Template talk:Item infobox

Remove "descriptions"

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Use "description" for in-game descriptions of special items only 1-1-6-0
This parameter has always confused me. At first I believed it was meant for visually impaired readers, but that's certainly not it since this is the only infobox to feature this option. The guide in the template page is very vague about what it's for ("description: describe the item / for various items" What does that mean?). It has come to be interpreted as "visual description", which reminds me of those "eye color"/"hair color"/etc. parameters in fandom wiki character infoboxes, which just describe the image that's right above them. It also has an obvious limitation, since items can have different visual appearances in different games, and these are described in the body of the article anyway, so it just ends up being either useless or inconvenient.

This option at the moment feels like a worse version of alternative text, and I cannot see a better purpose for it, so I suggest removing it from this template.

Keyblade Master has brought to my attention that this same infobox is used for important RPG items, and for those the descriptions are the ones found in-game. I think that is a valid use of this parameter and the best option in these cases. In that case, I'm adding new voting options and changing mine.

• Remove 'description' from the template: This parameter will become unavailable for any item.
• Keep 'description' as part of the template: This parameter continues being available for any item.
• Use 'description' for in-game descriptions of special items only: Use this parameter for unique/key items with in-game descriptions, such as important items in RPGs (see Ancient Clue and Magical Seed for examples). My preferred option.
• Use 'description' for official descriptions of any item: Transcribe official descriptions of any item. Not my favorite option because common items like Fire Flower are bound to have dozens of descriptions. Rather than updating it each time a new one comes out, having them grouped in the "Profiles and statistics" section is more convenient, in my opinion.

Proposer: Shiny K-Troopa (talk)
Deadline: January 13, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Remove "description" from the template

1. Alex95 (talk) - Per Waluigi Time. Unless the reader is outright blind (in which case, why are they using a wiki at all? :P), the reader can pretty easily tell what an object looks like just by, you know, looking at it. Being partially colorblind myself, and my brother being even more colorblind than I am, I can see why describing colors would be useful. But even then, the article content handles that well enough already.

#Shiny K-Troopa (talk) Per proposal
#Waluigi Time (talk) No matter which way it's used, it's redundant and handled better by the article content or images.
#DarkNight (talk) Per all.

Keep "description" as part of the template

1. 1JUST1: Against proposal. They are not simply a visual sight but are used to quickly explain their function so you can directly see their purpose in the game (see Super Note Block).

Use "description" for in-game descriptions of special items only

1. Shiny K-Troopa (talk): Per revised proposal.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) This is pretty much the only way I see this parameter being helpful, and I'm fine leaving it solely for this.
3. Keyblade Master (talk) Thanks for adding my suggestion into this, per what I said below.
4. DarkNight (talk) Per all.
5. Ninja Squid (talk) Per all.
6. BBQ Turtle (talk) I definitely agree that the description as it is currently used should be removed and I think this would work well in its place, as long as the new use is clearly explained on the template's page.

Comments

@1JUST1: I think you're referring to the "Effect on player" line of the template (which, to be fair, I have similar problems with, but that's not the proposal). The description in that infobox is "A multicolored block with white ♩ quarter notes on its sides." Shiny K-Troopa (talk) 16:08, December 30, 2020 (EST)

Couldn't the description just be repurposed as an image caption? Kinda looks nicer that way even in spite of pointing out the obvious. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:04, January 1, 2021 (EST)

Personally, I feel like a banner labeled "description" looks a little too flashy for an image caption. I like how captions are used (to say which game the art is from) and formatted currently, simple as it is, and it's consistent with other infoboxes. Shiny K-Troopa (talk) 23:34, January 1, 2021 (EST)

I would be up for removing conjectural descriptions as you described. However, I don't know about removing the parameter entirely. I think this parameter would be great for any sort of in-game or manual description for items that don't appear very much, such as key items in RPGs, but if it is an item which has appeared in a ton of games and would have lots of different descriptions between those, such as Mushrooms, then yeah it would be easier to not use it. Nightwicked Bowser

While I agree with Keyblade Master, I also think that there can be separate sections for official descriptions, much like what has already been done for Goomba Mask and Yoshi's Egg. ^(T|C) 19:45, January 3, 2021 (EST)

I agree with you, 100%. I've updated the proposal to include this option too. Shiny K-Troopa Talk 14:58, January 4, 2021 (EST)

Object-infobox?

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

I wonder if we can have an object infobox, as it would be nice to have an infobox to list the first and latest appearances of objects as well). One problem is: how do we create distinct parameters for object-infobox? Otherwise it would be a clone of item-infobox essentially, but I feel it needs to be more than just listing "object" in the article source instead of "item." Thoughts? Results May Vary (talk) 18:17, April 14, 2022 (EDT)

Support. I always thought this was a hole in our infobox library. 15:22, April 21, 2022 (EDT)

I'm in favor of an object infobox too.--Platform (talk) 01:50, December 18, 2024 (EST)

I guess I'd be against and instead use an parameter in the item infobox to make it read object. I can't think of anything to distinguish items and objects that would go in an infobox. "Users" as an item exclusive parameter, but that just ends up being a list of who is playable in what games. Salmancer (talk) 13:51, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

'Comparable' section

This is a thought I had while looking at the Trampoline page - would it be helpful to be able to list incredibly similar effect items like -- in Trampoline's example -- the Spring Ball or even Jump Panel as being comparable objects? I was going to add them in (similar to how an enemy like Circus Kong is noted as being comparable to Sir Shovalot due to their behavior, despite having differences and otherwise being very different-looking) but then I realized that isn't an option for item infoboxes.

I came to this after misnaming Arrow Balls as 'trampolines' and went through a few name guesses (Trampoline Block, Bouncy Ball, etc.) before finding the object I was thinking of, and I figure it would probably be helpful to be able to list at least something like that as comparable when it's sort of the Yoshi series' equivalent and functions much the same as springs do beyond that the latter can often be picked up and carried. It just seems like one of those things that could help people find certain things that they're looking for, and I feel like that's worth at least bringing up. - ~~User:Princess_Bagelboo, 12:09, February 14th 2022 (UTC)~~

Add "variant", "variant of", "related", and "comparable" parameters to the item infobox

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

Add parameters 12-1

While not alive (I guess?), there are plenty of items and objects in the Super Mario franchise with derived subjects or are closely related to other subjects. You can see this in Category:Pipes, this section of the lift article, or through an cursory glance of any game. There are multiple power-ups related to one another. Multiple blocks. Tools. Items. etc. As available for the species infobox, I thought it would be nice to have the option to include the variant, variant_of, and comparable options to the infobox for abiotic items and objects. Because otherwise that information is artificially obscured a bit, and I have seen users use the species infobox for non-living objects (like Skewers or Spinners) for this very reason.

EDIT: I forgot to include "related," the equivalency of "relatives" in the species infobox, for subjects that clearly have a variant-styled relationship but debuted at the same time (e.g. Glow Block and Light Block in New Super Mario Bros. Wii). I do not want to literally see the term "relative" here integrated in this context since, to me at least, it is best used for living subjects. "Related" has a little broader conceptual application, I think.

I propose two options:

1. Support: integrate "variant," "variant_of," "related," and "comparable" options to the item infobox.
2. Oppose: do not do that.

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: October 30th, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: integrate the variant, variant_of, related, and comparable options to the item infobox

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal. Having the option would be nice.
2. Technetium (talk) Per proposal.
3. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - This should help better organize the innumerable derivatives of Fire Flower - Superball Flower, Flower, Power Flower, Ice Flower, Copy Flower, Mix Flower, Speed Flower, Slow Flower, Cloud Flower, Boomerang Flower, Gold Flower, Bubble Flower...
4. LinkTheLefty (talk) Why not?
5. Pseudo (talk) Per all.
6. EvieMaybe (talk) wait, we don't have this?
7. Mario (talk) As the proposal has stated, it's pretty awkward that something like Spike Ball and Skewer have a species infobox only because that infobox has the parameter those objects need.
8. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
9. Ray Trace (talk) Yeah.
10. Super Mario RPG (talk) Varieties and comparable are not limited to living entities.
11. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
12. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.

Oppose: let's not do that

1. Bro Hammer (talk) It makes more sense to have the comparable items in a "See also" section or similar, like we already do with comparable minigames, microgames and such. It's the kind of info that is too trivial to be in a box that's meant to be a brief, useful summarization of the subject. Also just imagining the Coin infbox containing a long list of all the kinds of coins that ever existed puts me off.

Comments on this variant/comparable proposal

The Fire Flowers and derivatives were brought up in a vote. I think species is a better infobox for it just because it's, well, it's a species too. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:34, October 17, 2024 (EDT)

Problem is we've historically been disallowed through general consensus to treat items as species, even if they are organic things and have eyes. It's another old-fogey bit of unofficial policy that should probably be nixed. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:46, October 24, 2024 (EDT)

@Bro Hammer: Have you seen the infoboxes on pages like Goomba? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:38, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

Yes, and I'm not a fan, specially on mobile. It's almost like having a category page condensed into a smaller space. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 09:07, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

I honestly agree that these parameters are sometimes bloated. However, I also think that's not the tools inherent fault and that it is beneficial if applied with discrete intent. Same with the species infobox. It is valid to think otherwise, however. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:12, October 29, 2024 (EDT)

Proposal: add an "Applies to" parameter

This talk page proposal has already been settled. Please do not edit this section or its subsections. If you wish to discuss the article, please do so in a new section below the proposal.

do not add parameter 1-6
It'd be useful for pages like Bitsize Candy, where there is no article for the form it gives.

Proposer: Balugio (talk)
Deadline: August 22, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Balugio (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Salmancer (talk) In practice, this creates "Every character playable in X game", "Every character playable in Y game", etc, far too frequently. As a general rule, most games with items generally allow all characters to use them, that what they were put in the level for after all, and disallow NPCs to use them because why would they bother when they either have limited behaviors and/or get non-player character routing that lets them warp to wherever they have to be without needing to interact with level design and therefore the items needed to go through levels. This parameter for forms is at least more interesting because of how sometimes only some playable characters get to use certain forms (Only Toadette can become Peachette, only Luigi can gain Vanish Power, Nabbit swears off power-ups entirely, etc) and some forms can also be used by certain NPCs (Wario becomes Fiery Wario, Bowser becomes Meowser, Goomba becomes Tail Goomba, Wario can turn Dunk into a Ball. I feel like given the boring results of adding "applies to", the wiki's editors have better things to do than add it to all the items. Trust me, being able to put "Only Koopa Kid can use a Koopa Kid Orb" in an infobox is not that exciting.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) If we understand this proposal correctly, this is basically porting "applies to" from the form infobox. For forms, it at least makes sense, as many forms are indeed character-specific, but for items... This would devolve rather quickly into just, listing rosters from various games. The given example for Bitsize Candy would list Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Wario, Daisy, Waluigi, Toad, Boo, Toadette, Birdo, Dry Bones, Blooper, and Hammer Bro... All in one infobox, and this would be true for basically every candy in Mario Party 8. And in an extreme case, there would be pages like Super Horn, which we imagine would have the sizes of their infobox doubled after having to recount the full rosters of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Mario Kart World. In both examples, it's just best to default to the notion of "anyone can use it", which is what the prose itself does in the first place--on the rare occasion an item is character-specific, such as, say, the 4-bros specific Bros. Items (i.e. Cannonballer) or the Super Crown, these are pretty clearly explained in prose.
3. EvieMaybe (talk) per the two above
4. YoYo (talk) Per what everyone else says
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Salmancer and Camwoodstock.
6. Altendo (talk) Per Sal and Cam.

Comments

Can you elaborate what you mean by this? I don't understand it. Altendo 22:12, August 12, 2025 (EDT)

I think they want a parameter added for characters who can use the item and gain its effects, similar to how the "Applies to" parameter is used for {{Form infobox}} (e.g. using their given example of Bitsize Candy, that item is used Mario, Luigi, Peach, Daisy, Yoshi, Toad, Wario, Waluigi, Toadette, Boo, Dry Bones, Birdo, Blooper, and Hammer Bro, so those 14 names would be filled in the "Applies to" parameter). Am I correct? rend (talk) (edits) 06:59, August 13, 2025 (EDT)

Yes. Yes, you are. Balugio (talk) 08:53, August 13, 2025 (EDT)

We do already do "any character in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS, Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate" for things like Raccoon Mario and Gold Mario, so in theory we can efficiently list every Mario Kart character in exactly this manner. ""any character in Mario Kart 8. I do feel that having so many item infoboxes read "any character in blank", "any character in blank", etc, is just recreating the list of games the item appears in only in a form factor of an infobox. Which ends up making the infobox harder to read, because of all the text it would gain, and be redundant with the table of contents, which is already a confortable way to read which games an item appears in. Salmancer (talk) 14:09, August 13, 2025 (EDT)