (EDT)

Because if all of the sections are just called "Comments" and you save an edit in one of those sections, the page would bring you back to the first "Comments" section on the page rather than the one you were actually editing, which is a bit inconvenient. Giving them all different names solves this issue. Also it's funny. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:23, May 27, 2025 (EDT)

I hate to be a bit of a killjoy, but I think at the very least people should stop putting joke names in place of their usernames when voting for proposals so that it's far easier to tell who is voting, as I'm often not sure until I click on the username and go to the userpage. Nightwicked Bowser 07:25, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

^^^^^My thoughts exactly. It's mildly funny at best, but usually rather cringeworthy, at the expense of obfuscating who is behind a vote, and I'm not keen on clicking on a link for every person who does this just to identify them. At least make your username clearly visible, or don't vote at all. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 07:35, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I think it was Ray Trace who started that (or at least started with ones that don't even resemble the actual username), though I could be wrong. Anyways, I found it weird, but preview hover text at least shows it. Dunno if you can see that on phones. For the record, I just use the ~~~ to sign them since my username is monstrously long. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 08:23, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

She at least always makes it clear it's her. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 08:43, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I can achieve the same effect on mobile by holding down on the username link so that it shows the link address. Also, unless I'm missing something, the first fairly recent, non-April Fools instance of this that I could find was when I did it here, so sorry about that I guess. Didn't expect it to catch on. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:09, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

I personally think it's fine as long as the user's actual username is within the joke. Tails777 Talk to me!

Monolith Soft

Do I need a proposal to create a page on Monolith Soft? I already started a discussion here, but it had gained no traction since. Altendo 20:39, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

I say you go ahead and make the page. Technetium (talk) 20:41, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

Strategy Policy

I will preface this by saying I am not yet nearly as familiar with this wiki as most other users, so forgive me if I have missed something. To my current understanding though, there are not any prominent pages on this wiki that make clear or even mention what the wiki's stance on unofficial strategy content is. The closest I have noticed is the Good Writing page citing "Unsupported analysis" and "Reading between the lines" as things to avoid; however, even this seems to be referring to story interpretation and not strategy pertaining to actual gameplay.

In time I have come to believe that the wiki has a de facto stance of not allowing strategy content that isn't just strictly describing something's intended purpose, even for as simple as saying a particular item in a Mario Kart game is useful, but I believe it is important to firmly establish that stance in a rules page such as the Coverage page or the aforementioned Good Writing page. Technically it could instead get its own dedicated article under the coverage section of the general Rules page, but I am assuming for now that it would not be necessary.

As such, my proposal would be to expand the wiki's official rules to somewhere include a definition of what unofficial strategy content is, and clarify to what degree it may or may not be permitted on here (not affecting official strategy guides or other such content from the publisher, of course). Thoughts? RocketLauncher (talk) 21:37, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

We definitely can add something like "No speedrun or other fan-discovered techniques in gameplay descriptions" in MarioWiki:Good writing, because this is something we do not want in articles, akin to the other sections. MarioWiki:Coverage is meant for what franchises and works within franchises are and aren't covered here, so it wouldn't make sense to include it there. I think this proposal makes sense, as long as it is for Good writing. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 22:36, July 23, 2025

That makes sense, although "speedrun or other fan-discovered techniques" is far more specific than the general idea of unofficial strategy content I'm referring to. I'm also referring to anything as simple as providing tips for getting through a particularly tough level (such as the various special world levels and similar throughout the main series) or listing a few good use cases for an item or ability in an RPG type game. Literally anything that could be construed as strategy content and doesn't come straight from an official source. Heck, you could even make the argument that identifying any shortcut in a Mario Kart track that isn't explicitly marked by an alternate route or something counts as unofficial strategy content, and thus shouldn't be permitted on the page assuming that's the wiki's stance. I know that would affect a lot of articles if so. RocketLauncher (talk) 23:28, July 23, 2025 (EDT)

The problem with saying "this is a good item" isn't that it's strategy content, it's that it's subjective and therefore not encyclopedic. The wiki shouldn't read like a strategy guide, but there's nothing wrong with including objective information about games in a wiki aiming to comprehensively cover a video game franchise. Wouldn't a ban on "fan-discovered techniques" wipe out our glitch coverage? (Also, many Mario Kart shortcuts we know are definitely intentional due to being used by the CPUs or staff ghosts.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:31, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Glitches can stay, as long as they aren't mentioned on location pages as ways to get through them more quickly. If we do add this to Good writing, we'll explain that glitch lists are an exception, because it is still something we want to cover. Shortcuts can stay, as long as they were clearly intended by the developers, but anything that isn't used by computers or Staff Ghosts should be removed. Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 05:21, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Why should unintended shortcuts be removed if glitches are staying? Why can't they also be "something we want to cover"? Our policies should be consistent. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:32, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I understand. I felt they should be removed because they are on the course articles' layout section, while glitches are only mentioned on dedicated list articles. (Deciding whether or not something is intended by developers, a glitch, or an unintended technique that isn't a glitch is a little difficult, which is also part of why I felt some shortcuts should be removed.) Rainbow Road Drifter - Talk 05:41, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

That's the thing with strategy content though, it can very often be not subjective at all, such as the example of shortcuts in a Mario Kart track objectively saving seconds of time over the regular route any way you look at it. If the subjectivity of unofficial strategy content then cannot be used a metric (or at least, not the only metric) to determine its merits here, then some other criteria (or a proper definition if the wiki decides none of it is acceptable anyways) needs to be included and clarified somewhere in the rules to prevent these kinds of semantics. RocketLauncher (talk) 11:38, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I think I'm just generally not understanding what the problem with "strategy content" is or why it needs special treatment. Of course the wiki shouldn't include subjective judgements or be written like an actual strategy guide, but those are both covered by existing policies and don't mean we have to go out of our way to exclude objectively factual information just because it falls in some arbitrary "strategy" classification. We're trying to comprehensively document these games, right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:57, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

That was my original point: I don't believe there are any actual wiki policies that touch on strategy content or even "strategy guide writing" in any way. If I have indeed missed something then please link me to it, but I believe this is something that the rules should be updated for. RocketLauncher (talk) 12:11, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Huh, you seem to be right. I could've sworn MarioWiki:Manual of Style or MarioWiki:Good writing had something about avoiding strategy guide writing (perhaps I was thinking of "No yous"). Either way though, I think it makes intuitive sense that the site should be written like an encyclopedia rather than a strategy guide since it's trying to be the former, and that this shouldn't have to prevent the inclusion of so-called "strategy content" when it's just objective, factual information. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:35, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

For my two cents, I think we're a bit too harsh on some of this content? I don't think we need to go as far as detailing every potential way someone's found to beat a boss in a platformer, but some of the things that editors have removed on the basis of strategy writing confuses me. To provide a recent example, I saw someone remove a note on a microgame page that the Baby Face distraction in Wario Interrupts makes the game impossible because it relies entirely on varied sound cues, saying that it was "strategy". I don't see why that's strategy, that's just an objective explanation of a potential interaction of game mechanics. (I don't remember what microgame it was, and it's not mentioned at all on the Wario Interrupts or Baby Face pages. See the problem?) -- Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:53, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

I don't disagree that the policy itself should be discussed and amended if it seems appropriate, because there's a lot of nuanced discussion to be had on why some of this stuff should be included or not, but right now this proposal would solely be to get the existing policy implemented in the wiki rules in the first place. RocketLauncher (talk) 13:09, July 24, 2025 (EDT)

Defining appearances

I recently raised a question on the Template:Character infobox talk page regarding the standard for what counts as a character making an "appearance" in a game. Specifically, I am questioning whether it is appropriate to document a character as appearing in a game (or other form of media) where they are mentioned by name, but their likeness or physical appearance is not included. A number of characters' infoboxes list their latest appearance as such an instance with the clarification that they are mentioned, in parentheses. I feel it is not accurate to say a character made an appearance in a piece of media where they are literally not seen. This could extend to non-character subjects, as well; should we list the Crystal Palace's latest appearance as The Thousand-Year Door because Koopook mentions it? I don't think so. I feel a proposal may be in order to standardize how we handle these cases. I'd love to hear others' input on this. --Frankly (talk) 14:58, August 2, 2025 (EDT)

Linking to specific versions of characters and species without their own articles

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.

Most importantly, am I overthinking things? The answer to this last question is probably "yes", but I'd still like a solution to this situation. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 13:48, August 7, 2025 (EDT)

I agree that this style of linking is bad, it's annoying when links don't take you where you would expect them to. I don't think there's any 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 - it's still the same character, otherwise it wouldn't be covered in the same page. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:39, August 8, 2025 (EDT)

Thing is, I think applying this linking to the 1993 film incarnations may have some merit, given that (for obvious reasons) they aren't described at the beginnings of their respective pages aside from Dinohattanite being listed as a relative in the Goomba and Snifit's infoboxes. For Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, and Bowser/President Koopa in particular, said information is only included towards the ends of their separate history articles. My main concern before I set up a proposal, however, is where a policy for the linking would go if we decide to add one. Help:Link only includes advice on how to make links, not what should or should not be linked to. MarioWiki:Manual of Style § Linking, linking, linking! might be a good fit, but it could easily get cluttered depending on how many specific sections of character and species articles we deem notable enough to link to. If we were to make a new policy page instead, what would we even call it? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 19:22, August 19, 2025 (EDT)

Why should we single out their appearances in specifically the 1993 movie over any other piece of media? It's neither the only movie nor the only live-action content in the franchise, so I don't see what sets it apart from any other appearance. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:27, August 19, 2025 (EDT)

They're very different from their game counterparts? Either way, you haven't given advice on what we could do about a policy for this style of linking—the creation of which would be included as an option for my hypothetical proposal, if I create it. If you want to deal with this situation yourself, you could always set up your own proposal. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 14:55, August 20, 2025 (EDT)

I mean, you can just outline the policy in the proposal itself and leave it at that. Not every proposal decision needs to be put into a policy page to be enforced, especially for something as specific as this. I think policy pages being updated after a proposal usually only happens if the proposal explicitly set out to change an existing policy. (And I still don't really see why specifically the 1993 film is more worthy of distinction than any other film, TV, manga, etc. adaptation.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:46, August 20, 2025 (EDT)

Since the developers made it intentionally vague on the relationship of this character to her adult counterpart I do think it's our call to decide how to deal with information concerning Pauline. I do like to consider the benefits of splitting this version of Pauline like we do with Baby Mario and Mario. Lorewise, they're both the same character, but if Baby Pauline is distinct enough with an drastically different appearance, an extensive role, plenty of unique abilities, and a different enough personality; and the disadvantages of split pages, being overlapping repeating information being more difficult to maintain across pages, then it would make more sense to cover all that information in a respective article than deal with piping. I believe if this iteration of Pauline makes it into another game, especially coinciding with adult Pauline, it should be clear to split the page. If this appearance is only in Bonanza, or the extreme scenario where it replaces adult Pauline, then it keeping merged might make more sense. Either way, the emphasis should not be based on the info or lackof we have but what setup benefits our wiki. Is it better organized, is it easier to maintain and expand and categorize, is it easier to search and find the information, these should be the questions to pursue, not if lore implications or if wiki has precedent for this sort of thing. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 15:12, August 31, 2025 (EDT)

This discussion isn't about whether to split Bananza's Pauline (for the record, I don't think we should). It's about whether mentions of Pauline in the context of Donkey Kong Bananza should link to the Donkey Kong Bananza section of Pauline's article, or just link to the article normally. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:13, August 31, 2025 (EDT)