MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59

Decide how to cover Mario Kart Tour bonus challenges on course articles
The layout of each bonus challenge in Mario Kart Tour (e.g. Ring Race) depends on the course in which it is set. It tracks, therefore, that these challenges should be covered in detail on their relevant course articles in addition to their parent article. If you wish to see how a course article would look with coverage of its bonus challenges, scroll down to the "Mario Kart Tour" section in the "History" section here.

However, bonus challenges have been observed to appear multiple times across the game's tours, sometimes with changed objectives, which prompts wiki users to regularly update their list entries. Simply copying and pasting these entries onto another article would make it more difficult for users to be aware of which needs to be updated where. On the other hand, adding a way to transclude entire entries (allow information entered on a page to be automatically transferred to another) would spaghettify the original code and potentially deter users from updating it with new information. For instance, this is how the code for an average bonus challenge entry currently looks:


 * MKT Tour1 YoshiCupChallenge.png
 * New York Minute
 * MKT Icon Yoshi.png Yoshi
 * MKT Icon PipeFrameLimeGreen.png Pipe Frame
 * MKT Icon SuperGliderLimeGreen.png Super Glider
 * 5
 * 8
 * 12
 * New York Tour
 * 12
 * New York Tour

(source: Do Jump Boosts article)

and this is how it would look with a transclusion mechanism in place:

A bit ugly, innit? On average, this would only save a small number of bytes on the target article--less than 100, really. Picture, now, an entire table with the same code plastered repeatedly. I believe the wiki should account for editor friendliness too, especially when the returns of optimisation are disappointing.

I am not sure how to proceed here. I am unwilling to go ahead with either option unless I have a clear-cut vision of each one's net advantages. I will thus be resorting to the community's choice.

Proposer: Deadline: June 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 16, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 23, 2022, 23:59 GMT June 30, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Transclude sections

 * 1) I'm not very well informed on MKT since I don't play it, but from what I can see, transclusions seem preferable to copy-pasting and having to update multiple pages. The transclusion code, while a bit bulky, is hardly impenetrable and I don't see how it would complicate updating the tables. It's not like the updates would require overhauling the table code, just adding a new line or two.

Leave as is (bonus challenges will continue to be listed in image galleries)

 * 1) While both options are doable, both unfortunately have their own setbacks. Transcluding, while it may be better, also takes longer than copy-pasting stuff, especially since the formatting has to be precise. It might be a bit better to discuss with the admins which option would be best.

Comments
Mario Kart Tour's tables tend to be pretty sloppy overall (no offense but this ranked cup table is rather monstrous though other tables don't fare much better) though I'm not really understanding this proposal. Probably repetitive content? Maybe the table format just isn't suitable for this sort of thing? 10:55, June 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * The tables' designs aren't what the proposal is about (though, if you have suggestions for their improvement--here for instance--by all means state them somewhere appropriate). The proposal is to decide on an optimal way the already existent table sections on bonus challenge pages can be reproduced on relevant course articles. Both the copy-pasting and the transcluding methods come with their disadvantages, so I was hoping we would decide on the one option with less. I could simply go through with an option I see fit, but if it later proves to be less optimal or editor-friendly than the other (e.g. the bulky transclusion code would discourage editors who typically update these bonus challenge pages) I'd have to re-edit tens of pages. Why not pre-empt that with wiki consensus? 11:17, June 9, 2022 (EDT)

Do not use Mario + Rabbids "introductory taglines" as top quotes in articles
The main reason I am proposing this is because in every one of these pages, not only is the tagline used as the page's top quote, but that same tagline also appears in two other areas of the same article: the splash screen image and statboxes, the former of which is often towards the top as well. To me, it makes it look like we're forcing these onto readers by having it as a quote as well, especially on the Rabbid Kong article which uses that and another quote. If Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope does this as well, then this proposal will also apply with that game's subjects.

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.

Comments
Not really sure this needs to be a proposal to be honest, I think we can just use discretion to remove them if they're already displayed elsewhere. -- 13:27, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * If it was on one or two articles, I probably would have gone and done it right away while leaving an explaination in the edit summary, but because this applies to every Kingdom Battle enemy article, I didn't want to do it without getting some approval first, which I think a proposal is the best way to do. 19:09, July 17, 2022 (EDT)

Stop considering reissues to be a reference to the original game and vice versa
This issue is something that is somewhat bothering me. On the Super Mario Wiki, a reference is when something unique in a previous game returns in a later one. For example, the Super Mario Bros. 2 ground theme in later Mario games references that game. We know that because, unlike the ground theme from SMB1, it isn't part of a character's theme song or anything. What isn't considered a reference is when something in a previous game appears quite often. For example, Yoshi appearing in a game isn't a reference to Super Mario World because he has become a significant part of the franchise. The same applies to sequels and follow-ups, such as Super Mario Galaxy 2 not being a reference to Super Mario Galaxy.

Reissues, on the other hand, don't get this exception. On both of the pages that talk about Super Mario 64 and its remake, both articles list the remake and original game, respectively. The same also applies to Diddy Kong Racing and its remake. Referring to the same game in the article, oddly, does not apply to Super Mario 3D World and its rerelease nor NSMBU with its reissue. The thing is, it's pretty evident that a reissue is going to take elements from the game it is copying. We don't need to mention it in the references sections of the articles.

What this proposal suggests doing is to stop considering reissues as references, just as much as we don't consider sequels, prequels, or any follow-ups as references because that's what most of these follow-ups do. It's like if we consider the Star Wars Special Edition to be a reference to A New Hope. Also, we should put this in the guidelines for for the page regarding references.

Proposer: Deadline: July 26, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) Per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal, for consistency with how sequels are treated.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) I swore this was policy already but it apparently isn't. Ah well.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Yeah, no need to state the obvious as if it were a reference.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
I do want to say that DKC2 GBA lampshading how Kerozene wasn't in the original should stay. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:59, July 16, 2022 (EDT)
 * It is parodying the idea of a remake adding something new for a change, so I think that would stay at least. 21:08, July 16, 2022 (EDT)

I mostly agree with the proposal, but I would argue this about Yoshi in Super Mario 64 DS. His appearance is recontextualized such that having him on the castle's roof in the opening sequence (rather than the very end) is a reference to the original game in a new subplot, not content rereleased verbatim. Still, I'm conflicted on whether it's sensible to list such details in references sections. What do you all think? AgentMuffin (talk) 20:27, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * That Yoshi example could be mentioned in the trivia or plot section. In that case, we'd say it in the article, just not in the references section. That is an excellent example to bring up. Wikiboy10 (talk) 16:09, July 18, 2022 (EDT)

Fix how we handle infobox relations on generic species
No, not "change" or "decide", fix.

The way we currently list relations between real-world species and specific enemies based on real-world species is an issue I've had on the back of my mind for a bit now. To better understand what my problem with it is, let's quickly take a look at what the four relevant syntaxes are for:

So with this in mind, we should ideally be using "variants" for the specific species that are based on a real-world species, but that is not what we do; we instead list the specific species as merely "comparable" to the broader generic species, despite the specific species being a type of said generic species.

Take a look at Bee, for instance, and you'll see this in action. Things like Bzzap!, Stingby, Honeybee, Super Bee, Buzzer, Bumbler(which is just called "bee" in japan), Big Bee, etc. are all listed as "comparable" to the generic bee article. Strangely, the one Yoshi's Story Bumblebee is the only variety of bee to be listed as "variant" instead of comparable, and heck it might even be the only specific species to be listed as a variant of a generic species on the infoboxes. I don't know why that specific bee enemy has priority over literally any other variety of bee, as there's like three other varieties simply called "bee" in English (and one which shares the Japanese name of the YS bumblebee), and all of those are listed as "comparable". And it's not just bees that have this trait about them; Butterfly, Crow, Clam, Frog, Jellyfish, etc. all do this as well, listing the specific species as just "comparable". Note how those last 3 examples also list their generically-named Yoshi's Story counterparts as "comparable", so I have literally no idea why that specific Yoshi's Story bumblebee has special status with its real-world counterpart compared to any other enemy.

The thing is, this kind of organization as stated before is unhelpful in the context of real-world enemies; a Crowber is definitely a crow and was even called simply a "Crow" at one point, but we list it as "comparable" in the Crow page's infobox. Comparable means "similar but unrelated", making it seem like it's not actually a crow when it is. Heck, this is even contradictory to how the individual pages handle it; they all have the real-world species they're based on mentioned in the intros and placed as categories on the bottom, so the individual pages are saying "Yes it is an x" while the real-world species' infoboxes are saying "It's similar to x but isn't an x". This may be a small issue, but it's a ridiculous one when it's so contradictory to what is said otherwise.

And with that, I see 4 possible ways to go from here;

1. List the specific species as variants on the R.W.S. page. This is the most accurate way of depicting the relation between R.W.S. and the specific species based on it, because...I just said why a lot of times, didn't I?

2. List the specific species as relatives on the R.W.S. page. You could say that using "variant" between R.W.S. and specific species is confusing compared to how we use it for specific species to other specific species, since Nintendo probably wasn't thinking of the R.W.S. as a specific parent and instead as just an R.W.S. to base the enemies on. This method will account for that while still stating the relationships correctly.

3. Use an about on the top of the R.W.S. page. Let's be honest, these parameters were designed with unique species in mind. Mixing R.W.S. up with unique enemy species is what caused this confusing happenstance to happen, and with this method, we'd be making things a whole lot simpler. Take the Clown page for instance; instead of listing every clown in the greater Mario franchise as "comparable" to the Wario World enemy, we have an about on the top saying to check Category:Clowns for clowns across the Mario franchises. This method will do that for all the R.W.S., simplifying things and also helping us clean up whatever happened with Dragon (which is a specific Yoshi's Story species and not exactly meant to be representative of all dragons, but the comparable conundrum is also there somehow.).

EDIT: Doc suggested to repurpose the subject_origin parameter to link to the R.W.S. On the individual species pages, and since options 1 & 2 would counter this I'm adding it to option 3.

EDIT 2: Also adding another option just for the subject_origin itself.

4. Do nothing. We all collectively agree that it is fine as it is now and leave the infobox saying that all the specific species are "similar to x-real-world-species but aren't actually an x-R.-W.-S." except for that one YS Bumblebee which has a special status for...no reason at all.

So, with that all said and done, let's answer this question; How do we list specific species on the infoboxes of R.W.S. pages?

Proposer: Deadline: July 24, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 31, 2022, 23:59 GMT

List specific species as relatives of R.W.S.

 * 1) Second choice, per proposal.

Repurpose subject_origin for the specific species pages, use an about template for the R.W.S. Pages

 * 1) Preferred choice.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Just repurpose the subject_origin for the species pages

 * 1) Agreed about the repurposing of subject_origin, even its name suggest such an use would be appropriate, and it would be the link to the category page we need, without adding another use of the "about" template that can get cluttered good luck with Yoshi tho
 * 2) Per Mister Wu.
 * 3) Per Mister Wu.
 * 4) A while back, I wanted to do something similar, and this seems closest to that idea. I think the "about" option would be suboptimal since, unlike the infobox, the categories don't distinguish between species and characters or groups.

Comments
There is actually a "subject_origin" parameter last I checked that is the remnants of the old "species_origin" parameter, and as it is now, it is barely used. Course, it may be removed now, but seems like a good compromise. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:12, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * Is the subject_origin used on the individual species pages or the real world species page? 14:16, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * I think it's only used on one or two pages in total right now. Can be used to link to the "real world" ones from the fictional types. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:33, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * That seems like a good idea! 14:38, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * I still think the subject_origin field should get its own voting option, you can safely edit proposals at their beginning so don't worry about adding other options, in this case I think this repurposing has a lot of merits.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:06, July 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * done, you mean an option to just enact the subject_origin and nothing else, right? 06:58, July 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yes, thanks for adding it.--Mister Wu (talk) 17:32, July 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * Not sure if this is beyond the scope now, but presuming the "just repurpose subject_origin for species pages" option, could we maybe add a new equivalent parameter to replace the "comparable" portion of real-world species articles? LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:02, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * That's definitely possible, it's just be adding a new parameter to the infobox and clarifying it's to be used instead of comparable for R.W.S., right? 10:46, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * More or less. Something like "subjects" or "origin_of" might work. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:20, July 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Sounds perfect to me! That would definitely help fix up the weird relation issue this proposal deals with. 13:55, July 31, 2022 (EDT)

Decide on the article titles for the golf courses from Mario Golf (GBC) and Mario Golf: Advance Tour
Currently, our articles on the main tournament courses in these games (excluding the Mushroom Kingdom ones, which are different for each game) title them as simply "Marion", "Palms", "Dunes", and "Links". There's more to it than that though.

The Game Boy Color game is rather consistent about it. The courses are all called "[X] Club" - "Marion Club", "Palm Club" (note singular), "Dune Club" (again note singular), and "Links Club".

Mario Golf: Advance Tour is way more flip-floppy about it. The in-game menus use "[X] Course" - "Marion Course", "Palms Course", "Dunes Course", and "Links Course". The "Course" part is capitalized in the menus, but not in dialogue, because screw consistency. The clubs that house the courses in story mode are still called "[X] Club", albeit with Palms and Dunes now pluralized. There is also at least one instance of an NPC calling the Marion Club the "Marion Golf Club", because again, screw consistency. The one-word variants are sometimes used by NPCs, but that seems more like shorthand than anything.

So which of these names do we use for the articles? My vote goes to the "Course" names; that would make them consistent with the Mushroom Course, which does not have a "Club" name associated with it (its "club" is Peach's Castle). I plan to expand these articles in the future, so I want to solve this conundrum beforehand.

Proposer: Deadline: August 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Use "Course" names

 * 1) Preferred option.
 * 2) As I understand, the term "club" is reserved to one mode in the GBA successor whereas "course" is used more widely within the game. Besides, "course" could be understood as a sort of greater location of its respective club.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) "Course" better describes the entity than "club" in my opinoin.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Use "Club" names

 * 1) Second choice.

Merge city course and Kalimari Desert layouts
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe ' s version of combines the Mario Kart Tour layouts in the same way as it does with Tour ' s city courses, which I think warrants a reexamination of our policy surrounding these types of tracks. Under that policy, we should have a separate article for the MK8DX version of this course, distinct from both and. We currently don't - however, I take this as less of a call to make one, and more of a sign that our current policy isn't built for this situation.

I make the argument that we should be considering courses with multiple layouts as one course instead of multiple, for the following reasons (many of which I've also stated above):
 * Under our current policy, if never existed, MK8DX  would be the same track and share its article with the original. Conversely, if there was a  where players drove under the ice, MK8  would be considered a different track. My point is that these splits aren't contingent on the tracks themselves and how similar they are to the tracks they share a name with, it's contingent on whether or not a third track exists.
 * The marketing makes no mention of the Booster Course Pass's layouts being new courses - it refers to them as classic courses just like the rest, suggesting they're viewed internally as the same course rather than multiple courses with the same theme. The very name and classification of supports this as well - if it was considered a different course, I don't think they'd call it a classic course. They already have a way to format the names of new courses based on old ones with the RMX courses, so if they considered it one, I'd think they'd use that.
 * The line between a city-style layout variant and a T or R variation is blurry, with both moving objects around the same model. Tracks like Wii Coconut Mall and GCN Baby Park even take racers outside the normal bounds of the track. Most importantly, racers', drivers', and gliders' favorite and favored courses have T and R variations listed just as separately as numbered variations are.

As such, I propose a full merge of main-series multi-layout tracks, which will entail the following:
 * All of Mario Kart Tour ' s city courses will have all their numbered variants merged into the first version's article.
 * Where they exist, the MK8DX version's articles will also be merged in, and the merged article will take on the Tour prefix.
 * Similarly, will be merged into the Mario Kart Tour section of.
 * The classic course article will consider Tour's reroutes to be the same course, with the table being changed to reflect this.
 * Only the first variation of every Tour course will remain on the race courses template.
 * Super Mario Kart and Mario Kart: Super Circuit ' s numbered courses and Mario Kart Tour ' s RMX courses will not be merged, as they don't use the same track model and therefore do not have the same relationship to their counterparts.
 * The tracks from the Mario Kart Arcade GP series will not be merged, as the game treats them as distinct courses with their own names and music.

(If you want to read further discussion on this topic, it has also been discussed here and here.)

Proposer: Deadline: August 13, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Do as proposed

 * 1)  Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal and the discussion on Kalimari Desert’s talk page.
 * 3) Per proposal and what we have discussed here.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) We need to keep the course icons of the numbered variants in Mario Kart Tour in the wiki and also highlight their gameplay implications in terms of being a favorite and favored of different drivers, karts and gliders, just like the respective R, T and R/T variants, but I don't think we need to treat them as courses fully separate from the original - not even the game does that.
 * 6) per discussion in Talk:N64 Kalimari Desert and per proposal
 * 7) Yeah, in the end, if the Booster Course Pass uses all of the different layouts at once, then that pretty much makes everything redundant. Per all.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
In case one is confused at what Ahemtoday is talking about with "As discussed above", this proposal was originally posted on Talk:N64 Kalimari Desert. I suggest looking there for previous discussion points.

Furthermore, I would like to ask if this also affects this section on the Mario Kart Tour article. Arend (talk) 03:34, August 6, 2022 (EDT)
 * the only thing i think this'll change would be the links, other then that, it would probably remain the same - RSM 08:22, August 6, 2022 (EDT)

Hey, so: if this passes, the only track left in the 8 Deluxe section of the race courses template will be Sky-High Sundae. Do we keep it there since there's always the chance of more tracks like it, or should we scrap that section entirely and move Sky-High Sundae to the Tour section? It is, after all, apparently being treated as a new track for both games. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:31, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * After the next tour starts we'll have a look at the internal name of the course to see its original target platform, if it's mob (mobile devices, i.e. Mario Kart Tour), then it would make sense to just remove that section, if it is u or nsw then we could keep it for the future courses added in the Booster Course Pass that will be treated as new courses in both Mario Kart Tour and the Booster Course Pass while being primarily designed for the latter.--Mister Wu (talk) 03:20, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Same, though I'm pretty sure that Sky-High Sundae (and basically the rest of the Booster Course Pass) were designed for Tour first, and touched up for 8 Deluxe later. This can be evidenced by the fact that when the pass was announced, the Wave 1 courses used placeholder images directly ripped from Tour, including Coconut Mall and Shroom Ridge, which at the time weren't announced for Tour yet. But yeah, first we will have to see if the internal name for Sky-High Sundae is indeed prefixed with mob or not, but we could find out as early as tomorrow, when the Sundae Tour launches. Arend (talk) 05:31, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Why are we putting so much stock in internal names and original intentions over the actual final product? Moon Cleft and Killer Pakkun have internal names that suggest they were originally meant to be the base species as per their coloration; that doesn't change what they are in the final product. If SHS is a new track for both games, then it's a new track for both games. If that means the 8DX section of the race courses template will have only one track in it because of this proposal, then so be it. Alternatively, if having the track on the template twice is undesirable, we could just put an asterisk next to the track's name with a note stating that it appeared in 8DX first. 13:47, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'm still certain the new courses are made for Tour initially. Aside from the fact that key artwork, initial trailer and the datamined banner from version 2.0.0 all use Tour screenshots as placeholder images, the official announcement trailer on YouTube has its video description start with "Featuring 48 remastered courses from throughout the Mario Kart series", implying that all 48 courses in the Pass are remasters, and that none of them are "brand new". However, I do feel having an asterisk to denote that the course appeared in 8DX first while (initially) made for Tour is a good idea, so I'm down for us to do that if the denotation is desired. Arend (talk) 14:34, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * The point about that video description was brought up on the SHS talk page as well, and my response to it remains the same: what they said about the BCP back in February isn't necessarily gonna hold up several months later. I remember Nintendo saying back when 7 was new that they didn't have any plans to patch that notorious Maka Wuhu respawn glitch for online play, then did exactly that shortly afterward anyway. Even if SHS was originally conceived as a Tour track, it still showed up in 8DX first. The simultaneous announcement for both games may have even been planned from the start - we certainly don't have proof that it wasn't. 17:04, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * Right now, I still see a lot of convincing evidence that suggests Sky-High Sundae is indeed a Tour track that appeared in MK8D just before its intended appearance. Suggesting that the "48 remastered tracks" could not hold up is just as speculative. Right now, there is nothing wrong with taking what Nintendo has officially said instead of speculating that it won't hold up. Sky-High Sundae has an official Tour screenshot in the same banner we're using to confirm DS Shroom Ridge for Tour, one that appeared before it was even confirmed for MK8D. I see nothing incorrect with saying it's a Tour track, even more so if the internal name does match up with other Tour tracks. It's still an official source, if I'm correct.
 * I decided to check the Japanese website and see, using Google Translate, if we can find some more clarification there (as it's been recently updated). Most of the text are actually images, but these can also be translated: the header for the section under the website's main image, but above the course lineup, translates to "Series successive courses appear in 'Mario Kart 8 Deluxe'", while the text for the section itself translates to "From 'Super Mario Kart (Super Famicom)' released in 1992 to 'Mario Kart Tour (app for smartphones)', 48 selected courses from the past series will be remastered and distributed", once again implying that all 48 courses are from these past entries. Or, if what you're claiming is true, and Nintendo "went back on their word", so to speak (which, like Tails777 said, is also very speculative), it may have simply not been updated yet. Regardless, I can definitely see someone make a proposal for what game to determine courses like Sky-High Sundae to be from, because, like the combined courses this current proposal is about, this certainly is an unprecedented case that warrants discussion before deciding what to do with it. Arend (talk) 19:55, August 9, 2022 (EDT)
 * I think it's worth noting that the '48 remastered courses' thing isn't Nintendo's only official word on this: the official website notes the prefixes for every course (even Ninja Hideaway) except for Sky-High Sundae, this page has the word 'NEW' accompanying Sky-High Sundae where the boxart of the origin game would usually be (same thing as in the Wave 2 trailer also), and here Sky-High Sundae is again the only course with no indicator of what game it's from, with even Ninja Hideaway showing it's from Tour (and while I'm not really sure how to directly cite this one, a recent article on the Nintendo Switch's News app distinguished Sky-High Sundae as 'brand new' twice). While the '48 remastered courses' quote is still an official source, I personally don't think it should hold as much weight as the various sources released after Sky-High Sundae's announcement which refer specifically to it being new to 8 Deluxe. 20:21, August 9, 2022 (EDT)

one thing that hasn't been addressed here is how are the pages actually going to be merged? will they be like my takes on merged articles (examples: New York Minute, Tokyo Blur, Singapore Speedway) or will they be merged in a different way? - RSM 22:31, August 12, 2022 (EDT)
 * Those seem pretty alright to me, although you'll need to make sure each section has its most current text from the articles that are getting merged in. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:07, August 13, 2022 (EDT)

Remove the 15th infraction for why a reminder can be issued (changing American spellings and grammar conventions to British standards)
Please see Warning policy before voting.

Ok, now there are multiple reasons why someone can get a reminder, but this particular infraction stands out to me because not everyone who has English as their first language uses American English. People all over the world edit the MarioWiki, and that includes people from the United Kingdom who use British English as their primary language. I feel like a reminder is too harsh for this, especially since changing American spelling and grammar conventions to British standards does not negatively affect the article in the long run. If the article is looked at from a bigger point of view, '''it's still readable and not super difficult to follow through. All that was changed was a single word that can still be understood by many people.'''

As for inserting speculation, unnecessary information or trivia, false information, into an article or vandalizing it, I understand how those offenses are warnable to varying degrees. But a good faith user should not be issued a reminder solely because they barely changed a word (simply by adding a letter to it) and left its meaning the same. Changing a word for its American spelling to its British spelling does not damage or degrade the quality of an article, so why should it be a warnable offense to begin with? I have seen only one user get warned (and blocked) for this while browsing this wiki, but the fact that users can get a reminder for this infraction surprises me, and I'm surprised this infraction was not brought up sooner.

In case users do not want to remove the infraction but also do not want to keep the wording for the infraction as is, I've added an option to modify the infraction without entirely removing it. So there are three ways this proposal can go:

1. Support (and remove the infraction): This option removes the "changing American spellings and grammar conventions to British standards" from the list of infractions that deserve a reminder template.

2. Modify the infraction without entirely removing it: This option keeps the infraction while allowing it to be modified to make it more clear. If you feel that this infraction should stay, then making a few productive changes to it won't hurt.

3. Oppose (and keep the infraction as is): This option does what it says on the tin. The infraction will be left as is, and good-faith users from the United Kingdom have something to dwell about (apparently because American spellings are preferred to be used on articles over their spellings). I suggest we do not choose this option.

Proposer: Deadline: August 22, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support (and remove the infraction)

 * 1) My preferred choice.
 * 2) Per all.


 * 1) It's an academically established spelling convention that many people utilise in their daily conversation. I don't see a practical need to enforcing such restrictive measures on one's regional spelling just because it doesn't perfectly line up with the writing attuned to the wiki's general public. I like standards myself, using American spelling in the main space, but I'd be up for repurposing this rule as a recommendation, and not an obligation, for particular spelling.


 * 1) I think this is the step in the right direction. Though there is a difference between warning someone over using the alternative variants of English and warning someone because they decided to change every word in an article from (for example) American English to British English for seemingly no reason.


 * 1) I always found this clause a bit silly. Literally nobody in the anglosphere would be confused by spelling color as colour or favor as favour, and it's a bit silly to issue reminders to english speakers who don't use the American English style. Also, did we not agree to being okay with British spelling before?


 * 1) per all.

Modify the infraction without entirely removing it

 * 1) My second choice.

Oppose (and keep the infraction as is)

 * 1) Per Waluigi Time in the comments (although I agree a reminder template is a bit harsh for a good-faith editor doing this without knowing it's a rule, I'm pretty sure an informal reminder would be issued in that situation anyway).
 * 2) I'm opposing this proposal mainly due to the reasoning behind it. Like Waluigi Time and Bazooka Mario said, removing this as a specific reason for an infraction does not change the fact that changing American spellings to British ones is against the manual of style, so this proposal passing will not actually allow it, since people can still be reminded and warned for not following the manual of style. Your actual goal here seems to be straight up changing site policy to allow people to make these spelling changes to their heart's content, which is a terrible idea. If some UK editor decides they prefers British spellings and changes them on an article, what's to prevent some US editor who believes otherwise from changing them back? And if edit wars brew over this, how do we decide who's right and who's wrong if we don't have a preference? If the answer is "first come, first serve", the worst solution ever to anything on a wiki, then no thanks.
 * 3) Per 7feetunder, this will require tweaking the manual of style and possibly lead to more edit warring. I wouldn't give anyone a reminder about this straight away, only an informal talk page message.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per 7feetunder. This is definitely a situation where I prefer informal reminders since it is completely understandable for someone to make this mistake without realizing it is a rule, but it is still against the manual of style. I oppose changing this part of the manual of style, as not having standardized spelling would ultimately lead to unneeded problems. I definitely do think immediately giving official reminders over this is too harsh, though.
 * 6) per all.
 * 7) Per 2.1336metersunder.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) changed decision after 213.36centimetersunder's comments.
 * 10) Per all. An informal reminder on a userpage with a link to the explanation in the Manual of Style is enough to quell this issue while maintaining standardized spelling.

Comments
It is stated on the Manual of Style that the reason American spelling and names are prioritised is because the majority of readers come from North America. Just pointing out that I am from the UK though. 20:45, August 15, 2022 (EDT)

I'm not sure exactly what this proposal is trying to accomplish. If all this is doing it as removing it specifically from the warning policy... well, whether it's listed there or not, if someone repeatedly ignores the Manual of Style, we're going to have to do something, including potentially issuing reminders/warnings (this is already covered under "Failure to follow the writing guidelines" immediately below, which makes it a bit redundant actually). To achieve the proposal's desired effect of not giving out reminders for this, it would probably have to be removed from the Manual of Style entirely, which I wouldn't support. -- 21:32, August 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * I feel the whole changing American to British spelling falls under a very general infraction of not following writing guidelines, and I think it doesn't need to be specified in the warning policy. It's like having a warning dedicated to people capitalizing all words in a category or article subsection. Yeah technically they shouldn't be doing it, but I don't think this guidelines is so important and needs to be clear and explicit to the point it has to be mentioned in the warning policy. 20:32, August 17, 2022 (EDT)
 * @Waluigi Time and Bazooka Mario: Would it be ok if we moved the infraction under the "Failure to follow the writing guidelines" infraction? I've added it as a possible option in case this infraction ends up staying-it looks awkward for it to stand by itself, because it's a writing guideline, right? Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:42, August 18, 2022 (EDT)

@Somethingone: It was proposed, but then the proposer themselves cancelled it. Although we did not technically agree to being okay with British spelling before, this proposal gives an opportunity to make it happen. Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:15, August 15, 2022 (EDT)

I want to point out one thing: choosing between British English and American English is not just a matter of spelling of words. There are still elements, such as courses or species, that are named differently in British English compared to American English. The kart, tires and courses in the Mario Kart games, including Mario Kart 8, are the most prominent example, but there's also the case of the naming of all the Magikoopas as Kamek in British English, reflecting their Japanese name. Even many Mario & Luigi games were named differently in British English. Therefore the choice of one English or the other has a lot of implications, and once we decided to stay with the American English, you can expect the rest of the page to follow through to keep consistency, as a page written in British English about a subject that has a different name in British English would look rather confusing to the readers.--Mister Wu (talk) 08:50, August 19, 2022 (EDT)

@Koopa con Carne, @Spectrogram, @Somethingone: I hope I'm not coming off as rude here, but are there any reasons you suddenly decided to change your mind and completely countered this proposal? I'm sure you had great reasons, but none of the edits give a reasonable justification, nor did you give off reasons to change your votes. It seems peculiar that all of you were in massive support of this whole thing and then decided to change your minds for no given reason completely. Wikiboy10 (talk) 08:51, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * I know I'm not one of the people being addressed here, but it is possible for people to be convinced to change their minds if a counterargument gets brought up, which it did, and all of them cited that as their new vote reasoning. 10:03, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * People can veer to a different point of view if presented with good enough arguments to support it. 7feetunder had the foresight to point out some realistic consequences of this proposal’s passing, and I simply found myself agreeing with him more than with the proposal or my previous statement. 10:14, August 19, 2022 (EDT)

@TheFlameChomp: The points you brought motivated me to add the "Oppose, but move the infraction under the "Failure to follow the writing guidelines" infraction" as a possible option. I feel that if this infraction should stay, then it shouldn't be a standalone. Rather, I suggest that the infraction should be seen as an example of a "failure to follow the writing guidelines" and (potentially) have it moved under there. Mari0fan100 (talk) 17:26, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it might be too late to add a new option. Per rule 14, proposals can only be rewritten (which includes adding new options) within the first three days of its creation. You created this proposal at 00:15 on August 16, and you added the new option at 02:40 on August 19 - 2 hours and 25 minutes after three days had passed. 17:42, August 19, 2022 (EDT)

While we're on the subject of this guideline, it has been misconstrued to mean "this is an American wiki", which is untrue; much like Wikipedia, it's an international wiki that just happens to have its servers in the US. RickTommy (talk) 11:16, August 21, 2022 (EDT)

Change "NS" to "Switch"
I saw that the official Nintendo website officially has Nintendo Switch abbreviated "Switch". I wonder if the abbreviation "NS" is an error? I'm going to make a proposal for the change just in case the official Nintendo website is right (which are most cases is).


 * All files with "NS" on their names should be renamed to have "NS" be replaced with "Switch".
 * Similarly, all files with "LANS" on their names should be renamed to have "LANS" be replaced with "LA Switch".
 * The template "" should be renamed " ".
 * The, , , and templates should all have the word "NS" replaced with "Switch".
 * The template should have the game system code "NS" replaced with "Switch".
 * The template should have have the codes "ns" and "nsdl" replaced by "switch" and "switchdl", respectively.
 * The template should have have the codes "nspro", "nsgcn", "nsnes", "nssnes", and "nsn64" replaced by "switchpro", "switchgcn", "switchnes", "switchsnes", and "switchn64", respectively.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) easier to understand in my opinion, people who aren't familiar with it being referred to as "NS" will have to spend time trying to find what the actual code is, basically, its less specific and more simple, its just the name rather than an abbreviation, so its easier to understand.
 * 3) Per all, and I'm kinda surprised this was not proposed earlier.


 * 1) I believe "Switch" is better. Though there probably should be another proposal dealing with this naming anarchy. GameCube's template is called "GCN" while Wii U's "Wii U", Game & Watch is "Game & Watch".

Oppose

 * 1) I would be in support of this proposal if it weren't for the filename part. It is completely unnecessary to gatekeeper every single filename across this wiki simply because it uses the "wrong" abbreviation; plenty of filenames for GameCube related material use "GC" or "GameCube" instead of "GCN" for their filenames and I don't see anyone arguing about those. It's too late by now to edit the proposal but I simply don't like the precedence of  renaming reasonable non-jokey filenames simply because they don't use the "official" abbreviation/name/whatever.
 * 2) Pretty much per Somethingone, cancel and recreate a proposal with the filename part removed, and I'll happily vote in support.
 * 3) Unless Porplebot could handle it, this looks like it would be more trouble than it's worth.
 * 4) Per Somethingone and the folks in the comments.
 * 5) Per Somethingone.
 * 6) This could honestly go either way, at least until Nintendo gives us an official stance to work with.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
The inner data of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe Booster Course Pass refer their courses with the abbreviation "nsw" (Nintendo Switch) as the platform code, as noted here. Probably not the most accurate thing because some of the abbreviations are only used for the Japanese versions of Mario Kart, and then there's also just "u" for the original Wii U courses, but "nsw" is one of the few official abbreviations we got for the Nintendo Switch regardless, so that's some food for thought. Arend (talk) 07:15, August 20, 2022 (EDT)

Can there be an option to do this without having to rename every file that uses the abbreviation? That feels excessive to me. -- 13:04, August 21, 2022 (EDT)

I agree with Waluigi Time. I'd support this proposal if it didn't suggest renaming every single file with the "NS" abbreviation. Renaming the templates is easy, but searching for and adjusting every filename is far more trouble than it's worth. 17:30, August 21, 2022 (EDT)

I also agree with Waluigi Time. Renaming every filename usage of "NS" to "Switch" just feels like gatekeeping what filenames can use in them. I don't see anyone arguing if filenames should use "GCN", "NGC", "GC", "Nintendo GameCube", or "GameCube" for all GameCube related file names. 17:50, August 22, 2022 (EDT)

I went ahead and made these changes, excluding the filenames. -- 10:32, August 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Welp, I guess that makes this proposal pretty much pointless now, since the changes everyone agreed should be made are now already made. Unless one wants to support changing the filenames too. Or if someone wants to use "nsw" instead like I explained earlier. Arend (talk) 14:56, August 23, 2022 (EDT)

Merge unrelated to Mario objects and items in the Smash Bros. series
Good evening!

Smash Bros. series features plenty of items and objects. Most of these objects have nothing to do with Mario, and it honestly feels like reading Zelda Wiki while browsing through these wonderful articles, considering the actual amount of Mario-related objects and items is really small. Even though most of them really do not fit into Mario Wiki, there is a sizable opposition to outright removing them, which is understandable. I propose we merge (not remove!) items and objects from the Smash Bros. series that have otherwise nothing to do with Mario into two list articles: and. They really feel out of place, especially after previous cut-cut-cut [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/51#Smash_Bros._Articles:_What_Stays_and_What_Goes? proposals] have passed.

Q: Why don't we merge them into list articles for each game (such as "List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate objects")?

A: As it turned out, the Smash Bros. series doesn't have that many objects that are exclusive to one game: most of them recur from one game to the other, it would just be repetition in most cases.

I've also compiled a list of affected articles by this proposal, from which I've also removed several gray area entries that somewhat relate to the Mario series one way or the other. The excluded entries (example: Party Ball (item)) can always be dealt with individually at a later date, as I believe they fall out of the scale of this proposal and what it's trying to achieve. Note that I do not consider an item changing color to red if Mario holds it a good justification to keep an article. This proposal also does not target the remaining enemy articles, most of which were merged a long time ago.


 * [!] If you disagree with an entry in List M for whatever reason, leave a comment in the "Comments" section and I'll remove it from the list.

If this proposal passes, the following changes will be implemented:
 * All items and objects that lack connections to the Mario series will be merged into two list articles
 * If a connection is found or introduced to a Mario universe, the page can always be easily reinstated
 * Several seemingly unrelated to Mario gray area objects and items pages are intentionally excluded from the List M
 * Merging the pages shouldn't erase information either

List M
It may seem like a lot, but it really isn't.


 * Flipper (Balloon Fight)
 * Orange cube
 * Master Ball
 * Sandbag
 * Target
 * Back Shield
 * Beam Sword
 * Banana Gun
 * Arwing
 * Beastball
 * Beetle (item)
 * Black Hole (item)
 * Blast Box
 * Bunny Hood
 * Bomber
 * Bombchu
 * Capsule (Super Smash Bros. series)
 * Cucco (wasnt merged with Smash Run enemies previously only because it's an item)
 * Fairy Bottle
 * Pellet
 * Falcon Flyer
 * Drill (item)
 * Dragoon
 * Deku Nut
 * Death's Scythe
 * Daybreak
 * Fake Smash Ball
 * Franklin Badge
 * Gooey Bomb
 * Gust Bellows
 * Killing Edge
 * Killer Eye
 * Home-Run Bat
 * Hocotate Ship
 * Heart Container
 * Healing Sprout
 * Healing Field
 * Pitfall
 * Mr. Saturn
 * Ore Club
 * Motion-Sensor Bomb
 * Maxim Tomato
 * Master Ball
 * Lip's Stick (suggested to also be included in the list by User:7feetunder. Add a comment if you disagree with its inclusion)
 * Pok%C3%A9 Ball
 * Ramblin' Evil Mushroom
 * Rage Blaster
 * Ray Gun
 * Rolling Crate (even Smash Wiki has crates merged. We don't)
 * Rocket Belt
 * Screw Attack
 * Smash Ball
 * Special Flag
 * Smoke Ball
 * Subspace Bomb
 * Food
 * Steel Diver
 * X Bomb
 * Warp Star
 * Timer (item)
 * Superspicy Curry
 * Smash Skiff
 * Smash Coin
 * Pleiades (even Smash Bros. wiki has it merged, it serves ZERO in-game functionality, no proposal should even be needed to have it merged.)
 * Parasol (as suggested by User:Ray Trace, it could redirect to Peach's Parasol)
 * Cloaking Device
 * Fan (Super Smash Bros. series)
 * Smart Bomb
 * Team Healer
 * Cracker Launcher
 * Stock Ball
 * Trophy Stand
 * Staff (Kid Icarus)

Notable excluded entries
These pages will remain untouched if the proposal passes. Note that this isn't a full list, just the more notable pages:


 * Cargo
 * Star Rod (Kirby)
 * Sticker (Super Smash Bros. Brawl)

That's about it. As I said above, if you disagree with a certain entry, I can exclude it from the list, there's always a good chance I've missed something.

Proposer: Deadline: August 26, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge the List M entries

 * 1) Mario Wiki
 * 2) As someone who has always been pro-trimming in regards to Smash coverage, per proposal.
 * 3) Ceterum autem censeo Smash Bros esse delenda
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal, I am definitely supportive of trimming more non-Mario Smash coverage.
 * 7) I honestly prefer this list idea over any other idea, as not only does it help cut down on our Smash bloat but it also helps us preserve the information at the same time.
 * 8) I'm all for removing tenuously-related Smash articles. Per proposal.
 * 9) Per proposal.
 * 10) No objections here either. (Honestly though, I thought Timer was part of the Stop Watch article already.)

Comments
Why is Lip's Stick excluded? AFAIK its only relation to Mario is that it was in a game that became a Mario game; it doesn't actually have anything to do with Mario. It's not like we have an article on Lip, and even our article on Panel de Pon itself was merged with Tetris Attack via proposal. 17:06, August 19, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've included it on the list along with a few other cameo-only items and objects appearances. Have a look and reply if you disagree with some new entries, I still have two days to edit the list. Spectrogram (talk) 11:30, August 20, 2022 (EDT)

Parasol should have honestly been reworked in the first place, so in case of a move to a redirect, the page should probably redirect to Peach's Parasol. 17:38, August 19, 2022 (EDT)

Question: how would the list articles look like? Would it be a standard table-with-text list or would we make it like the Subspace Army page where the articles are turned into page segments complete with images and NIOLs? Also, it seems that Mr. Saturn does appear as an unlockable costume in SMM, so how would that information be moved? Other than that, I like this approach at remodeling our Smash coverage. 11:37, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Great questions! I think the way Subspace Army enemies are listed is a better way to approach this situation. When it comes to the Mario Maker costumes, all of them are already covered at Costume Mario, including Mr. Saturn. Spectrogram (talk) 11:41, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Yes, but I personally feel like the fact that Mr. Saturn appears as a costume in SMM is enough to exclude it by this proposal's standards, especially since the only reason the Star Rod from Kirby is excluded is because it appears as an item in one issue of Super Mario-kun. 11:48, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Good point. I'll exclude it from the list, as well as Arwing for the exact same reason. Spectrogram (talk) 11:53, August 20, 2022 (EDT)

"Yes, but I personally feel like the fact that Mr. Saturn appears as a costume in SMM is enough to exclude it by this proposal's standards,"

I don't. We previously established appearances in stuff like WarioWare microgames or other crossovers wasn't enough to give characters like Mother Brain their own page, and also that the Costume Mario appearances are too insubstantial to warrant separate articles. The Star Rod stuff is different, because it's actually plot relevant to that Mario-kun volume. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:28, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Fair point. 12:50, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * Should I readd the two excluded entries back into the List M? Spectrogram (talk) 12:54, August 20, 2022 (EDT)
 * I mean it's your proposal. Though my personal opinion would be "yes". --Glowsquid (talk) 13:00, August 20, 2022 (EDT)

I assume the F-Zero Racers aren't on this list because of Mario-related comic cameos. In that case, would the Arwing's cameo in Super Mario RPG be sufficient to keep the article? It does seem a touch more notable than the Wolfen. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:59, August 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * I didn't know this article even existed, but from what it seems it can just barely qualify to not be included in this proposal. It is now too late to change the list anyway. Spectrogram (talk) 01:29, August 22, 2022 (EDT)
 * It appears to play a role in the story, even though it's somewhat minor. We can organize a new TPP if this one passes. Spectrogram (talk) 09:14, August 23, 2022 (EDT)

Decide what to do with Greenhouse
Good morning!

Recently, a proposal has passed, aiming to trim non-Mario Game & Watch coverage (and yes, I'm aware the changes have not yet been implemented). This proposal notably excluded Greenhouse, as despite not being a Mario game, it features a character Stanley the Bugman who later plays a major role in Donkey Kong 3, makes cameo appearances in WarioWare series, and Smash Bros. series. He also appears in the episode Greenhouse Gorilla.

Stanley did not appear in any other non-Mario media. So the way I see it, either Greenhouse is in or out. Here are three options:


 * 1) Part of the Mario franchise. The wiki considers this game a part of the Mario series, which results in the game receiving full coverage.


 * 2) Not a Mario game. The Greenhouse article gets the same treatment as all other Game & Watch titles, according to this proposal, resulting in the article getting trimmed.


 * 3) Classify as "historically significant". Or as I call it, keep the status quo. The game gets classified as "historically significant", according to Coverage. Greenhouse does not get full coverage, but the page itself will not be trimmed.

Proposer: Deadline: September 2, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Part of the franchise

 * 1) Second option. I just don't see a reason to cut it entirely from the wiki.

Historically significant

 * 1) I'd say this counts at minimum. Not only did Stanley and his spray debut here, but the game also has a similar premise in effectively the same setting (minus Kong) and even includes Buzzbees and prototypical versions of Creepy and the Donkey Kong 3 flowers.
 * 2) per proposal.
 * 3) per all.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
I have given this topic some thought of the past few months and came up with the same options. All three are valid in my opinion. I also came up with a more radical and perhaps controversial fourth option. There exists a Stanley franchise within the Mario franchise, which consists of only four games: Green House, DK3, its G&W counterpart, and Dai Gyakushū. Nintendo had some sort of plan to grow Stanley into a more prominent character but it was curtailed when DK3 flopped.--Platform (talk) 11:50, August 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * This might be reaching, but could Super Donkey have been evidence of a failed "Stanley" franchise? On a related note, Greenhouse should properly be "Green House" per its most recent release (I know the microgame is technically newer, but microgames are separate subjects and thus allowed to have their own titles, otherwise for game articles we'd be accepting "Mario Brothers", "Mario Adv.", "Zelda", etc). LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:23, August 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * The Super Donkey protagonist reminds me of Mr. You from , who also fought gorillas.--Platform (talk) 13:30, August 26, 2022 (EDT)

Merge or delete Super Smash Bros. series general technique articles
We currently have articles on multiple general techniques used by fighters in Smash. Namely:


 * Air Dodge (note that we do not have an article on spot dodging, another Smash dodging technique)
 * Footstool Jump
 * Glide (used exclusively by non-Mario characters)
 * Shield
 * Tether recovery (note that we do not have an article on recovery in general, and none of the characters who have tether recoveries are from the Mario franchise)

I don't see a reason to keep these short and largely tangential articles, especially since we just passed a proposal to merge non-Mario items in Smash. There are a few ways we can deal with this.

Merge these articles into a list page: Self-explanatory. The list will also include general techniques we do not have articles for, such as the aforementioned spot dodging.

Delete these articles: No list will be created. Explanations of the universal techniques will be left to gameplay sections for the games, with glide and tether recovery being explained on the pages of the fighters who have them.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone: Unlike the other three, these aren't even usable by Mario characters, so they have zero relevance to the Mario franchise. We merged all the non-Mario characters' special moves (B moves) to their fighters' pages, so we should at least get rid of these.

Do nothing: Even glide and tether recovery get to stay, creating the inconsistency described above, so I don't recommend this.

The scopes of jump, roll, and taunt extend far beyond Smash, so these articles stay no matter what.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge these articles into a list page

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) I'd prefer the information didn't get removed entirely.
 * 4) Users have worked hard on those articles, so it would be better to merge them instead of deleting them.
 * 5) My second, less preferred option.
 * 6) I agree we could probably just put the tether recovery and glide information on the character pages like the non-Mario special moves, but per all otherwise since the other techniques are used by Mario characters.
 * 7) - per
 * 8) Yeah, I don't think we can straight up remove Smash information in the first place, we still consider the series a crossover after all, so it is a subject to full coverage, just with MarioWiki characteristics. Otherwise I support the merge.

Delete these articles

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I'm not too keen on technique lists since we don't keep lists of these moves from other crossover games.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Second option.
 * 5) per proposal.
 * 6) Per.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) These pages are only a few thousand bytes long, and since we merged all the non-Mario moves with their fighters, then surely we can do the same for these.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Since we can describe these techniques on the appropriate pages, I don't see a reason to merge them.
 * 11) I have been conflicted on which method I prefer for dealing with these articles, but I think these technical aspects can simply be covered on gameplay sections of the game articles or character articles, whenever relevant.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Second choice.

Split Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP) and Bowser's Factory, as well as Castle Wall and Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)
Okay, this has been bothering me for quite a while.

As you may or may not know, the base courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX use the same (or slightly redesigned) minimap layouts from the courses of the previous Arcade GP entries, Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP 2. However, the tracks have all new names, music, themes and aesthetics, so generally, the wiki considers these as different courses altogether.

That is, except for Bowser's Factory and the Arcade GP DX version of Bowser's Castle, which have been merged with the Arcade GP 1/2 version of Bowser's Castle and Castle Wall, respectively (which in turn have assumed the names of the AGPDX courses since).

This bothers me to no end, because even though they start similarly, and have the general Bowser's Castle theme, these courses still have completely different names and music, and the aesthetics are even quite different, especially after these courses' hairpin turns. For example, the throne room in AGP1's Bowser's Castle is completely gone in Bowser's Factory, as its corresponding section is now part of the factory half of the Bowser's Factory course (it's specifically been replaced by a Bob-omb factory section), which, as you might've guessed, AGP1's Bowser's Castle doesn't have. Half of the Castle Wall course also takes place on the, well, high castle wall, which is also completely absent in AGPDX's Bowser's Castle, replacing it with a curved path next to a giant Koopa Clown Car-like structure, a straight Glider section high above a (comparatively very low) rocky path surrounded by boiling lava, and another path inside with a Kamek hologram. Aside from the aesthetics, the courses also differ in obstacles and elevations. If it weren't for the beginning (which is also quite different, with the head of the Bowser statue at the gate being slanted over the gate), the courses would be nothing alike!

I get that these are all Bowser Cup courses, but with all these different songs, names, aesthetics, elevations and such, the only thing that is the same are the course maps – which are also altered in DX (most notably, the hairpin turn at the beginning is slanted in DX). All these differences essentially make them different courses altogether like the other courses of Arcade GP DX, and probably were intended to be considered different courses by Bandai Namco Games, so I believe the Wiki should consider them as different courses, too.

I also understand that classic courses may get heavy redesigns as of Mario Kart 8, but the problem is that Arcade GP DX not only is developed and published by a different team (and essentially aren't part of the mainline Mario Kart series), but AGPDX also came out before MK8 did, so the most recent title up to that point was still Mario Kart 7, which, aside from adding glider and underwater sections, still hadn't implemented heavy course redesigns yet. And the classic courses from Mario Kart 8 also kept their course names and had their songs remixed – all the Arcade GP DX had completely different names and brand new compositions that sounded nothing like the course music from the previous Arcade GP courses. Because of that, I believe the Wiki shouldn't consider this as a case of returning classic courses either.

What especially boggles my mind is that, while Bowser's Factory and Bowser Castle AGPDX are merged with Bowser's Castle AGP1 and Castle Wall (respectively), Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast are NOT merged with Mario Highway and Mario Beach (respectively) at all, despite it being the exact same case here with similar minimaps and theme (coastal Mario courses), but different names, aesthetics and songs. Heck, the beginning of these courses are ALSO similar to each other! So why are Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle AGPDX not getting the same treatment.

So here's what I propose: we split off the AGPDX Bowser courses from the AGP1 Bowser courses; treat them as different courses, like all the other courses from AGPDX. We first rename the articles back to and, since the articles originally started as such, then we make full articles of  and , moving the relevant info from the AGP1 articles to those pages. I found videos of these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX, in case you want to compare the courses yourself.

Alternatively, we could also merge Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast to Mario Highway and Mario Beach, respectively. If the Bowser courses are not allowed to be split off, then the Mario courses shouldn't either: it would only be fair. However, I'm personally not inclined to support this option and still prefer the Bowser courses to be split, because like the Bowser courses, the Mario courses also have their fair share of differences when it comes to music, names, aesthetics and elevations (e.g. you go into a wrecked ship in Tropical Coast, which is completely absent from Mario Beach). I also found videos for these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX for comparison.

I feel like the rest of the courses from Arcade GP DX should be left alone, as their only similarities really are the course minimaps and nothing else. We could merge them all together regardless, but that would be the same as merging all the enemy variants in Wario World back together.

Proposer: Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Split the Bowser courses, as proposed

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) courses in other games that share similar layouts are always put in different articles (Mt. Dynamite Remix and Dynamite Run from Donkey Kong Barrel Blast, for example) just because the course uses the same road layout doesn't mean they're exactly the same. Their visuals, and music, aesthetics and so on are more than enough for it to be a different course, thus it needs a different page. This is very different from the Mario Kart Tour city-courses, which all share the same model, music, name, etc. I support splitting.
 * 3) Per RSM.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
This may be a bit early for me to do, but I already made example pages (as user subpages) for what they could look like post-split. This is also partially done so the procedure doesn't have to take as long if the proposal succeeds. Have a look and tell me what you think: Arend (talk) 16:17, August 30, 2022 (EDT)
 * Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)
 * Castle Wall
 * Bowser's Factory
 * Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)

On a side note, once the proposal does succeed, I might need an admin's help first before I'd be able to begin. As I stated, I would like Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle AGPDX to be moved back to the pages they initially started as (Bowser's Castle AGP and Castle Wall respectively), in order to preserve the original page's history to the correct subjects, and then start the splitting, but I discovered that once it was set to use the names of the AGPDX courses, it's gotten a bit... messy. You see, the original title of the article "" was moved to Bowser's Factory, and then "Castle Wall" was moved to "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" over the existing redirect, and then this was moved again to its current name, which is "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)", the one name we need "Bowser's Factory" to move back to before we can begin splitting. And because "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" is now linked to "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)", I can't move "Bowser's Factory" to that page either. And I'm not sure if I can even move "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" to "Castle Wall" either because that redirect is initially moved to "Bowser's Castle (arcade)" instead of "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)". And the weirdest, but most simple thing is that "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)" was never used in the first place. So yeah, if the proposal succeeds, I may need some admin's help to move "Bowser's Factory" and "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" back to "Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP)" and "Castle Wall" respectively before we can begin splitting. Arend (talk) 16:17, August 30, 2022 (EDT)

Merging Smash Bros. objects: Round 2!
Good day!

My recent proposal aimed at merging unrelated to Mario items and objects has passed, however, as it turned out, the list wasn't full -- there are still objects that should have been merged. So, why don't we finish what we started? As established earlier, cameo appearances do not justify keeping an article.

If you find more objects/items that I've missed, leave a comment so I can add them in the list.

List N
The following entries will be merged with the rest of Smash Bros. objects:
 * 1) Great Fox
 * 2) Gunship
 * 3) Subspace Gunship
 * 4) Unira (will be merged with items)
 * 5) Wolfen
 * 6) Dark Cannon
 * 7) Bumper (Super Smash Bros. series)

Now the question is, should F-Zero Racer also be merged? Is it cameo appearance or not?

Proposer: Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge only the List N entries

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.


 * 1) F-Zero Racer seems to play a major-enough role.

Merge the List N entries, including F-Zero Racer

 * 1) The only F-Zero Racer really involved in anything Mario-related outside of Smash is the Blue Falcon, which has its own article. I don't think a one-off gag cameo in Super Mario-kun is a strong reason to keep their own article. Barbara the Bat has more of a presence in manga media.
 * 2) what he said ^
 * 3) what Glowsquid said ^
 * 4) Per all. (what they said^)
 * 5) what TheFlameChomp said ^
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
I am a bit iffy on Unira since early appearances of Urchin were treated as either them themselves or at least a derivative (though granted Octorok has a ton of variants in Mario and we no longer have a page on it...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:44, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

I have two questions: ShootingStar7X (talk) 11:28, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * 1) Why merge the Dark Cannon into the items page when it's only ever used in The Subspace Emissary's cutscenes, and never in gameplay? Not to mention it's only categorized under Category:Objects.
 * 2) Did you forget about the Bumper, or is its appearance on Peach's Castle Mario-relevant enough to merit its own page?
 * I've deleted the item part from Dark Cannon. Bumper isn't on the list, since the only stage it appears in is Peach's Castle, at least according to the Smash Bros Wiki, so I believe it just barely qualifies, I think it needs a separate talk page proposal, just like Party Ball (item). Note that I'm not going to make one for these two pages. Spectrogram (talk) 11:41, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Bumpers are also usable items on any stage, though. ShootingStar7X (talk) 11:53, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Good point, but as an object they're Peach Castle exclusive. I'm still unsure whether or not I should include them, but I'd advice you to create a talk page proposal instead. Spectrogram (talk) 11:58, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Flippers were also usable items in Super Smash Bros. Melee, but became stage objects in later games. That kind of puts Bumper in the same boat. LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:24, August 31, 2022 (EDT)
 * Flippers weren't objects in a Mario stage though. I'll add them in the list, but if anyone disagrees I can exclude it again. Spectrogram (talk) 12:27, August 31, 2022 (EDT)

Move Flying Goomba (Super Mario World) to, Para-Goomba (Super Mario World) to , Parabomb to
The Super Mario World section of the Japanese Mario Portal calls the Flying Goomba "Paragaloomba" and the Para-Goomba "Parachute Galoomba". These names should take priority over their current names as they are more recent, more accurate to the original Japanese and also help clear up a currently very counter-intuitive group of pages.

Firstly, Galoombas were separate enemies from the Goombas since their inception, being called kuribon as opposed to kuribō. Secondly, a well established pattern in both English and Japanese dictates that winged variants of enemies receive a Para- or Pata- prefix, respectively (Paragoombas being Patakuribō, Para-Biddybuds being Patatenten, Para-Beetles being Patametto, Parabones being Patakaron, etc). "Flying Goombas" are called Patakuri in Japanese, and were accordingly named "Paragaloombas" in the new website. "Para-goomba", on the other hand, are called Parakuri in Japanese (coincidently the same prefix as the English word, despite having different meanings) and were thus named "Parachute Galoombas" in the new website. Their new names fix both of those inconsistencies, and would make the pages more intuitive to understand. Parabomb would also be moved as to be consistent with the new Parachute Galoomba name.

Proposer: Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Move all pages

 * 1) I love any effort to fix janky old localization choices.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) My second choice, per proposal.
 * 4) per proposal :D
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per proposal
 * 7) Secondary choice. The new names for these aerial Galoombas are more consistent with the other winged enemies (it was honestly inconsistent even back when they were regarded the same as regular Goombas), and the same would apply for Parachute Bob-omb if it weren't for the fact that its old name of Parabomb is still in use in more recent titles.

Move Flying Goomba and Para-Goomba, but not Parabomb

 * 1) My first choice, per LinkTheLefty's comments.
 * 2) I feel like the fact that the name "Parabomb" has been used consistently every time they had an in-game name is enough to leave it as is. Also, unlike the Flying/Parachute G(al)oombas, Parabomb wasn't given the English name of an already existing enemy for years :P
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Primary choice. As LinkTheLefty stated, Parabomb has made a handful of frequent reappearances in the past decade (unlike Paragaloomba and Parachute Galoomba), and still used the Parabomb name for something as recent as Dr. Mario World. We're not moving Banzai Bill to Boomer Bill because of the LEGO Mario sets, or Bomber Bill because of the Mario Portal as well, either. I feel like we have to wait and see if Parabomb reappears in future titles with the new Parachute Bob-omb moniker (and in turn, if we get winged Bob-omb appearances outside of Mario Maker in the future, and if those are called Para-Bob-omb).
 * 5) Per per.
 * 6) Until we have further discussion on it, I don't think we should be overriding other names with Mario Portal names without a really good reason. While the Galoomba moves make sense, since it's pretty confusing in its current state, I don't really feel compelled to move Parabomb right now. Parabomb is also a name used (very recently!) in-game so I don't like the massive jump in source priority here.
 * 7) Second choice, per all.
 * 8) per all.
 * 9) second option.
 * 10) Per all
 * 11) - per
 * 12) Parabomb's name has been consistently used, such as in Dr. Mario World, and it's the same in most languages. If a later game uses a different name, we can figure out what to do with that.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) I feel as long as the Galoombas are moved, I can go for either option. Second option, per all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) This is the best option by a long shot.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
The Para-Goomba (Mario Clash) page would unfortunately remain unchanged, as Mario Clash was not featured in the new website.

Could there be an option to move the Galoombas only? While Parabomb could be renamed, I'd rather we wait until a new game uses Parachute Bob-omb before moving that one, like how Boomer/Bomber Bill is being approached. (And if we really wanted to, we could just use "Para-Goombah" for the Mario Clash Para-Goomba. It'd be a silly way to remove an identifier, but I think we can work with it.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:08, August 29, 2022 (EDT)
 * The same reasoning applies partially to the Parabomb page: the name Parachute Bob-Omb would be consistent with the name Parachute Galoomba, and would avoid confusion as it's not the same thing as other "Para-" enemies, which is what the Japanese name already does anyway. If we're moving one I see no reason not to move the other.
 * The difference is that the Galoombas appear infrequently and moving them would match their actual parent species, whereas Parabombs are having a decent run and have appeared as late as Dr. Mario World under that name (winged Bob-ombs are also exclusive to Super Mario Maker, and previous proposals concluded to leave those enemies as one-offs until they officially appear outside that series). LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:01, August 30, 2022 (EDT)
 * Alright. I thought about it and I'll concede that, despite not being as accurate as Parachute Bob-Ombs, the name Parabombs is still technically the most accurate name used in-game for the enemy over the years, so I have added an option to not move that page.

Stop considering a coverage-related proposal "implemented" before the information gets added to Coverage
Good evening!

The list of unimplemented proposals is amazing. It is a helpful tool for editors to know what else should be worked on. However, I've noticed a small issue with the way two recent guest appearance proposals were handled: this edit. Coverage features a list of media currently classified as a guest appearance. This list is incomplete for one small reason: these two games weren't added in because their proposals got removed from the list of unimplemented proposals before staff noticed that they should also be added in the list, causing the list to remain incomplete. So I propose we stop considering important coverage-related proposals (guest appearances, crossover coverage, historically significant games, etc.) as "implemented" before they get a mention in Coverage. Not only after their page is created, but also after the policy page gets updated.

Hope you have a great rest of your day!

Proposer: Deadline: September 11, 2022, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: September 8, 2022, 16:20 GMT

Support

 * 1) I believe policy pages are very important and should not be overlooked.

Comments
I feel like this a bit too minor for a proposal, you could just bring up on the policy's talk page if it's outdated as all that needs to be done is a small update. 18:00, September 4, 2022 (EDT)

Make classic course prefixes in titles consistent for Mario Kart courses/stages
Solution 1 is actually current policy (see the Mario Kart: Super Circuit classic courses), so this is an error I'm fixing right away.

In Mario Kart DS there are two retro battle courses, and. In game, they are never assigned a prefix, being the only battle stages with this distinction. Of course, to remain consistent with the classic race courses, this wiki labels them with prefixes. However, this results in the titles of the articles inconsistent with the game.

Now, the solution sounds simple, remove the prefixes so they're identical to their names in game and call it a day. However, there's seemingly one big problem with that solution: Ninja Hideaway. Ninja Hideaway is classic course in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe that doesn't use a prefix, just like the battle stages in Mario Kart DS. On this wiki, however, the article is not given a prefix in its title, making it consistent with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, but not at all consistent with how we handle the retro battle stages from Mario Kart DS.

This is the issue this proposal is tackling. These article titles are inconsistent, and that must be fixed.

Now we have a few solutions to this problem:


 * Solution #1: Make articles consistent by removing prefixes if they are not given one in game. As explained, since Mario Kart DS doesn't assign one in game, one could say that this wiki shouldn't assign it either. If this option passes, the only articles that will be affected are and, which will be renamed to simply "Block Fort" and "Pipe Plaza". Redirect articles that use the prefixes will be made for user convenience, but the articles with all the information will not use prefixes in their titles. Likewise, the redirect article  will remain for the same reason, and redirects can be made for potential future courses from Mario Kart Tour in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe once they're added to the latter title (i.e. Tour Merry Mountain, which redirects the user to Merry Mountain).


 * Solution #2: Make articles consistent by giving them all prefixes. Regardless of if they're assigned one in game or not, the prefix in the title is still handy as it informs readers the article is about a classic course/battle stage. Ninja Hideaway is probably the only course affected by this change (as of right now), and it would be renamed to Tour Ninja Hideaway, while N64 Block Fort and GCN Pipe Plaza would remain the same. If Merry Mountain is not given a prefix in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe if it gets added, then it will be given a prefix on this wiki still. Sky-High Sundae will not be changed as that is labelled as a new course in promotional material for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.


 * Solution #3: Leave it as is. Don't make any change, and leave the titles as they are.

I apologize if I phrased this weirdly, if there is any confusion then please comment below and I will try my best to explain.

Proposer: Deadline: September 17, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Remove prefixes

 * 1) As explained in the proposal, the games don't use them so it is consistent with source material.

Add prefixes to other articles

 * 1) Secondary option, adds identifier for convenience but is inconsistent with source material.

Change how RPG enemy infoboxes classify role
So for SMRPG, the Paper games, the M&L games, and M+R:KB, the bestiary infoboxes have a weird arbitrary system where name formatting (bold, italic, underline, etc.) is used to convey what type of encounter an enemy is (enemy, miniboss, major boss, boss helper). Not only is this useless without the keys at the top of each bestiary page, but plenty of enemies have multiple roles at different points that this system cannot handle, and it completely leaves out "training" battles (ie the "timed hits" Goomba from SMRPG; Bowser, Fawful, and Hammerhead Bros. in Superstar Saga; and Bowser, Jr. Troopa, Goombario, and Eldstar in Paper Mario) that occur to teach game mechanics and otherwise don't really fit with the other categories (a "boss" that cannot be lost to is hardly a boss, ditto the unwinnable Bowser in PM). What I propose is to turn this into a standard listing like everything else covered on the tables, as this solves all three problems.

Proposer: Deadline: September 18, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) - Per
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Sure.
 * 4) per all
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) per proposal
 * 7) per all

Merging non-Mario Smash Bros. series bosses and the remaining enemies. Round 3!
Good evening!

I think this is going to be my last Smash Bros. proposal, see the other two here and also [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/59#Merging_Smash_Bros._objects:_Round_2! here too].

The Super Smash Bros. series has had several bosses and enemies. Most enemies have already been merged a long time ago, however, some still remain and should probably be merged as well. I also propose to merge bosses that have nothing to do with Mario (Giga Bowser and Giant Donkey Kong (the page is yet to be recreated at the time of writing this per another proposal) will be untouched). It was also previously established that cameo appearances do not justify keeping a page. Some bosses like Dracula appeared in Captain N, but it's a guest appearance, so it doesn't count. Also some bosses have quite a bit of information, but I did check how it'd look as one page and it looks alright.

As always, if I made a mistake or you want something removed/changed/added from/in this list, leave a comment and I'll change this proposal accordingly. Also feel free to comment asking for a new option to be added.

List O
The following bosses will be merged into a collective article:
 * Duon
 * Marx
 * Dracula
 * Ganon
 * Crazy Hand
 * Dharkon
 * Rathalos
 * Galleom
 * Master Hand
 * Galeem
 * Rayquaza
 * Porky Statue
 * Porky
 * Tabuu
 * Master Core

Non-bosses:


 * Fighting Polygons - merge with Battlefield
 * Fighting Alloy Team - merge with Battlefield
 * Fighting Wire Frames - merge with Battlefield
 * Fighting Mii Team - merge with Mii; see comments
 * Shadow Bug - merge with the list of objects; see comments
 * [Removed per comments] False Character was removed from this list per

Proposer: Deadline: September 21, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge all

 * 1) Let's see how this one goes.
 * 2) i fail to see why not
 * 3) Yes, please.
 * 4) Personally, I don't think these characters are any more relevant than the explosives you can pick up and chock at various characters.
 * 5) Bosses are stuck to basically side-modes of these games. They have less of a presence to Smash Bros. than the several items.
 * 6) The bosses here don't really have a strong enough connection to Mario to warrant articles here.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) This proposal already called for the merging of several bosses to begin with, even though nobody actually implemented it (particularly non-final Subspace Emissary bosses; the proposal was made several months before Ultimate came out). Given that and my general stance on Smash coverage, per proposal.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.

Merge all except Crazy Hand, Dharkon, Master Hand, Master Core, Galeem, Tabuu

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) This is my second choice, as I can understand keeping these bosses due to them having a larger role than the other ones. Considering a previous proposal already called for the removal of some of the other mentioned articles, I definitely think they should be merged.  Edit: I have decided that this is actually my main choice, as I do see value in keeping articles on these specific bosses.
 * 3) - I can accept these terms.
 * 4) - Some people think these are just regular bosses, but hear me out. Brawl and Ultimate have plots involving the bosses, and they play a role with the characters, including the Mario characters in it. For instance, we cover the snow spirits from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games. That game is also a crossover (though, unlike Smash, the Mario elements are much more robust).  It has a story mode, and the snow spirits are characters that tie the plot together. In The Subspace Emissary, Tabuu is the one who is pulling the strings on everything in the story, and Master Hand is a secondary character in the whole thing. I feel the other ones (like Porky and the two Smash original accomplices) are a bit too minor. They don't even have fleshed-out personalities or backstories in the game. The World of Light's two main villains are indeed the ones who control the story. We know their essence as well, unlike Dracula, who only appears as a boss and has no other clear role in the story. I'm against fully merging these bosses as it seems too general to ignore the more critical boss fights. At that point, we are treating the Smash games like a guest appearance. I am also against keeping every single article, though, as not every Smash boss is vital, as I mentioned earlier.
 * 5) Second Choice. Like Doc I can accept these terms. This is a good compromise that keeps the pages for the story-relevant characters. Edit: Like TheFlameChomp I have decided to make this my first choice after further thinking about it.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) After some thought, I realize I can accept these terms as well.
 * 8) Per Wikiboy10. They are characters, not enemies, and have enough impact on the story and, more importantly, the Mario characters in it to warrant full articles.
 * 9) Per all, especially TheFlameChomp and WikiBoy10. These articles are notable enough to be separated from each other.
 * 10) Per all.

No change

 * 1) - Personally, I feel this is taking it a bit too far. The bosses are treated as major cast members, and with cases like Rathalos where it has every role except playable, it's just spreading one thing onto different lists.
 * 2) Per Doc and Waluigi Time's comment. I'm okay with merging the Fighting Teams to Battlefield/Miis, but I kinda feel the bosses are okay on their own.
 * 3) Per Doc; on these list things, I feel like I'm convinced that plot-relevant character is where I draw the line(for now at least, might make my own proposal if I change my mind). Also because the precedence of this passing would mean a list page of all the playable characters would be next and that would look even more awkward, but that's an issue for another time.

Comment
Why is Fighting Mii Team being merged with the list of Smash Run enemies? Yes, they appeared in Smash Run, but they also appeared in Classic Mode and in their own game mode in Smash Wii U. Wouldn't it make more sense to merge them with the Mii article if anything? 16:37, September 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Good point. Done Spectrogram (talk) 16:54, September 14, 2022 (EDT)

I think false characters should be left alone since three of them are Mario-relevant. -- 17:32, September 14, 2022 (EDT)

Actually I'd be fine with merging the non-bosses specifically for consistency with everything else, I'm just iffy on the bosses. 20:13, September 14, 2022 (EDT)

Thing is, why are we putting more stock into these characters just because they are plot relevant or that they are characters? From strictly a gameplay standpoint, I'd argue that they are less relevant to Mario as a whole than the gameplay-altering items that all got merged into one article. In fact, you could argue that the stages are less plot relevant than the bosses and should get merged, but I'd argue against merging those in that I view them with secondary enough importance after playable characters. 20:13, September 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * How are the items that were merged in any way more relevant to Mario or let alone do more gameplay-wise than the bosses? The bosses all have like >= 5 different attacks on top of their plot relevance while all the items do only one thing whenever they are used. I don't see how something like the Franklin Badge is more Mario-relevant in any sense than the bosses of the series? 20:53, September 14, 2022 (EDT)
 * Items do various numbers of things when used. Bombs are single-use, battering items grant a new set of grounded attacks, Pokeballs have many things that can happen from them. Plot in Smash Bros tends to be relegated to side mode if not nonexistent. 21:42, September 14, 2022 (EDT)

I would like to add that I have no plans to make further Smash proposals, especially when it comes to fighters or regular stages. Fighters were already merged with their attacks. Spectrogram (talk) 00:58, September 15, 2022 (EDT)

Shadow Bug should have been merged with objects, since it's ultimately just a substance. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 04:11, September 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * I'll edit it, if someone disagrees, leave a comment. Spectrogram (talk) 04:19, September 15, 2022 (EDT)

Could you include an option to not split Crazy Hand, Dharkon, Master Hand, Galeem, and Tabuu? I feel since this is a crossover game, I feel we should include the plot-relevant villains in these games. The other characters I didn't mention here that are Smash originals don't really play that significant of a role. Everything else I feel is just fine to split off since they are mostly just generic mooks. Wikiboy10 (talk) 14:55, September 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * I disagree, but I've included it as an option. I don't think there is any reason to keep them unmerged, they're honestly the same as other bosses. Spectrogram (talk) 15:03, September 15, 2022 (EDT)
 * What about Master Core? Shouldn't it be included in that second option too? 15:13, September 15, 2022 (EDT)

Merge Kings and Queens
When it comes to categories, we forbid using gender-based ones due to them being broad. Yet kings and queens (which cover male and female monarchs) are the exceptions right now. Princes and princesses also have this same problem, but I feel we might as well cover these first. Here are two ideas I proposed.

 Merge them into Royalty  Kings and queens are part of royalty in general, so merging them into this category could work. The only downside is that kings and queens are specific, which could go to the next option.

Merge both and create a new category: Monarchs This is probably the second best choice. However, I'm unfamiliar with the term and could be misusing it. After all, Princess Peach is considered a ruler over the Mushroom Kingdom despite not being a queen.

Proposer: Deadline: September 27, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge into Royalty
Perhaps I'll be convinced once I see more votes.

Merge into Monarchs

 * 1) I see zero reason to merge them into royalty. These are very different categories.
 * 2) Yeah, this is a better fit as Spectrogram makes out here.
 * 3) I'll say it right now: in my opinion, the opposition's reasons are completely flawed. As of right now, Category:Queens only has 24 entries, instead making it too narrow.

Keep as is

 * 1) It's fine the way it is now, there's enough of each to make the distinction. The rationale behind this proposal is flawed, MarioWiki:Categories doesn't say anything about forbidding gendered categories for being too broad. The example provided ("It should also be noted that overly broad categories can be even more unhelpful than overly small categories (such as previously attempted categories for all males or females), and should not be created.") was specifically referring to attempts to create categories that would contain all male or female characters in the entire franchise. There's nothing wrong with creating ones with a much smaller scope if it's helpful, and I would say this is a case where it is.
 * 2) Per Waluigi Time.
 * 3) Per Waluigi Time. I feel like this proposal heavily misunderstands a single sentence on our category policy and is thus misguided (the wiki is not forbidding gender-based categories in general; but overly broad categories like all male characters and all female characters). "Kings" and "Queens" may be gendered, but absolutely not broad. I also feel like merging the two categories in "Monarchs" is not the best idea either. I support creating such a category, but Monarchs wouldn't cover just kings and queens, but basically any sovereign, like emperors/empresses, princes/princesses, lords/ladies, and dukes/duchesses. On another note, given how the Super Mario Odyssey team regards Pauline as the mayor of New Donk City as a way to say that not all Kingdoms have rulers of royalty, that would mean that Pauline could be considered a monarch as well... but not a queen, which is what this proposed category is supposedly meant for?
 * 4) Per Waluigi Time. This proposal is built around a misinterpretation of a policy page, and passing this runs afoul of the "Peach is a monarch even though she's not a queen" issue. These categories are fine.
 * 5) per waluigi time.
 * 6) - Per all; the first line of the proposal itself isn't even correct, and no idea how 24 can be classed as "too narrow".
 * 7) Per Waluigi Time. The policy is specifically stating that overly broad categories should not be created, and this proposal would just lead to a category becoming broader. I also think the argument that the category only containing 24 entries is a reason to merge the categories is flawed, as that is nearly five times the amount that policy requires.
 * 8) Per Waluigi Time and per all.

Comments
@Archivist Toadette: I really don't see where you're coming from here, there's plenty of perfectly valid comparable subcategories with less entries than that. It well exceeds the minimum standards set by Categories for something of this type ("Non-series/game/console/etc.-specific categories need a minimum of five entries (including any subcategories' entries), however they should have many more than that, since small lists can simply be placed on an article that's central to the subject at hand"). Disagreeing is one thing, but I'd caution against saying that our reasoning is "completely flawed" when the Queens category is well within our guidelines and you're basing your statement solely off of personal opinion and preference.

On a separate note, I'd also like to add that merging these categories will make navigation more difficult. Right now, you can easily look for kings or queens, but if they were all tossed together, that's made much more difficult, especially since a lot of these characters don't have their titles in their page names. Merging princes and princesses into this category in the future will make things even worse, and there's other titles not accounted for that would increase the category size even further - keep in mind that emperors, dukes, etc. can be monarchs as well.

In that sense, I think the proposal may be doing exactly the opposite of its original intentions by creating an overly broad category. The current setup is fine, we have four decently-sized categories for distinct titles and positions. This proposal passing will throw those out and eventually create a much less useful category of at least 147 pages if we bring Princes and Princesses into this as well, with no distinctions between what titles we're actually trying to look at. How is that any better and "less broad" than what we have now? -- 14:42, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Not to mention that this entire proposal exists in the first place because the proposer misinterpreted the sentence "It should also be noted that overly broad categories can be even more unhelpful than overly small categories (such as previously attempted categories for all males or females), and should not be created". The proposer took that as gender-specific categories being not allowed, when really, the policy was simply calling just and  as examples of overly broad categories. I don't think pointing out such a mistake is a "completely flawed reason" to oppose the proposal. Also, regarding Waluigi Time's note on the Monarchs category making navigation more difficult, it is similar to what I said before as part of my opposition: Monarchs wouldn't cover just kings and queens, but basically any sovereign, like emperors/empresses, princes/princesses, lords/ladies, and dukes/duchesses. All of these would be included in a Monarchs category, and possibly more (I already mentioned Pauline as a possibility, who is a mayor, which is likened by the Mario Odyssey team as a ruler of a Kingdom without being royalty). I don't see how this is a "completely flawed reason" either, because Category:Monarchs possibly being overly broad would be exactly the kind of category that the policy advises against in creating.  17:41, September 23, 2022 (EDT)

The reason I believe these two categories need merging is because of general problems with gender. What if gender is unconfirmed for a monarch? What if Nintendo said they're NB? How would we decide which category a character should be in then? Spectrogram (talk) 14:27, September 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * I don't think it's as complicated as you make it out to be. If a character is given the title of King/Queen, we put them in the category, simple as that. Monarchs with no confirmed title (or a title that has no category) just go in the Royalty category. -- 18:40, September 26, 2022 (EDT)
 * In fairness, it looks kind of weird if monarchs that should at least be on the level of kings and queens were put in the same category of miscellaneous royalty (though we have a few of those). LinkTheLefty (talk) 00:36, September 27, 2022 (EDT)


 * The problem with Spectrogram's argument is that technically, a gender-neutral term for a king or queen simply doesn't exist (as far as I know, anyway). The closest term would be monarch, but as I stated before, there's multiple types of sovereigns that count as a monarch (such as dukes/duchesses and emperors/empresses), not just kings and queens. Princes and princesses have the exact same issue, including the fact that these are also counted as monarchs. I hate it too, but there's simply not a gender-neutral term for kings/queens that covers only kings and queens. The simplest thing to do would be just to stick these in the Royalty category, like Waluigi Time said. 06:18, September 27, 2022 (EDT)