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)