MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/56

Either rename Chanterelle to Pop Diva, or rename Master Poet to Simon
This proposal's title sums it up. I know this is just one example, but this has been bugging me for quite a while since it's super inconsistent as to how we deal with these characters' names. For clarification, both of their Tattles refer to them by their stage names, and their real names are only occasionally brought up a few times at best.

Proposer: Deadline: September 28, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Rename Chanterelle to Pop Diva

 * 1) My preferred option, as per the analysis above.
 * 2) Per Tattle/common name, and also because Simon Belmont is more commonly known as "Simon" and there's a bit less conflict than the alternative.
 * 3) Per Link.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per Japanese script where these two are known only as "Songstress" and "Songwriter" while "Chanterelle" and "Simon" appear to be localization inventions.

Rename Master Poet to Simon

 * 1) I prefer this, personally.
 * 2) Preferred option.

Do nothing

 * 1) This definitely seems like something that should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket one size fits all proposal.
 * 2) On the other hand, I'm also okay with this option because Chanterelle calls herself "a Pop Diva" at one point, implying there are others, but it could just be an inconsistent translation (as the script is also inconsistent if they should be "the Pop Diva/Master Poet" or just "Pop Diva/Master Poet").

Comments
@Waluigi Time: This IS a single case. 17:22, September 21, 2020 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time: Yeah, I guess the initial name of this proposal confused you a bit. Reworded for accuracy. 17:31, September 21, 2020 (EDT)

Upload images from the base game along with remakes
So what we're going to do is replace the images from games like SMAS and SM3DAS with ones from their base game, but still keep the images in their gallery, like this:

Put all the other images in the gallery.

Proposer: Deadline: September 30, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal and what Doc said here.
 * 2) Personally I think it makes more sense to prioritize showing the content in its original form, so agreed. Not to mention that thanks to Virtual Console and other re-releases, I'd argue that in the case of some remakes like All-Stars and 64 DS, the originals are more iconic and well-known at this point.
 * 3) This always bugged me, especially with Yoshi's Island.
 * 4) Couldn't agree more.
 * 5) While admittedly not as bad as the "this is a thing, but only in the reissue" style of writing, this is still a change that would do nothing but benefit (especially since a lot of environment tiles were outright changed in the SMAS redraws). A lot of older screenshot uploading priority suffered from a (rather naïve) "these ones look better so it's all we need!" mentality. In a way, this proposal is in-line with my replacing of NES port cover images with arcade materials for arcade game infoboxes. Anyways, per proposal.
 * 6) See the Choosing a Favorite Snack article as a good example for how this would work.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) - I assumed this is how it was already.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) I agree, much better to show the original version of the content, as often references are based on it (like the Blue Toad in Super Mario 3D World), there’s still space in the pages to show how it was then remade.
 * 12) Same thoughts as Alex95. Per all
 * 13) Always thought it was weird how only SOME pages did this. I feel like remakes should be included just as much as their original counterparts.
 * 14) In my opinion there should be both the orginal and remade photos.
 * 15) Don't we do basically the same thing with Mario Kart tracks? Original in the template box, reappearances in a gallery? I thought this was just supposed to be the normal. Per all.
 * 16) This makes a lot of sense really, like some of the other people here I'm surprised this wasn't already the standard.

Comments
I think the proposal would be better worked out if it was drafted as a change to the image use policy. I think your points need a bit more fleshing out before we can officially apply it, since the title itself is a bit too vague for my tastes. There is a bunch of other articles that do bother me since they use images not in the original game, such as Super Mario Bros. and its use of All-Stars map images but I generally agree with the premise of the proposal nonetheless. 18:11, September 23, 2020 (EDT)
 * FYI, I'm not going through the hassle of puttting on every page that this proposal includes.  18:30, September 23, 2020 (EDT)
 * Um, you don't have to? I've seen plenty of encompassing proposals come and went fine without requiring usage of that template. 18:36, September 23, 2020 (EDT)
 * It doesn't seem vague to me, the point is just to prioritize using images from the original games rather than remakes whenever possible. I don't really think there's much fleshing out to do there. -- 18:38, September 23, 2020 (EDT)
 * @Ray Trace. Well, that might have been because the template was unused for a long time, and I decided to start using it again. 19:07, September 23, 2020 (EDT)

Question, would you prefer the non-base game's image also in the infobox along with the base game's instead of being in the gallery? 00:02, September 24, 2020 (EDT)
 * Doesn't matter to me either way as long as the original image is the most prominent. -- 11:26, September 26, 2020 (EDT)

I recommend two template boxes next to each other or something like merging the two in a box if possible. -- 18:33, September 29, 2020 (EDT)
 * That's what I basically just said three comments above, but I think the idea of just having the other image in the gallery is better, as said that the base game's image should be the most prominent.  19:04, September 29, 2020 (EDT)

What happens when there are two or more products that can be considered the base game? Is the version with higher resolution given priority for the infobox or do both releases get an infobox image? An example would Captain Toad Treasure Tracker's Switch and 3DS release, specifically the Super Mario Odyssey based levels. Salmancer (talk) 16:38, September 30, 2020 (EDT)
 * If there are noticeable graphical changes, then we could try to fit both in the box. (BTW, I'll archive this at around 4:00 WST.) 17:51, September 30, 2020 (EDT)

Super Mario Sunshine Minor Locations
Hello, everybody. So, recently I created Casino Delfino, previously a redirect to Hotel Delfino. There was a sufficient amount of information provided for its own article. I was unsure if it would suffice at first, and figured if Sand Cabana, Surf Cabana, etc. are deserving of their own articles, this would be about the equivalent. There are a lot of other minor locations with defined titles, including Ricco Tower, Hillside Cave, and Cliff Spring Cave, all of which currently redirect to the mission involving the location. However, I believe so along as there is a proficient amount of information detailing layout and its history in previous episodes (this, naturally, would not be identical to the information listed for the secret areas), these locations would be deserving of their own articles. Of course, before I continue to do this, I would like to see how you guys fall on the topic and if there are any restrictions or exceptions that would apply.

Proposer: Deadline: October 30, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per my proposal, provided there is a decent amount of information for each of these supposed articles, covering both history and layout, which I would be happy to provide.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal, seeing as we have those other articles and there's information to add on the locations themselves like accessibility.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Sure.
 * 6) Per all.

Comments
Will this proposal just cover SMS, or other games with minor locations deserving of an article that hasn't been created yet? 23:42, October 23, 2020 (EDT)
 * Focusing on SMS, though maybe one or two of SM64? The only one I can currently think of is Windswept Valley, although I'm certain there are others. So, this applies to SMS and SM64. 00:35, October 24, 2020 (EDT)
 * Btw, this would NOT apply to generic locations such as "Pyramid" from Shifting Sand Land and "Volcano" from Lethal Lava Land as they already make up and contribute to a majority of each level and would write more or less the same. This mostly targets more minor locations with established titles confirmed either by a character or the title of an episode. Just clarifying, as I saw this brought up in a previous proposal. 10:53, October 29, 2020 (EDT)

Decide where to cover Cheese the Chao
Alright, continuing with the improvement of our Mario & Sonic content, it's time for another proposal, and this time it's about deciding where we cover Cheese the Chao. Following the guidance on Coverage, the Mario & Sonic series does receive full coverage of the Sonic-related content in relation to Mario & Sonic, which does mean that Cheese needs to be covered somewhere. At the moment, the coverage of Cheese is in a bit of a weird place- he's partly covered on Cream's page, but it's very much a half-done job there- he's mentioned in the opening paragraph, which makes it seem like the page is a split between him and Cream, but after that the page is almost entirely focussed on Cream with a few places just mentioning that Cheese appears (also, the introductory sentence for him is wrong an the rest of that article goes on to contradict that). There's also a Cheese the Chao redirect, which does just lead back to Cream's page. Cheese is also partly covered on the page for the Chao species, but it's limited to just saying Cheese appears there too. And to make things a bit more complicated, although I can't remember exactly where, I know I've seen articles which talk about Cheese like he has his own article.

Apparently the idea of renaming Cream's article to include Cheese was brought up before, but the proposal failed with what seems like some weak reasoning that basically came down to "He doesn't do much and Cream is the page's main focus, we don't need to rename the page"- despite the fact he was still covered there, and the page was treated like it was about both. Also, the example used to say that articles shouldn't be named after everything in them during that proposal is no longer valid, as the Crystal Bit has since been split from the Crystal King.

At the moment, I can't list off every appearance that Cheese has in the series, as there are so many side modes and things where he could appear and I just haven't found him yet. I think he first appears in 2012, where he accompanies Cheese at times in the Wii version, and then appears with her in the story mode for the 3DS version, where they both only appear in one episode, but Cheese does have some of his own dialogue here (albeit limited to the word "Chao"). I don't think he appears at all in 2016, but he does return to accompany Cheese in 2020 (He even gets his own artwork in this game). There are also a number of references to him in the series, but I can't pick those all out right now.

I think that there are three main ways we can go about this: I've been thinking over how to get this done for a while, but I haven't been able to come up with a single answer, so I think it's time for a proposal so we can get this straight and work out the best way to get Cheese covered properly.
 * Create a new article for Cheese- Convert the existing Cheese the Chao redirect to a full article for him, and reduce the Cheese specific content on Cream's page. Given that more often than not Cream appears without Cheese, I think it would make more sense to just give Cheese his own one so that most of the article actually has some relation to him, and I think with the differentiation of things like the references there'd be enough unique information to justify it.
 * Cover on Cream's page and rename it- Expand the coverage on Cream's page to make it more in line with the pages for the WarioWare duos (Ashley and Red, Dribble and Spitz, etc.)- add full information for him to the page, expand the infobox, fill out the gallery, etc. The page would need to be renamed to go with this, likely to Cream the Rabbit and Cheese the Chao to be in-line with all of the other Sonic character pages.
 * Cover on the Chao page- Probably not the best idea, but it's worth including as there's already some stuff there, and funnily enough Cheese is currently the infobox image there. I'd probably go about that by adding a separate paragraph for Cheese for each of the games he appears in, but there might be other ways to do it.

Proposer: Deadline: November 25, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Create a new article for Cheese

 * 1) Per proposal and the points raised above.
 * 2) Hey look mom, it's my ancient proposal! Considering that Cream and Cheese aren't nearly as joined at the hip as the WarioWare duos (even Ashley's appearances without Red are pretty sporadic), this seems like the best option.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all.

Comments
I think the Chao's name is just "Cheese", hence "CREAM THE RABBIT & CHEESE " here. If it has its own article, it should probably be "Cheese (Chao)". Although, can we have an option for covering on Cream's page and not renaming it? Ditto for Froggy. Reason being that Sega doesn't usually give them separate character profiles. Also, if the Mario & Sonic series gets "full coverage", doesn't that mean Flicky and the like should have their own article too? LinkTheLefty (talk) 14:00, November 18, 2020 (EST)
 * Alright, I'm not entirely familiar with the Sonic series so I didn't know about the name thing- I'm sure I've seen him referred to as Cheese the Chao somewhere, but I might be wrong about that. So if he's only consistently referred to as Cheese, then yeah, we can call the page that (It might need to be Cheese (character) though, looking at MarioWiki:Naming). I've tried to avoid the non-renaming option as otherwise I think we'd either end up with the messy situation that we have now, where the page is poorly balanced between the content for the two characters, or would end up becoming a misleading title, where the whole thing is clearly talking about the pair but is only named after one. And yes, I am thinking about getting something done for the animal friends, particularly as you can speak to a number of them within the Tokyo '64 in the story mode of 2020. I'd want some time to get together a list of all of them first and I'm still thinking about whether to give them individual pages or a big group one yet. I'll get to that eventually, there's still a lot of other stuff to do, but it is on my radar. BBQ Turtle (talk) 06:40, November 19, 2020 (EST)
 * Well, if "Cheese the Chao" is ever used as a full name, it's so rare that it should only belong in the infobox (Sonic New Network does that while citing...a sticker book?). Anyway, I'm more asking for a status quo option because that's the norm, not because I necessarily believe that's the right option. I'm admittedly unfamiliar with the Olympic games, so I think it's best for me to abstain for now. I imagine if Flickies and company were to share an article, it'd be based on their Wii U trophy title, Fauna [of Windy Hill Zone]? LinkTheLefty (talk) 07:56, November 19, 2020 (EST)
 * I think it's too late for me to add it now, but if this goes to a no quorum I can add it on to the next one. That could be a potential name for it, yes, but there could be some other ones floating around- There's a badge in 2012 for the "Audience" which says "Sonic's animal pals have come from the forest to cheer!", so that's another two potential names right there. It just all needs a bit more research, so it's not something to worry about until the future, but if you come across anything else it'd be helpful to know. :) BBQ Turtle (talk) 05:08, November 23, 2020 (EST)

I need to see a case that Cheese the Chao has to receive a separate article compared to the WarioWare pairing. I don't think it helps Cheese's case that the WarioWare series is granted full coverage, which didn't prevent Red from having his own page, while crossover scope is much more limited. 15:22, November 25, 2020 (EST)

Decide where to cover Froggy
Yes, this does need to be a separate proposal from the Cheese. Froggy is handled differently, as he only appears in one episode of 2012 3DS to my knowledge aside from a couple of references, but the coverage policy does mean that he needs to get some proper coverage somewhere. Froggy isn't really covered properly anywhere at the moment, and is just limited to being mentioned in relevant places, so a place to have information on the character is s good idea. I think it comes down to two options- either give him a new page entirely, or rename Big's page and cover him there. Personally, I'd lean towards giving him his own page, as most of the content on Big's would have little to no relation to Froggy, and within his appearance, Froggy does do some stuff independently from Big. The other option is to just put him on Big's page though, but it would need to be reworked to reflect the fact that it is about both of them, like the shared WarioWare articles for characters like Kat and Ana and should probably be renamed to something like "Big the Cat and Froggy" if this was to be the case. This is another thing that I've been struggling to make a decision on for a while, so I though it was time to get it to a proposal and work out where to go from there.

Proposer: Deadline: November 25, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Create a new article for Froggy

 * 1) Per proposal and the points raised above.
 * 2) Froggy? Where are you? Per my reasoning on the Cheese proposal.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per all. Froggy is definitely not like the WarioWare Duos at all.

Make a category for actresses featured in the Mario franchise and in real life
(This has been moved over from a section on Talk:Main Page due to violating TPP rule #4.)

I think a separate category for actresses would be good because there would be no pages for actresses in the Actors category, plus it would be helpful to people looking for just actresses by having that category available instead of having to search through the Actors category.

Proposer: Deadline: December 12, 2020; 23:59 GMT

Support

 * Per myself.

Oppose

 * 1) Personally, I don't think the organization is that bad right now; besides, this might open up a can of worms for categories of "such-and-such male characters and people" versus "such-and-such female characters and people", which would be too complicated.
 * 2) Per Archivist Toaddette. I don't particularly think it could be so bad right now, and it feels like it could require a huge move.
 * 3) There's only 19 pages in the Actors category, I don't see why it needs to be split.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Actors can refer to females too.
 * 6) Per all, it's only a small category and I've seen "actor" used as a gender neutral term fairly often (Usually I only see "actress" used when it's absolutely necessary to differentiate male and female). Also, from a quick look there only seems to be three pages that would make use of the actresses category, which I believe is the absolute bare minimum and suggests a split isn't necessary.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
I think it's a better idea to rename the category, "Actors and Actresses" but personally, I view the word "actor" as a gender-neutral term. 17:43, December 5, 2020 (EST)
 * Per Ray Trace on the renaming. 19:33, December 5, 2020 (EST)
 * Agreed Benjaminkirsc (talk) 12:29, December 6, 2020 (EST)

Reorganization of Mario Kart sponsor lists
Okay, this has been a long time coming. Yes, I know this is something that BBQ Turtle has been working on for quite some time now, and I still do appreciate her desire to fill a previously unfilled gap in our coverage, but this isn't about removing any coverage. It'll be about reorganizing our coverage.

See, as of right now, one-time Mario Kart sponsors are listed in "", whereas recurring sponsors are listed in List of recurring sponsors in the Mario Kart series. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this form of organization, it still has one major problem: there could end up being so many recurring sponsors that the latter list couldn't possibly fit them all without becoming bloated and tricky to navigate efficiently. Fortunately, I have a simple solution in mind: I propose that all of the sponsors listed as recurring sponsors be moved back to the respective list articles of the games they debut in, and said lists be renamed to "". That way, no list is any more exhaustive than it absolutely needs to be.

Proposer: Deadline: December 13, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) This seems like the best way to go about it. The page is already getting very long as-is, not to mention it's theoretically possible for every single sponsor in the series to eventually end up on this page.
 * 5) Per proposal- when the decision was made to organise the pages like that, the Mario Kart 8 sponsors weren't getting reused left right and centre to make most of them recurring ones, and the actual recurring ones were relatively few and far between, so switching to a system like this seems like a good plan.
 * 6) Was about to propose that the sponsor lists should be named "List of Mario Kart 8 sponsors" to be consistent with the other listicles (like List of Mario Kart 8 media) but I suppose with this change, the wording would be inconsistent with the recurring one.
 * 7) With Mario Kart Tour reusing so many sponssors from Mario Kart 8, it only makes sense to have all the sponsors grouped by game where they originated.
 * 8) - Per all.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all. I would also like later game mentions because they are still in that game, but it isn’t necessary.

Comments
Something else I forgot to mention: Should this proposal pass, the recurring sponsors list will be retooled into a disambiguation-esque page entitled "". 13:18, December 6, 2020 (EST)

Delete “List of [TV show title] episodes featuring [Character]”
While I was browsing the page for Candy Kong, I happened upon the article “List of Donkey Kong Country episodes featuring Candy Kong”. I clicked on the article (which had been flagged for needing to be rewritten), and realized that the article is unneeded. All of its information could be put on the Candy Kong page in a condensed format. There are other pages like this for Mario and Donkey Kong, and a deleted one for Mouser. Personally, I think we should merge the content in the articles into the character’s article and deleting the pages.

Proposer: Deadline: December 27, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Delete the articles and merge their content

 * A paragraph per episode isn’t needed, just a couple of sentences saying what they do in the episode and how they contribute to the plot.
 * I can see why we have them, but I honestly don't see any reason we can't just merge the info into the main articles. I know this sounds a little hypocritical with my philosophy of shorter, more concise articles, but I think we can include the info elsewhere. There really isn't a need to have these to begin with, honestly. They just feel unnecessary.

Keep the articles

 * 1) I don't think a blanket deletion of these is a good idea. Some characters don't need them, but other characters like Mario and Bowser, who play major roles in nearly every episode of the cartoons they appear in, would have very long sections in their already massive pages. I'd prefer this to be handled on a case-by-case basis. That can be said, I'm open to re-merging in the future if it can be demonstrated that characters with lots of appearances could have sections of reasonable length.
 * 2) Per Waluigi Time, I do not feel that a complete blanket deletion is the best way to go about it. I have explained more of my reasoning in the comments below.
 * 3) Per Waluigi Time. I think case-by-case is the way to go.
 * 4) Per.

Comments
While I can see the case for minor characters such as Mouser getting merged, the reason those pages were created was to keep plot summaries off the page, with major recurring characters in mind. Perhaps there can be a case made for summarizing a role these characters get followed by a simple bullet list of episodes characters appear in however, in a similar vein to how Skewer has a bullet list for all official Super Mario Maker courses it appears in. 15:39, December 20, 2020 (EST)
 * That could also work.

I feel like articles for major such as List of The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episodes featuring Mario are acceptable due to the length of their original articles, though a major issue I see with the pages currently is that the sections seem to describe the full plot of the episode, rather than just the character’s role. I feel it would make sense to keep major character pages and rewrite them to focus on the character, though one page that I’ve always been unsure of its necessity is List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa, since none of the other Koopalings have an article like it, and there is not much information on it. -- 18:12, December 20, 2020 (EST)
 * I think that's because the Mario, a starring character, has his role is tied strongly to the plot. I think the way to go might be like how Wendy does it, at least for recurring characters. In Mario's case, might as well say he appears in all but one episode and then point out which episodes he doesn't have much of a role in. 18:26, December 20, 2020 (EST)
 * Yeah, I think the Koopalings don't necessarily need separate pages, though I don't like the current presentation on Wendy's. -- 18:28, December 20, 2020 (EST)
 * I can definitely see your points there, and I agree that would probably be a better way to go about it. I do feel that the way Wendy’s page deals with it could use some rewriting, though. -- 18:36, December 20, 2020 (EST)

Allow/create categories for images and media by website
I got a little ahead of myself when I created the YouTube Images category and I feel like there should have been some discussion first. This category in particular contains images of material that is currently hosted on YouTube, such as these screencaps and the hundreds of thumbnails we have of Mario DiC cartoon uploads. The rationale behind this category's creation was that just as we have categories of images from many publications, including a third-party one, and even from a certain website, so too there should be categories dedicated to media published on third-party platforms. Should this proposal pass, more categories like the YouTube Images one will be created, such as one for images originating from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other sites (posted by both Nintendo-operated and third-party accounts). If a picture is uploaded by official accounts across multiple platforms, said image will be categorized by all these platforms.

The proposal exludes media ripped from official game websites, as these are more suitable to be categorized by related game.

Proposer: Deadline: January 2, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Create categories for specific websites; include only images from official or approved accounts

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Sure, why not.
 * 4) Yeah, sure.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Eh.

Create categories for specific websites; include any image that originates from these websites (personal images, 'Shroom images, video screenshots of officially unapproved uploads etc.)
Non-thumbnail screenshots of DiC cartoons uploaded by DVD distributors like WildBrain will not receive a website category, as their content largely overlaps with unapproved uploads.

Italics formatting of boat names, fictional products, and others
A disagreement between and me has started in Talk:The Princess Peach, a talk page concerning a ship (not the princess herself!) in Paper Mario: The Origami King. I and others advocated italicizing the name of the ship as it is consistent with MLA standards.

LinkTheLefty, however, argued these points:
 * The suggestion to italicize ship names contradicts with Naming: "Italics are used in main and gallery namespace page titles in the same way that they are used in text."
 * The in-game name for the ship is not italicized, and we shouldn't be italicizing names that Nintendo doesn't italicize to "fix" their formatting.
 * The Manual of Style makes no mention of italicizing boat names.
 * MLA may not be a relevant standard to follow as it is not explicitly stated to be followed in our wiki. Additionally, style guides such as AP Stylebook or U.S. Navy Style Guide does not italicize ship names.

I hope I have accurately summed up LinkTheLefty's points. If I have misrepresented their comments or left out any important points being made, please let me know.

I, however, disagreed, arguing the following points:
 * I do not see a contradiction. "Text" in the cited sentence refers to the content of an article, not in-game text as I assume that's being argued. The sentence in the naming guidelines refers to the wiki's requirement to italicize the titles of the subject to be consistent with the game text. For example, Mario Party 4's article needs to include to italicize the article header per policy.
 * The text in a video game medium is different from in an encyclopedia and thus is not subject to formatting standards that we have. Additionally, video game medium tend to not italicize in-game names. I cite non-italicized game names from the tips from Super Smash Bros.. There is also mention of Super Luigi series. Finally, we already italicize implicit names in the big list in List of implied entertainment which are likely not italicized in the in-game text.
 * If our Manual of Style already takes elements from MLA (which is does by advocating italicizing "games, series, movies, television programs, albums (music) and publications (print: comics, books and magazines) [...]") but does not explicitly state adhering to MLA), then we should be expanding what needs to be italicized to include ship names and other applicable titles, even if they are fictional, in accordance to MLA (Wikipedia italicizes fictional titles too, see ; I assume it's reasonable to use Wikipedia as an example).
 * If MLA is not relevant, then we should be following styling standards from other wikis. Wikipedia is a major wiki and it italicizes ship names, so I believe it makes sense to try to follow Wikipedia in that regard. I do concede that there are some Wikipedia guidelines not strictly followed in our wiki (such as minor grammar and spelling errors in [sic quotations needing to be silently corrected] while we include [sic] even for minor grammar errors).

My proposal is to amend our Manual of Style to add italicizing titles not already mentioned in our Manual of Style, but outlined in the MLA guidelines. We should have it be policy to italicize ship names, play names, artwork, web publications, and anything else not already mentioned in our Manual of Style. If MLA is not relevant, then we should be at least following a bit of what Wikipedia does, as we're an internet wiki that is designed similarly to Wikipedia. We also must include names of fictional elements such as fictional books, fictional games, and so on. I believe this is simply just a policy update to keep up with increasing standards with this wiki over time.

Even if this proposal is rejected, there has to be some clarification of what should not be italicized, and if it is rejected, I'm going to try to get a discussion running on what we can agree should not be italicized.

Proposer: Deadline: December 26, 2020, 23:59 GMT January 2, 2021 23:59 GMT January 9, 2021 23:59 GMT

Change the guidelines

 * 1) I think it's reasonable to italicize ship names and I do think policy should be updated to reflect any other applicable titles that need to be italicized and are not explicitly mentioned in our Manual of Style.
 * 2) I think it's reasonable enough.
 * 3) I was the one who decided to italicize ship names. I think it's formal writing and it should have been done earlier, honestly.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all and MLA FTW.
 * 6) Per all. Just because were not Wikipedia doesn't mean we can't do some things like Wikipedia. And using proper and professional formatting isn't "being fancy for the sake of being fancy", it's being formal.
 * 7) - per all
 * 8) Per all.

Do not change

 * 1) Per myself in The Princess Peach talk page and summarized points. All I'd add is that it's not just the text within video games that hasn't been italicizing ship names, but also Nintendo Power and related guides as far as I'm aware. Additionally, I'm still not sure why MLA style in particular should be adopted when even certain other styles disagree and have other ideas. Personally, I think a fan wiki can easily afford to adopt and discard the conventions that work best for it in its own Manual of Style, and as-is is closer to our goal of being as official as possible. Also pointing out observations in the comments below such as the full-on rejection of enforcing MLA in proposals and discussions, shortsightedness of modeling ourselves after other wikis that don't have the same goals, science fantasy/fiction vehicles unnecessarily affected in accordance, etc. And for those repeating that the MLA is just more "formal" - the MLA was designed with the express intent of academic/scholarly purposes. Those who drafted our Manual of Style understood that there are other valid ways to suitably formalize and knew to draw the line at overcorrection.
 * 2) - Having ship names in the mix would probably be confusing considering we've only been italicizing media names and nothing else. "The Princess Peach" is not a media. I think the point of italicizing titles is to make it clear on what's media and what's not (though I see the Super Luigi series is an outlier here, given it is not a real piece of media).
 * 3) - Although this is something the Kingdom Hearts Wiki does (for the ships in the Pirates of the Carribean worlds), doing it here would be a bit too much.
 * 4) Per all who disagree. I like the idea of italicizing the names, don't get me wrong, but if a multimillion-dollar company like Nintendo doesn't bother with MLA, why should we? It feels like we're going out of our way to be less accurate. And, yeah, again, let me re-emphasize the "per all" thing, we're not Wikipedia and we shouldn't hold ourselves up to the MLA standards. We're MarioWiki, we're independent, and we're well past the days of being overly fancy for the sake of it. If the ship names were italicized in the games themselves, by golly would I want us to do so as well. But they don't, so, let's just not.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per everything LTL wrote on this topic (I will also say that the suggestion WIkipedia is in any way a standard to be followed is fundamentally offensive to me.)
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per LinkTheLefty on the issue of MLA, and I also do not agree with using the standards of other wikis such as Wikipedia to determine our own standards.
 * 9) - Per all. I can see the logic behind it and I know very little about systems like MLA, but I think keeping italics just for real-world media as it is now feels more consistent and makes a lot of sense. As for the formality argument, I really don't think most people who visit the Wiki will really notice or care if ship names etc. are italicised or not.
 * 10) - Per all.
 * 11) Per all
 * 12) Per all.

Comments
Alex95: According to guidelines, this won't lead to italicizing shop names and locations as they're not normally italicized. See Wikipedia as a bit of a guide to see how things will get italicized (note that ship names are indeed one of the few things not in the big list of long works that are italicized). There seems to be a reasoning behind the italicization of ship names (here). Whether a work is fictional or not seems irrelevant, as, again, I cite List of implied entertainment.

Keyblade Master: There has to be a reason Kingdom Hearts Wiki does this? Why can't MarioWiki do it? 18:42, December 12, 2020 (EST)
 * Different Wikis don't have to have the same rules as each other. They even allow strategy writing while we don't.
 * I understand there's a precedent for italicizing ship names. I just think we should keep it to media titles, for this wiki, so people don't think The Princess Peach is a book title or something. 18:47, December 12, 2020 (EST)
 * I'm fairly certain context clues help out identifying what the title is rather than glancing at a name, as it can be argued that you could also mistake Super Luigi series as a video game series and not a fictional book series. 18:50, December 12, 2020 (EST)
 * Fair enough. It's a personal preference, then. 18:51, December 12, 2020 (EST)
 * (ec) Keyblade Master: This is true that our policies and styling should not mirror wikis just because other wikis do it, but I'm asking for why this needs to be different in MarioWiki than in other wikis? We do have certain formatting consistencies across wikis, including italicizing game names and bolding the first instance of an article name in the body text, and my reasoning for this is that there's a sort of implicit formatting professional standard that emphasizes readability and consistency.
 * (ec) Italics will not introduce confusion. Chances are, many readers already know names for ships are already in italics as it's widely practiced (even if not always consistent) in other wikis, and even if MarioWiki is their first exposure to an italicized ship name, they can easily take inferences from context clues what the Princess Peach refers to and learn that ship names are in italics. Furthermore, italics already encompass many different kinds of works and is always reliant on context; Donkey Kong Country: Rescue on Crocodile Isle is referring to a book but can easily be interpreted as a title for a video game without any context or prior knowledge of the media. 18:58, December 12, 2020 (EST)
 * I'm not sure how Kingdom Hearts handles things (preliminary glancing suggests that series also doesn't italicize ships but there are so many different games and versions it may not be consistent), but I don't think it was sufficiently answered why the wiki must adopt this aspect of MLA style specifically when Nintendo themselves demonstrably do not. Other styles are just as valid if not moreso for the general purposes of a wiki. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:22, December 13, 2020 (EST)
 * Nintendo is inconsistent with italicizing game titles: they don't do it for in-game text either, especially in Smash Bros. bios for characters where game titles are left unitalicized. I don't think they're the ideal model to look to when it comes to formatting things in an encyclopedic fashion because they serve a different medium: it's unnecessary for them to italicize things for in-game purposes. 14:53, December 13, 2020 (EST)
 * But I still fail to understand what makes going further with MLA style ideal for this encyclopedia. There's a difference between italicizing subjects that exist in the real world and italicizing subjects that have never been officially italicized as they simply don't exist. In the end, it's a stylistic choice that not everyone universally uses - so again, why even enforce MLA in particular? Consider also that the topic of MLA has come up several times in the past, and each time it was decided not to strictly use it. Also, I understand that not all in-game text supports italics - which is why I am additionally referencing manuals, Nintendo Power, and related guides and supporting material, where it would have made the most sense to italicize these things (for example, here is the "SS Tea Cup" on the Wario Land II website). Different styles are meant for different purposes - for example, the U.S. Navy Style Guide specifies not to use "the" before a ship's name, running counter to "the Sweet Stuff" and "the Princess Peach" among all other mentions - so is it really our role to fix what, by most accounts, isn't broken? LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:12, December 13, 2020 (EST)
 * I realize that we're not explicitly using MLA but I think italics for works and the odd ship name is the way to go and in terms of general formatting, I think it's best to follow closer to that. I don't think it's that much of a major change but I'd like to see text for ship names appear similar to the ship names in Wikipedia, as well as fictional works. Citations should be formatted by the way and there's agreement that we need the formatting here and I'll still pressure featured articles to have proper sourcing. I think style guides can be inconsistent and some game guides don't italicize ship names, but I'm not really seeing the connection we have to make between game guides and wiki compared to looking at examples from big wikis. I will ask, however, about the reasoning for format to begin with: why do we bold the first instance of the subject in an article? Why italicize game names at all? Why even encourage italics for practically all major works (quotations for smaller works) and stop at ship names (as well as names for things not mentioned in our Manual of Style including web publications and artwork; what if a famous pop artist creates a titled work about Mario? should we not italicize even if it's not explicitly spelled out in the Manual of Style?) even if ship names are usually included? Why put dates in citations in parentheses? Why forbid the use of 2nd person? Why discourage contractions? In the end, this might just boil down to fundamental disagreement on how to format prose, but I feel the reasons for stopping at ship titles are reliant on nonencyclopedic styling from other sources, that we aren't adopting MLA (which is technically true it appears but I do not see the harm in using its suggestions especially when other encyclopedias do this) and the argument that we aren't Wikipedia (this needs to be backed up to why we should deviate here; only example given was the formatting on a video game article name regarding NiGHTS into Dreams which I do not think is a strong case against italicizing ship names and fictional works), which I do not agree. 21:00, December 13, 2020 (EST)
 * The change from NiGHTS into Dream... to Nights into Dreams is one I can only charitably describe as braindead idiocy, but if you want more examples of Mario Wiki articles that would be butchered under Wikipedia standards, a lot of titles should probably be considered generic within their context - meaning that we would uncapitalize the names of ape, bear, bees, chicken, cobra, cook, drill bit, ghost, hog, hot dog stand, unagi, poison mushroom, poltergeist, raccoon, sea turtle, shadow, small spider, snake, twister, urchin, among dozens of others. Then what? Do those names become unusable, or are we merely "fixing" Nintendo's "mistake"? Is that not going to put off readers expecting something more out of this wiki and have for years seen this corner of the Internet as being next to official to their interests? Frankly, becoming more like other wikis means going down a rabbit hole that I'll refuse to part of, so let's try to keep the discussion about "MLA style and its merits" instead of "MLA style because of Wikipedia". Now, our Manual of Style certainly does use a few elements of MLA*, but previous attempts to adopt MLA wholesale have been shot down (the main argument against this, by the way, isn't that we shouldn't properly source citations, but rather that such templates are too restrictive to one arbitrarily "right" style, promote unnecessary elitism, would be too cumbersome to enact, etc.). As for a reason for not italicizing ship names that doesn't boil down to "this is my personal preference"? Well, aside from the idea that it is not our place to "fix" Nintendo's fiction (interpretations are one thing, but corrections are another), keep in mind that said fiction is a fantastical video game franchise with outlandish things such as fanciful airships, barrel aircrafts, vehicle transformations, and advanced spaceships - are we really going to italicize all of these too despite how silly we will look? And if not, "why stop there" if it's MLA? If so, what about cases like the multipurpose Dribble Taxi, where there's no clear idea on if it should be unitalicized like most other automobiles or italicized like most other vessels? I just think this is much more trouble than it's worth. LinkTheLefty (talk) 06:25, December 14, 2020 (EST)
 * You are misinterpreting the goal of that citation proposal. The template would have been used in the same vein as in that it would have been an option for editors who opt for some formatting consistency. Also, promoting "elitism"? I see that as adhering to more academic conventions.  07:37, December 14, 2020 (EST)
 * There are many other reasons it lost as sorting through all those comments is outside the scope of this discussion and, frankly, irrelevant (anyone is urged to read through and decide for themselves if those reasons are justified in their free time, hence "etc.", but I'm not the only one who disagrees with the notion that it must mean we do not encourage proper citations) - it serves as an example of MLA being brought up and rejected by other users in the past. I will address the "academic / looking to Wikipedia" angle as I feel it is relevant here: the simple fact is that we are not an academic resource, and . Furthermore, Wikipedia has a motto called . How about ? That would mean many things like Dayvv Brooks and NOA emails are out the window. ? Our stance is basically backwards from theirs. Among a myriad of reasons, modeling ourselves after Wikipedia (or most other wikis for that matter) does not suit the goals and needs of the Super Mario Wiki, which is to accurately represent all things Mario. It does no one any favors to get wrapped up in the trivialities of the formatting originating from more general wikis. Let's not use this as an excuse to sidestep active issues though. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:23, December 14, 2020 (EST)
 * I will not disagree that this wiki has certain fundamentals that differentiate us from Wikipedia, such as our focus on original research--which I attempted to address in some capacity several years ago. However, us having a much lighter verification system (nonetheless dictated by the scope of our wiki) does not mean we should ignore certain conventions that are telling of a, dare I say, professional and believable medium. While wikis are generally unacceptable in academic sources, let's not forget that they in and of themselves are collections of research made by a community of users, which asks for certain conventions to be put in place. The bottom line is that this wiki is made of constants and variables; we are compatible with Wikipedia in some areas and in others we are not, and if something they do wouldn't harm our wiki or contradict its manual of style, I personally see no reason not to borrow from them. 09:10, December 14, 2020 (EST)
 * The thing about the video clip proposal is that I believe it falls under in-game/media references, which are generally removed or considered unneeded (I do personally think we can change it a bit, but that's neither here nor there). That brings us full circle, however: why the need to borrow this aspect from MLA? I've been asking this since almost the start but I still don't have a satisfactory answer ("I'm not 100% sure" didn't exactly inspire confidence). If there are "some Wikipedia guidelines not strictly followed in our wiki" then why the push to be more like Wikipedia? It shouldn't mainly be because it's popular on other wikis, since it's been demonstrated how being much more like Wikipedia would only cause upheavals. Why does that style make this wiki more "professional" over other styles? I think a far more valuable trait on a wiki like this is internal consistency; a regular reader should not flip through game worlds and have to wonder why one level is suddenly the odd one out or find inconsistent italicization between a similar-themed nickname and real name. What about quotations? Those are already in italics, so we are losing detail when we are adding italics to things that don't already have them outside of quotes (this is already a minor annoyance of mine with about templates, but I digress). I realize this is anecdotal, but I've seen the Super Mario Wiki referred to as the "gold standard" in casual conversation within the past year or so. Let's keep it that way. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:15, December 14, 2020 (EST)
 * From what I understand, the subject we refer to as "The Princess Peach" on the wiki is the overarching area around the actual ship, not the ship itself. If so, this would make it a similar case to levels and WarioWare microgames named directly after certain games, such as Super Mario Kart (microgame), which we do not italicize on grounds of it not being the game Super Mario Kart. So too we wouldn't italicize The Princess Peach (and any other gameplay area names based on ships, such as Gangplank Galleon (world)) as it is not the ship itself. This eliminates the possibility you mentioned of leaving readers confused as to why one level stands out among the rest; any mentions of the actual ship will, however, be italicized if the proposal passes, and that applies to S.S. Caviar, Daisy Cruiser and Gangplank Galleon as well, along with all the other ships in the Mario universe. Also, can you provide examples in print or digital media where Nintendo italicized game titles? The Wario Land manual you offered above does not format the game's title in any distinctive way, so the point that the S.S. Teacup should remain unitalicized according to that falls asunder. 13:45, December 16, 2020 (EST)

@Glowsquid: How is following some of Wikipedia's guidelines "fundamentally offensive" to you? This proposal doesn't automatically call for a sudden following of Wikipedia standards to the letter. 14:09, December 16, 2020 (EST)
 * The last bullet point in the main proposal textstates "If MLA is not relevant, then we should be following styling standards from other wikis. Wikipedia is a major wiki and it italicizes ship names, so I believe it makes sense to try to follow Wikipedia in that regard." The main thrust of the proposal may not be "We should do it because Wikipedia does it" but the quoted is an implication that Wikipedia's adoption of the standard, in some way, legitimizes it or makes it preferable. I am stating my disagreement with that idea. --Glowsquid (talk) 16:48, December 16, 2020 (EST)

Rethink our approach for Smash Bros coverage
Our offical coverage policy states that we provide full coverage for the Super Smash Bros. series. However, I do not believe this can be viable anymore. The SmashWiki has served as the primary soruce for Smash Bros. content, and Google Search shows most of MarioWiki's pages related to Smash Bros. relatively low. The traffic favors more in SmashWiki than on MarioWiki in terms of Smash Bros. content.

Another big problem is we have huge articles such as List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U that cover a lot about Smash Bros. than Mario itself. I am aware that Mario's huge presence in Smash Bros. warrants this series to be on this wiki, but there needs to be huge changes to how we cover this series. There are several methods that I propose:


 * Narrow Smash content down to only fighters. Each fighter will have to be shorten so as to not overlap largely with SmashWiki. Any content unrelated to fighters will either have to be merged into the main Smash Bros. pages or serve as redirects for SmashWiki.
 * Narrow Smash content to only Mario-related topics. This means that fighters like Isabelle and Sephiroth will no longer have dedicated pages and instead serve as redirects to SmashWiki. Any other Smash Bros. content not related to Mario will have to merged with the main Smash Bros. pages and serve as redirects or be removed entirely.
 * Remove any side-content related to Super Smash Bros. These removal will be on a case-by-case basis, so pages such as the list of trophies/stickers/spirits and Palutena's Guidance could be up for elimination if decided.
 * Leave all Smash content alone and focus to shorten the pages. This is so the information on this wiki does not overlap with SmashWiki.
 * Do nothing about our coverage.

These are various methods to take under consideration. Our coverage for Smash Bros. will have to be addressed.

Proposer: Deadline: February 22, 2021 23:59 GMT

Remove side-content related to Smash Bros

 * 1) I don't think we should eliminate all of Smash Bros. on this wiki, but we should keep it short and only include important Smash Bros. content such as fighters, stages, and bosses. As for what to do to how we handle fighter and stage pages is up for another discussion, but side-content such as List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U should be removed.

Split the tour appearances of every Mario Kart Tour course
Mario Kart Tour course pages currently house information related to the individual tour appearances of their respective courses such as their order of appearance in cups and their case-by-case highlighted drivers, karts and gliders. With the large number of tours that have been released and will continue to release, these pages end up having an excessive amount of highly-reccurent or similar information that may increase load times and make them uncomfortable to scroll through. To solve this issue, I propose that we split said tour appearances into separate pages related to every course. These new pages can be named something like "List of SNES Mario Circuit 1 tour appearances in Mario Kart Tour", with the console of origin mentioned beside the title as in-game, though if there are objections against this particular preference I'm adding a separate option to have the console mentioned in brackets and only for courses that share a name such as Rainbow Road (SNES) and Rainbow Road (3DS).

Proposer: Deadline: March 5, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support (format course titles with console prefixes like in the game)

 * 1) I prefer this option as it seems more consistent.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) Per proposal.
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) I agree with the split of the lists and I think that using the full names showed by the game is preferable.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per proposal.

Support (include console names in brackets and only for courses that share a name)

 * 1) - If it needs to happen, I'd rather the title be consistent with our naming scheme.

Comments
While I do support doing this to courses with many tour appearances, I do think that there should be a certain amount of tours that a course would have to be in to split. This is because splitting the page when the course has only appeared in one or two courses is silly: doing it only after it appeared in four or more tours would make more sense. 19:27, February 25, 2021 (EST)
 * I think two appearances can constitute the minimum for a page. Silly as it may seem, a list with only two entries is still a list, and these pages are expected to grow steadily over time. 19:37, February 25, 2021 (EST)

I feel like we'd run into the same problem, but on a different page. Using the Mario Circuit 1 example, there are fourteen charts with many images on them. I realize the point of this is to move the load times (which don't seem that bad) off the main Mario Circuit 1 page, but I don't feel like there's enough content to really justify doing so. Not like how Gallery:Mario was split, which is just... really large no matter what you do with it.

Regardless, if it does get to that point, we already have a policy page that agrees with you. 00:30, February 26, 2021 (EST)
 * The article size guideline specifies that pages with more than 100kb of code should “almost certainly be divided”, and going by Special:LongPages, there are already quite a few course pages that exceed that size, including but not limited to Yoshi Circuit, Waluigi Pinball (DS) and Shy Guy Bazaar. It’s evident these articles are largely occupied by charts, so naturally these should be split off before anything else; the resulting pages exceeding 100kb themselves at some point is not relevant since the article size guideline doesn’t apply to lists. This proposal aims for a consistent treatment between all course pages, so if the three aforementioned pages are to be split, the other MKT-relevant course pages should follow suit. 01:00, February 26, 2021 (EST)

I'd get rid of the "show" collapsibility, too. We don't do that for tables and it just forces users to click on an extra link, especially unnecessary on a page dedicated to tour appearances. Unless this was already in mind. 06:36, February 26, 2021 (EST)
 * I find the collapsibility option to be useful at the moment as it increases the readability of an article, but I do agree it should be removed if the charts are split to different pages since they would then form about 2/3 of the content in each page and would thus require an expanded focus. 09:48, February 26, 2021 (EST)

Decide where to use pre-release and unused content images
This is something I've been trying to figure out, but as far as I'm aware, we don't actually have a guideline for. Where exactly should pre-release screenshots and unused graphics belong on articles? I propose four options on how to handle this:
 * Parabomb uses a pre-release screenshot from Paper Mario: Sticker Star. The level shown is not in the finished game, and the caption does not indicate that this is not from the final release. Additionally, I sometimes find unused sprites used on games' galleries, even when they should go on its respective unused content article instead.
 * Bandit, Gallery:Koopa Paratroopa, Gallery:Green Shell, and Gallery:Red Shell contain unused graphics from Paper Mario, Mario Kart Wii, Super Mario 64, and Paper Mario: The Origami King, explicitly labeled as unused. This seems to be the most common situation.
 * Sometimes, unused appearances are not mentioned at all, even when it would benefit the article. "Deep Cuts" Toad, a character exclusive to Paper Mario: Color Splash, has new, unused graphics in the data for Paper Mario: The Origami King. These both show how he looks in the game's art style (thinner lines, different perspective, redrawn hands) and show him from the front for the first time, revealing that he has a worried expression.
 * Option 1: Allow pre-release and unused images without indicators. An graphic not seen in-game, or a screenshot not from the final release, can be used without such descriptions.
 * Option 2: Allow pre-release and unused images, but only when using indicators. These images can be used on articles, but must be explicitly labeled as being unused and within the data, from a trailer, or such.
 * Option 3: Do not allow pre-release and unused content. This information is restricted to use on the game's respective pre-release and unused content article, and should not be used on pages outside of that.
 * Option 4: Do nothing. No guideline should be established.

Proposer: Deadline: March 27, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Option 2

 * 1) This option seems the most logical.
 * 2) I think we'd be doing a disservice to our readers not to show it, but we also shouldn't be potentially misleading while doing so.
 * 3) Per Scrooge200 and Waluigi Time.
 * 4) Per all. I do not feel that there is a problem with including the images in relevant articles, but it certainly should be clarified where they come from.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) For many years, there have been official pre-release screenshots on pages that have not been marked as such. It's about time that we had a standard to establish this. Per all.
 * 7) Agreed with everyone else. Per all.
 * 8) It'll certainly be easier for our readers. Better have that going for us at least.
 * 9) - All for clarification.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) The most logical and helpful option. Per all.
 * 12) Nice to give visibility to cut content, but since it's cut it must be clarified that it's not released material
 * 13) There have been times when I was thrown off from this.
 * 14) Per all, seems like the most sensible option and I thought this was the case anyway.
 * 15) Per all. I'm surprised this wasn't already the rule, tbh.

Remove non-Mario characters from the trophies, Assist Trophy, stickers, and Spirit pages
The Mario Wiki's Super Smash Bros. coverage always has been, and likely always will be, one of the most consistently controversial aspects of the wiki. In my opinion, instead of trying to solve any of these coverage issues with one large, sweeping proposal, it would be better to handle individual topics in smaller-scale proposals. This is one of them.

Basically, the longest page on this wiki as of this proposal is List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U - something about a game which isn't even part of the Mario franchise. That's pretty insane. We have several lists, such as the Spirit page, the Assist Trophy page, the Sticker page, and the lists of trophies in _ game, which give coverage to each and every single collectable that is a part of their respective groups, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with the franchise. We don't need this. It unnecessarily bloats the pages with information not related to the wiki itself, and would make it harder for readers to access the information actually pertinent to the franchise and in turn, the wiki. No one would go to the Mario Wiki to find out what Ghirahim's spirit does. If they did, they would just go to a Smash Wiki. Basically, this non-Mario related list content just makes these pages filled to the brim with non-pertinent info that would just make a page harder to load for those who want to find actual Mario related info on a Mario Wiki, and not info about a million other gaming franchises. In short, what I propose is the following:

That any list information that isn't pertinent to the Mario or related franchises would be removed. This will affect the following pages, under this proposal:


 * Assist Trophy
 * Any of the "List of trophies in _" Super Smash Bros. game (will not affect Trophy (Super Smash Bros. series).
 * List of Smash Run enemies
 * Spirit (Super Smash Bros. Ultimate).
 * Sticker (Super Smash Bros. Brawl).
 * List of Mii Fighter Outfits
 * List of Mii Headgear
 * Subspace Army

This will not affect:


 * The Pokémon page. The page is entirely filled with non-Mario information. Wether or not this page should be deleted is a discussion for a different proposal.
 * The intro of any of these pages. The spirit page, for example, will still inform the reader about what a spirit is.
 * The fighter pages. Even if the trophy/list pages have non-Mario content removed, any spirit or trophy info on any fighter's page will still remain. Wether or not we should even have pages on fighters which never appeared in the Mario franchise is for another proposal.
 * The Super Smash Bros. game pages, which will remain mostly unaffected. Any changes that should be made to these is again, a subject for another another proposal.

Additional notes:


 * Some redirects, such as Bonkers, may have to be deleted if they become useless after this proposal is enforced, if it passes.
 * This will not remove any list info directly pertinent to the franchise (such as any Mario, Wario, Yoshi, or DK trophies).
 * I have included the option to support the removal all non-Mario thing on these lists except for fighter trophies, spirits, etc for those who would rather that outcome.
 * Coverage will be slightly modified to reflect any changes with how we handle this content.
 * This will be enforced simply by removing any parts of the list that aren't pertinent to the franchise. For example, the info about Akira's Assist will be removed from the Assist Trophy page, though the info on say, Waluigi's, or Klaptrap's Assist, will remain.
 * Some of the pages affected by the proposal are featured articles. Wether or not they will still be worthy of their featured status is something to be considered after the proposal is enforced.

Edited notes:


 * I have added an option for voters who support removing non-pertinent items, except for items which already have individual pages. Under this option, stuff for Blinky (the Pac-Man ghosts), Knuckles, and the fighters would be kept, as they already have their own individual pages for other reasons (being a playable MK character, being in Mario & Sonic, and being a fighter). The above option would still be for those who want to keep the fighter items, but not the non-fighter items.
 * I have added the Mii gear pages, due to forgetting them at first.
 * Added info about the Subspace Army.

Proposer: Deadline: March 14, 2021, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 21, 2021, 23:59 GMT Extended to March 28, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support (including the removal of non-Mario fighter spirits, trophies, etc)

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) - per proposal
 * 3) Per proposal; there really is no need for unnecessary info if it's irrelevant to Mario.
 * 4) - per proposal
 * 5) Per proposal.
 * 6) I support any proposal that aims to remove Mario-irrelevant Smash content from this wiki. All other NIWA wikis (barring Smash Wiki itself) stick purely to covering Smash content that is relevant to its franchise. The only thing different here is that Mario gets more representation than other franchises; that alone doesn't mean we should have tons of articles and information on things that have no relation to Mario. Bulbapedia doesn't have articles on Bayonetta, Rathalos, Tabuu, etc., but we do!
 * 7) Per 7feetunder, as well as Bazooka Mario in the comments.
 * 8) Per 7feetunder
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) I am guilty od adding many spirits to spirits page, something I regret doing so. I planned on making similar TPP but never got around it. Per all.
 * 11) This is Super Mario Wiki. Nobody would expect to find these things here.
 * 12) Per proposal and 7feetunder
 * 13) Per proposal. Smash Bros. it's its own series which compiles content from other series.

Support (excluding the removal of non-Mario fighter spirits, trophies, etc)
Trophies and spirits from other franchises that aren't Mario aren't information relevant to MarioWiki.
 * 1) - If it has a page, is fair game, is how I see it.
 * 2) Strong support. We went out of our way to limit coverage of the Super Smash Bros. franchise itself, which has more in common with the Mario franchise than any other singular franchises represented in it. In that case, why pray tell do we have so much irrelevant coverage on Zelda, Star Fox, Kirby and many others? However, as Glowsquid stated above, any extra-Mario subject that has a page here for one reason or another should still be allowed additional info like trophy and spirit information.
 * 3) I'm additionally fine with this being the case, though the above option is preferred in my opinion.
 * 4) I'm more than happy for the articles to be downsized in my opinion, considering how large the List of trophies in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U article is, with not much information on Mario and more-so on other franchises.
 * 5) - We really don't need all of these lists of non-Mario stuff. I think all of the fighter spirits/trophies/stickers that aren't Mario-themed should also be removed from said list pages, but should be kept on the actual character's pages. For example, I think Link's Spirit shouldn't be included in the list of Spirits page, but should still stay on the Link article. Same thing with like the Sonic characters that crossed over in Mario & Sonic, with Banjo & Kazooie, with Villager/Isabelle, with Inklings, etc, since all of these crossed over in a Mario-themed game before. (I still think some pages like Cloud/Marth/Mementos/Bombchu/etc should be deleted in general due to never actually crossing over with Mario outside of Smash, but that's for another day I guess...)
 * 6) Second choice.
 * 7) - second choice
 * 8) This'll be my second choice if all else fails.
 * 9) Second choice.
 * 10) Second choice.

Oppose

 * 1) Traditionally our reduction in Smash Bros. coverage has always been to reduce the prominence of information, rather than outright remove it. I don't really feel comfortable going farther. I also worry that any other option we go for will look inconsistent and arbitrary to our readers, whether it's within our Smash coverage itself or with other crossovers. I'm especially opposed to Assist Trophies being tossed into this proposal since they have a much more significant impact on gameplay. Doing this will effectively leave us with an article that only partially explains what an item that Mario chcaracters can use does. Not listing every single collectible in the game is one thing, having an Assist Trophy page where we don't even acknowledge the majority of them is confusing and not very helpful. At that point we're starting to gut our coverage of the gameplay of the series itself, and I only see us being a few more proposals away from deleting the rest of the fighters entirely. I also have serious problems with this proposal as a whole which I have outlined in the comments, particularly that this proposal is far larger than it claims to be and tries to clump together too many unrelated subjects (of the 8 articles listed, I can think of 4 groups to accurately separate them into). (And actually I do find myself using the Spirit page here for all of them in general, I find it more helpful that they're on one page which afaik SmashWiki doesn't have)
 * 2) Per WT and my general opposition to removing Smash content.
 * 3) Per all. The Assist Trophies don't even take up a lot of space, they just describe what they do in Smash Bros. like the other things do. If we can fully cover the Mario & Sonic games and have pages about characters like Sticks the Badger, I don't see why Smash should be treated differently. It's not really unrelated to Mario if it's in Smash.
 * 4) - Per Waluigi Time both here and in the comments. I just don't see the point in outright removing all of this unless it explicitly clashes with the coverage policy (which it doesn't seem to) or substantially slows down the entire Wiki. I also don't think elements that have a larger effect on gameplay (Assist Trophies, maybe Subspace) should be lumped together with things that are primarily collectibles (Trophies, Stickers...) - unless the plan is to outright get rid of all non-Mario Smash coverage entirely, in which case this feels like a half measure. And either way, why would it be better to remove it entirely rather than just rewriting and condensing it to solve the size issue?
 * 5) Per all
 * 6) Per Waluigi Time. While I can agree that maybe trimming down content like trophies, stickers and trophies wouldn't be that bad, I feel Subspace and Smash Run enemies and Assist Trophies are a bit more involved and could stand to have their lists kept.
 * 7) Initially, I supported this proposal. However, after considering it more, I have decided that I agree with some of the points brought up by Waluigi Time, MrConcreteDonkey, and Tails777. I do personally still believe that the lists of trophies, stickers, and spirits should definitely be cut down, as there is no reason for them to be among the longest articles on the wiki. However, I agree that Assist Trophies and the Subspace and Smash Run enemies have a much more significant role, and thus I do not feel it makes sense to group them in with the lists of collectibles, since it would be inconsistent with how we currently cover other items that have a larger impact on gameplay. I fully agree with the idea of possibly limiting Super Smash Bros. content, but I feel this proposal currently combines subjects that do not have a completely similar impact on gameplay.
 * 8) Per all. I've never been a fan of reducing SSB coverage anyway.
 * 9) Too much will be removed in the process.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) While I agree with the idea of this proposal, I think it might be biting off a little bit more than it can chew. I think it could use a little bit more thinking through and maybe some splitting down to try to work through some more of the concerns with it before I'd be happy to support it.
 * 12) Per Results May Vary.
 * 13) Per all.
 * 14) While I am a bit indifferent about how we handle Smash coverage, it seems like removing so much like this is not a very smart idea after all.
 * 15) Per all.
 * 16) I hate the way Smash content is represented here, but I certainly wouldn't call this a reasonable alternative to what we currently have.
 * 17) Per all.
 * 18) After rereading the proposal, I think it's best to stick with the status quo. Per all.

Comments
@Waluigi Time We shouldn't not do something because another wiki is lacking. In addition, I do see any reason to stop at removing info if there's no reason for the info to be on this wiki in the first place, and it's not like we haven't removed swaths of non-pertinent info in the past (like with how we previously had a ton of Banjo content). 17:19, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm not saying that's why we shouldn't remove it, just addressing the comment you made. I agree in theory - the Banjo and Conker content was way out of scope and didn't need to be here, and we don't need to keep unrelated content just because some people may find it helpful. Smash however is too intertwined with the Mario series for me to be comfortable with throwing large parts of our coverage out completely. -- 17:33, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * How is Smash intertwined? While yes, there's a lot of content themed around the franchise, it's not like the actual Mario franchise takes inspiration from Smash itself, or vice versa. 17:37, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * There's enough Mario content in the series for me to consider it a proper crossover (i.e. Mario & Sonic or Fortune Street) worthy of covering. It's not like Banjo and Conker where they happened to appear in Diddy Kong Racing as advertisement and never touched the Mario franchise again (until Banjo in Smash obviously). -- 17:39, February 28, 2021 (EST)

While I prefer the second option over outright removing everything, since there's no reason not to keep information on subjects we cover, after all, I can't see it working out too well... Crossover characters can gain relevance to the Mario franchise at any time, either through becoming a fighter or other means, and if we give them articles then we'd also have to dig up all of the Smash info we used to have for that character and restore it, and possibly end up missing some along the way. Additionally, this option only makes exceptions for non-Mario fighters. What about characters like Knuckles? He's not a fighter but still has a page. -- 17:53, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm only giving exceptions to fighters due to having a larger importance. Knuckles doesn't have a page because he's in Smash - he has a page due to Mario & Sonic. Anyways, we shouldn't keep unneeded info because of the mere possibility of a character becoming more relevant - that's like saying we should keep the humans page in case a reason to have it independent of categories latter pops up. If, in the future, a removed spirit becomes a fighter, then we can re-add it then, but's it's no reason to keep massive quantities of non-pertinent info. 18:22, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * That seems almost arbitrary, to be honest. Some non-Mario characters we cover get to have their information kept, but others don't? It's pretty bizarre that Knuckles would still have his trophy/spirit/sticker information on his own page (I assume it would stay), but the pages covering those items as a whole including lists would make no mention of them. I don't see how this is comparable to the human page at all, either. The human page is being proposed for deletion because there's currently no useful information to cover there. It's not any extra effort to start a new article with information that we never had before. This on the other hand would be information that currently is useful and if the option passes, could and would be brought back at any time. -- 18:30, February 28, 2021 (EST)


 * How would the resulting list be organised? "Mario spirits", "Non-Mario fighter spirits" and "Spirits of subjects that appear in other Mario media"? I feel like if they were otherwise merged without sections, the list would look kind of... random: A list of Mario subjects with a number of non-Mario subjects mixed in, which might lead some readers to wonder why some are listed and some aren't.


 * "Knuckles would still have his trophy/spirit/sticker information on his own page (I assume it would stay)" About that... Just to clarify, if option 2 passes, does this just apply to the lists, and not their individual pages? In other words, would articles on non-Mario, non-fighter subjects that have spirit, trophy etc. information (e.g. Moogle) retain those sections? I think they should at least be kept on their own pages in a similar approach to the Captain N info for Simon Belmont, in that "They have a page, they appear in this thing we also cover; we should mention it." 05:31, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * The proposal as a whole only impacts lists. Thus, Knuckles will to retain any Smash info, Moogle will, fighter pages will still list their trophies, etc. What to do with these non-list pages is for another proposal. 17:52, March 1, 2021 (EST)

Would this proposal impact the Subspace Army article? It is not specifically listed, but I feel the "Basic troops" section of the article is a similar situation to the List of Smash Run enemies article. -- 19:56, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * It wouldn't, as like with the Pokemon article, it is entirely about a non-Mario subject that would end up deleting the page if all non-Mario content was removed, and it is thus out of this proposal's reach. 23:02, February 28, 2021 (EST)
 * There are Mario enemies in the Subspace Army, though, similar to the Smash Run enemies. 05:31, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * My mistake. I have rectified that. 09:10, March 1, 2021 (EST)

I'm pretty indifferent on the proposal. I don't have a problem with the way we handle Smash content now (except for the absurdly long list pages of trophies and spirits). So I'll just help with whatever outcome happens, should pages need deleted. What I *do* see a problem with, though, is how this effects our other crossover content. With what is said on Coverage, every element in a crossover game gets full coverage as if it's relevant to the Mario series. Be it Mario & Sonic, Fortune Street, and even elements that cross over with Mario such as Link in Mario Kart 8. I realize the page states that Smash is decided on a more particular basis, but it is still a crossover game, so removing all Mario content when other crossover games do not will look very out of place, imo. 00:24, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * The content being removed here isn't Mario content, though. Any spirits, assists, etc that are actually directly related to the franchise will be kept, but stuff like Bonkers on the Smash Run enemies page will be purged. Bonkers in Smash Run isn't Mario related, and thus removing him from the page isn't removing Mario content as much as it is removing Smash content.

In addition, this doesn't really affect other crossover content. As you stated, that page notes that Smash content is treated differently. It wouldn't look weird to treat this differently from Fortune Street and Mario & Sonic: those two are crossovers much more exclusively focused on the two franchises represented, compared to Smash which not only covers dozens of different franchises to different degrees but is altogether its own thing, with a good amount of original content and characters. You could very much classify Smash as its own franchise independent of any individual ip represented, compared to Fortune Street which is very much only a Dragon Quest and a Mario game, not part of an independent franchise, if that makes any sense. If anything what looks out of place is the sheer amount of content we have with other franchises which have absolutely nothing to do with Mario, though I understand that's a different topic for a different proposal. 09:10, March 1, 2021 (EST)

In the case of Trophies, Stickers and Spirits, I can agree to that. Mii Fighter costumes, maybe too. But I feel Subspace/Smash Run enemies could remain, as they have a more involved role in their respective modes. That’s just my opinion on this topic.
 * But respective modes aren't in a Mario game. Why should we, a Mario Wiki, care about how important non-Mario enemies are in a non-Mario mode in a non-Mario game? 17:49, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * A fair point, but I still believe the physical, role playing appearance is a bit more deserving of coverage compared to a cameo as a sticker, trophy or spirit. I can say the same about Assist Trophies; they play a more involved role in the core gameplay of Smash. And yes, Smash is a non-Mario mode. And Smash is the only way to play on non-Mario stages and use non-Mario characters. The cameos of Trophies, Stickers and Spirits is something I can agree on, but involved roles through Subspace enemies, Smash Run enemies and Assist Trophies seems a bit of a stretch to me at the moment. 16:44, March 4, 2021 (EST)

Right, I'm not quite sure where to vote here yet, but I wanted to ask some questions about some of the unusual cases that I don't think have been covered in the proposal as it stands (If I've misread the proposal and it is included, or I just haven't understood it right, please let me know): I might still be missing some stuff, but I'd at least like to know what the plans are for stuff like this, as if this isn't thought out there's going to be a big mess to clean up if it comes to execution time, and I don't think we want to have to set up another load of proposals just to sort through the case by case ones. BBQ Turtle (talk) 16:29, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * So, just to clarify what's happening to the stuff for characters that aren't fighters but have pages for other reasons, like the Sonic or Pac-Man characters? I've seen it's been discussed already but I don't quite understand what the current position is.
 * What happens to stuff that isn't a fighter but already has a page, like the various items or Skyloft?
 * When you say about keeping the fighters' spirits/trophies, what exactly do you mean by that? Is that only keeping the ones specifically tied to Smash, or does that include anything that features them, such as the goodness knows how many Link's got? And how would that work with ones that got trophies in earlier instalments and became fighters later, like King Dedede or Little Mac? What about spirits for Min Min, she's a funny case as she's got two? And what would happen for fighters who have multiple costume spirits, like the Heroes, Corrins and Inklings?
 * Would stickers that feature non-Mario characters but specifically affect them (i.e. the ones that can only be used on certain characters) be kept or removed?
 * What about vice versa, are the non-Mario related conditions going to be removed as well?
 * What about spirits where the battles feature Mario characters representing non-Mario characters, what happens to those? And the vice versa of that one too.
 * Is there a full plan for what's going to happen to the Assist Trophy page? I was just taking a look at it to check my facts, and if we just chuck all of the non-Mario characters it's going to leave a really big mess behind, so some thoughts on a future structure might be nice.
 * Has some thought been given to what's going to happen to somewhat-related characters that don't have a page, such as the Arcade Bunny or Nikki from Swapnote? I think R.O.B.'s stuff might also fall into this category, so are there any thoughts what's happening there?
 * In order:


 * Under the first option, all non-Mario list items will be removed. This includes non-fighters that have pages for other reasons. Under the second option, non-Mario fighters will be kept with everything else being kept, so Sonic would stay but Blinky would not. Under the third option, non-Mario fighters and non-Mario items that have pages for other reasons would be kept, but the rest would be removed, so both Sonic and Blinky (Pac-Man ghosts, in this case) would be kept but Bonkers wouldn't. Option 4 wouldn't do anything.
 * See above. Skyloft trophies/other would be removed under options 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4. Same with items.
 * For the sake of simplicity, under options 2 or 3 the only fighter spirits kept would be the spirits of the fighter type. So with Link, his fighter spirit, as well as Toon Link and Young Link's fighter spirits would stay, but the Link (The Legend of Zelda) wouldn't, as that is a primary (3) sprit, not a fighter one. Min Min would also follow this; her primary (2) spirit would go, but her actual fighter spirit would stay. Any list item of a character which only became playable in a later instalment would be removed, so Little Mac's assist would go as he wasn't a fighter in that game.
 * Stickers are pretty different from the other items here, as non-Mario stickers can exclusively affect Mario characters. As to not remove any info actually pertinent to the franchise, I would suggest only removing those that don't exclusively for some of the Mario fighters, and just put them under a header like "Stickers not from the Mario franchise that can be applied to Mario fighters". The proposal is about removed information not pertinent to the actual Mario franchise, not about removing any actual, valid, pertinent info.
 * Any sticker or spirit which is kept will have said sticker/spirit's full information.
 * My plan is that we'll simply remove the template info of any deleted item, and that the correlating trophy info + gallery images would also be removed.
 * I don't know what you mean by "somewhat" related. The Arcade Bunny as in the character is not related to the Mario franchise. The Nintendo Badge Arcade as in the video game is related to the franchise, but the character is not, and thus he would still be removed. As for Swapnote, while the actual application is related, Nikki the character is not, so again she would be removed.
 * I appreciate the concern. Please add any addition questions and I'll try to respond in due time. 17:49, March 1, 2021 (EST)

So here's the issue I have with the Assist Trophy page in general being trimmed, a bit more fleshed out after having thought about it for a while. Short of failing entirely, this proposal will remove certain characters from the Assist Trophy page entirely. Now here's the issue: We have a page for an item that can be used by Mario franchise characters that no longer fully explains what the item does. You could argue the item's sole function is "spawns a character" and stop at that, but that only opens up more questions. What characters? What do they do? I see no benefit to ignoring Assist Trophy characters for the sake of "not Mario". I also feel the same way about the Pokemon, though I think it could be beneficial to heavily trim that page and just merge it to Poke Ball. -- 16:50, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * The Assist Trophy page will still have an intro explaining what the actual item does. That's not going anywheres. It will still explain its basic function, and what they (in general) will do. We don't need to list non-Mario assists or what those in specific do as the actual info isn't pertinent to the actual franchise, and bloats the page for those who want Mario info on a Mario site. As for Pokemon, that's not for this proposal, as that entire page is about a subject with literally nothing to do with the franchise; if we were to remove non-pertinent info they we would just end up deleting the page, and again, that's for another proposal. 17:57, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * I strongly disagree. If the article's content only explains that the item spawns something, but then doesn't say what it spawns or what the things it spawns do, that's not at all helpful or comprehensive. Why we should have a bizarre half-article just because the item can spawn some non-Mario things is beyond me. -- 18:23, March 1, 2021 (EST)

"The fighter pages. Even if the trophy/list pages have non-Mario content removed, any spirit or trophy info on any fighter's page will still remain." A question: why should their trophy bios remain? The information doesn't really come from a Mario source does it? 17:19, March 1, 2021 (EST)
 * The page doesn't aim to affect the fighter pages. The info about their moves also doesn't come from a Mario source, but it's still there. That's a topic for a future proposal. 17:49, March 1, 2021 (EST)

With all due respect to Doomhiker, and my opposition to the premise aside, this proposal is very flawed. To my knowledge, there was not any discussion anywhere else prior to this being proposed, and it shows. There's already been a lot of confusion and disagreement about what should and shouldn't be included in this proposal that could have easily been cleared up if this was discussed. Furthermore, this proposal was originally and still is being purported as "smaller-scale", yet is quickly snowballing out of control into an all-encompassing blanket proposal that, as far as I can tell, is now affecting the majority of our Smash coverage, for the most part only stopping short of pages that would be deleted entirely. (And I take serious issue with this as well - several of these subjects have been added after many users already voted and aren't comparable with what was already included in the proposal, which while allowed, is a very bad idea for something as delicate as Smash coverage.) Many of these subjects simply aren't at all comparable with each other and have been tossed in with no regards to their effects on gameplay, and some of Doomhiker's statements make me believe that this ignorance of gameplay is by design, which I find very concerning. Even trophies, stickers, and spirits, some of the most closely related things on this list, aren't 100% comparable. Trophies are a bit easier to deal with since they're really just collectibles, but what about non-Mario stickers that have effects on Mario characters specifically, or non-Mario spirits that have Mario characters in their spirit battles? How are we supposed to organize those in a way that doesn't immediately appear awful and inconsistent to our readers?

tl;dr This proposal, while claiming to be "smaller-scale", is far too broad and trying to clump together too many unrelated subjects. I strongly suggest either canceling this proposal for the time being and starting a discussion instead to iron out the issues, or opposing it for the same reasons so we can come back to it later. -- 11:23, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * ok so. No offense to anyone but. There was actually quite a bit of discussion about doing the things this proposal aims to do on the discord a couple weeks ago. The only thing that has been added to the proposal since it was created was the subspace army, the rest were going to be in the proposal from the start. If someone wants to look up say a list of trophies in super smash brothers for the nintendo 23ds xl & watch they're more likely to look on the smash wiki other than here, I don't think we should be the wiki with the biggest trophy lists because this is the mario wiki. I see no reason not to remove all these things, they're related in that they're completely irrelevant to mario as a series. All of the items listed here except Assist Trophies don't have much of an effect on gameplay beyond status effects. non-mario stickers that only affect mario characters or non-mario spirits that have mario characters in their spirit battles shouldnt be covered imo, their only relation with the mario series is by proxy. 13:26, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * Well I'm glad to hear there was at least some discussion on this prior, though I don't think there was enough since there are still glaring issues that were already pointed out in the first two days of this proposal. Your stance on the stickers is contradictory to what Doomhiker has already said (he said they should be kept), and rightfully so. Removing items that only specific Mario characters can use for the sake of removing content that's not relevant to the Mario series makes absolutely no sense. I don't think I need to explain why. Similarly, I don't see any value in removing coverage of battles that Mario characters fight in for the sake of removing content not relevant to the Mario series. I think you're shifting the goal posts a bit here, since a tangible connection to the Mario series has been pointed out and now you're just devaluing those things entirely. -- 13:43, March 2, 2021 (EST)

I think ultimately, the fact that the Mario representation in Smash covers four separate franchises, countless subseries, and a disproportionately large amount of every smaller factor of each of the games that saying "not Mario related" to any portion of it is incredibly shortsighted. As mentioned, Mario characters can already use the items/spirits/stickers/whathaveyou, and honestly, considering unlike any other franchise represented, the representation in question is so large it can't just be summarized in a few sentences, that not going all the way with explaining it is doing nothing but a disservice to our readers. And whether they'd look on Smashwiki or not is irrelevant; not only are we not at all bound by what a separate wiki does, but Smashwiki is a totally different animal full of fan jargon, other fan-related stuff, and absolutely no consideration for casual players of the game. So no, removing that stuff from here, where it is written in a way normal people can understand, is a shortsighted thing to do that will do nothing but leave behind a bunch of glaring half-articles that won't look good no matter how you slice it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:39, March 2, 2021 (EST)

My concern is that deleting so much Smash content without relocating it elsewhere will result in a lot of wasted time & effort. As Doc said, SmashWiki is filled with fan jargon & does not neutrally accommodate for both causal and competitive players. Personally I'd want an alternative Super Smash Bros. wiki for the content to be relocated to (honestly an alternative for any big Nintendo franchise in the Mario Wiki format would be nice) so that all this content isn't wasted and so it can reach its potential. Results May Vary (talk) 15:24, March 2, 2021 (EST)

@Waluigi Time, all the options in here have something in common; they're lists with some Mario content, but heaps of completely unrelated fluff. It's far from too broad: I specifically designed this to avoid affecting stages, fighter pages, the game pages, and to avoid having any item page deleted. There's been years' worth of discussions about this and related subject; no need to delay it more. I'm not cancelling. I did not say that stickers should be kept; I made it clear that stickers that do absolutely zilch when it comes to the franchise (not being equip able by Mario characters, as unlike spirits or assist what sticks can be removed is fighter-specific, or not being from the actual franchise. Removing non-Mario items makes sense. We're the Mario wiki, not a Smash wiki, not a general video game wiki. Like, if we for some odd reason we had a page on Sonic Adventure because of some dated policy, would that be called removing content for the sake of removing content? We can't just cover anything we feel like covering; there needs to be limits, and imo the wiki is still passing those limits.I'm also not trying to devalue anything; we just aren't the type of wiki which needs this stuff. @Doc Smashwikis problems are shortcoming should have no effect on what we do with this wiki. We shouldn't keep unneeded content just to make up for an unrelated shit wiki, as we don't exist to make up for other wikis' shortcomings. In addition, a Mario Wiki article with only Mario content isn't going to leave "half-articles", it'll leave articles which are complete in the context of the Mario Wiki and the Mario franchise. It's not shortsighted to say that Akira, a character that has zilch to do with the franchise besides for appearing in a game in a completely different franchise, is unrelated to Mario. "not going all the way with it" isn't going to disservice our readers; this is a Mario Wiki, so we only need to cover the actual Mario content, doing so isn't "going halfway", and it's not like Smash games are Mario games. @RMV, again, the failings of other wikis shouldn't effect our own wiki. It's not wasted effort; anyone can go and look up the revision history and copy-paste templates if they're really desperate. It's a wiki, some content, no matter what, will end up being deleted or edited to the point of being unrecognizable. 17:57, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * That's the problem. You're looking at it from the angle of "they are all lists of Smash stuff", I'm looking at it from the angle of "these are separate kinds of subjects which should be dealt with separately", a position that as far as I'm aware is historically consistent with how we've always done things. They are similar articles, yes, but completely different subjects, and you could make any ridiculous blanket proposal you want by taking that logic and running with it. Ideally, this would be split into four proposals - collectibles (trophies, stickers, spirits), customizations (Mii gear), enemies (Subspace Army and Smash Run), and an Assist Trophy proposal, possibly split even further to account for the nuances of the different collectibles. I understand you meant that only non-Mario stickers which have effects specific to Mario characters would be kept, my apologies if that was unclear - I was specifically referring to TheDarkStar's position that non-Mario stickers and spirits should be removed regardless of any relation to the Mario franchise (this was also what my "devaluing" content was reflected towards). As for the Sonic Adventure comparison, I find it very hard to imagine any scenario in which we would have justified a Sonic Adventure page, and frankly I'm not a fan of comparisons like this. A comparison that would make more sense would be Banjo and Conker, but even still there's really nothing you can 100% compare properly to Smash, which the Mario franchise has actually been a part of (and continues to be) since the beginning. -- 18:14, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * You completely neglected to acknowledge my main point of Mario's disproportionately large representation in order to go after some minor side-issue I brought up. Don't do that. Mario, Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario are all treated as separate franchises by it, and that's not even getting into the different subseries (Super Mario, Dr. Mario, Mario Kart, Wrecking Crew, etc.) it covers. Additionally, the mere fact that Mario is always the most prominent character on the covers, first one on the character select, first character trophy, and treated as the most basic "default" character points to it being at least more than a little related. And before anyone goes "but World of Light so it's really Kirby," Sakurai is on record for saying his original choices for starter characters in that were Palutena and/or Bayonetta, and they're definitely minor characters in the grand scheme of things. And need I remind you it's not just "Smash," but SUPER Smash BROS.? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:15, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * The fact that Mario content take up a decent chunk of the franchise's content doesn't automatically mean that we should treat it similar to a Mario content, or give depth to droves and droves of unrelated stuff. Also, in SSBU, there's 12 Mario-related fighters; out of the 87 fighters with the DLC, that means that all four of the Mario franchises in Smash only take up a mere 13.79% percent of the roster. That's not a bit of "disproportionately large representation" even relative to other series: Pokemon has 9 (counting PKMN Trainer as 3) equating to 10.34%, Fire Emblem has 8 equating to 9.2%. Mario being the first on the character select, being prominent on the cover doesn't mean that the Smash franchise is squared and mainly focused on Mario and that we thus should cover it en mass, when it comes to cover art Link and Pikachu both have been just as prominent (Pikachu is flat out front and center for Smash 4 Wii U); I don't see the correlation between box art and coverage. Mario's likely the "default" character here simply because he's one of Nintendo's most profitable and popular characters; not because he defines Smash. Also, the Super Bros title thing is looking too deep into it; plenty of game have had "super" in their name, and the bros. part may just be referring to the variety of characters, sometimes with a degree of familiarity. (Bros. has also been in other video game titles too, like Snow Bros.). 18:38, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * Having "Super" and "Bros." at the same time is clearly derivative, though, and pretending it might not be is just silly. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:48, March 2, 2021 (EST)
 * It could be derivative for the reason that it draws more attention from the many potential buyers who are acknowledged with Nintendo's most popular franchise, Super Mario Bros., which would make it a purely marketing-based decision. Same thing can be said about Mario’s prominence on promotional material—his recognizability is being exploited with the endgame being larger sales. That doesn't change the fact that the Smash Bros. series is not solely focused on Mario with his role in these games being one as big as Zelda's, Corrin's, and Duck Hunt Duo's. In fact, Mario hasn’t always been the only central boxart figure. Regarding the title, there is a similar case in Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island where the title pretends there's a significant link between this game and Super Mario World when there isn't, probably also with the intention of driving more sales. 20:24, March 2, 2021 (EST)

So I have to ask, why should Smash take a backseat to other crossovers anyway? There's a lot of franchises represented in Smash, sure, but that doesn't at all diminish the prominent role the Mario franchise has in it. It's just as important as any other franchise, and in all honesty probably way more important than the majority of them because, well, it's Mario. I would argue that "too many franchises" alone being the reason for not covering it is getting dangerously close to the practice of not covering things because there's "too much information". And at that point, what even determines if there's "too many franchises"? The amount of franchises represented in the game alone? (And in Smash's case specifically, how would this be determined? Do random games getting, for example, a handful of trophies or spirits but nothing else, count toward the total? Or is it only franchises that have fighters, stages, and items? Potentially only some of those criteria?) Is it the percentage of Mario content in the game? (Again, how would this be determined? Only certain types of content? Absolutely everything in the game?) And how would either of these standards not be completely arbitrary, especially when software updates or DLC can skew these numbers at any time? Or are there no standards whatsoever and it's just some sort of gut level feeling? (Probably not the best way to run a wiki especially if you at all value consistency) This doesn't just affect Smash, realistically it affects our coverage of crossovers in general. Would we axe a good chunk of our Mario & Sonic coverage if they added a third franchise to the mix? If not, what about a fourth or a fifth? How arbitrarily big does a crossover have to become before we decide "nah, this isn't important enough to Mario anymore"? Will we ever get a crossover even close to as big as Smash again for any of what I said to even be important? Highly unlikely, but these are still questions that should probably be answered. -- 10:49, March 3, 2021 (EST)
 * My guess is that by the nature of many franchises being repped, this makes Smash less of a Mario game compared to Fortune Street and Mario & Sonic games. It's also suggested in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia (yeah I know) that Mario doesn't play a major role compared to the classifications of the other crossovers. Instead of taking half of the content, Mario takes only a fraction. If they added a third franchise to Mario & Sonic, I still think proportionally, Mario is still a good chunk. Asking about fourth and fifth does muddy that water a bit, but there's not many games that do strictly four or five way crossovers that I can think of. Usually when it's more than three (even three I'm not having much idea) it's a general crossover of multiple franchises. I don't think it's relevant to ask. 00:31, March 4, 2021 (EST)
 * With all due respect to the Encyclopedia (who am I kidding, it doesn't deserve any) I really disagree with that. Mario is just as important to Smash as Link, Kirby, or Pikachu. To say that he's less important just because of the sheer amount of characters represented is looking at it from the wrong perspective, imo. (And if this was referring to the Mario franchise rather than Mario himself, swap out characters for franchises. My argument remains the same otherwise.) -- 11:09, March 4, 2021 (EST)

@7feetunder: The "other NIWA wikis don't do this" argument has been used many times before and the response is always we don't base our content on other wikis. Do you care to expand on why you think following in the footsteps of those other wikis is worth emulating here? -- 11:31, March 4, 2021 (EST)
 * Because we're the sole exception here. Obviously other wikis do things different from us (Pikipedia allows strategies, Smash Wiki covers the competitive scene), but it's still really telling that we're the only ones (besides Smash Wiki, of course) that cover Smash this much. If there were a good reason for it, I'd understand, but there is none. Like I said, the only difference between Mario and other franchises represented in Smash is that Mario has more of it. It still only accounts for a fraction of the representation. It's not marketed as a Mario game, it's marketed as a massive Nintendo (and increasingly, non-Nintendo) crossover fighter, and Mario just happens to be Nintendo's flagship franchise, so it gets the most reps. SSX on Tour has three Mario reps as playable characters, so unless you think we should have full coverage of that game, yes, we do have to decide what crossovers qualify for full coverage and which ones don't, otherwise this wiki would be bloated with extraneous articles and information. If a game comes out that we're not sure of, that's what discussions and proposals are for. Because let's be real, who's going to Super Mario Wiki to look up info on Solid Snake? 14:54, March 4, 2021 (EST)
 * Literally me 10 years ago? Anyways, I personally feel the title similarity at the very least indicates it is (or at least initially was) marketed as a Mario derivative, with the increasing divergence being comparable to the DK, Yoshi, and Wario games and how little they tend to have to do with the "core" Mario much of the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:22, March 4, 2021 (EST)
 * You're just sidestepping the issue here. I asked for something more than "other wikis don't do this" and all you gave me was "we're the only one that does this", which is just the same thing. What are your reasons for thinking that our current Smash coverage is an issue that don't take any other wikis into account? Admittedly you do bring up an interesting point regarding SSX on Tour, though I'd like to point out that we already have guidelines for distinguishing between proper crossovers and mere guest appearances not worthy of full coverage. I'd whole-heartedly categorize SSX on Tour as the latter since 1. It's part of a game series that already existed and 2. The game was released on multiple consoles and had the Mario content cut from the rest of them, clearly showing that this was never intended to be a Mario crossover game, just a fun extra for the Gamecube version. (Sidenote, I find it humorous how the supporters for this proposal keep rhetorically asking "who's going to read this on our wiki anyway" while handwaving away examples of people who actually have done that as irrelevant to the proposal. If it's not relevant, don't bring it up? Not saying you're one of the ones handwaving, but this isn't the first time it's been used.) -- 17:19, March 4, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm not sidestepping anything. Only the first three sentences of my previous comment had anything to do with the "other wikis don't do this" bit, the rest stand on their own. Not sure how you got that impression, but it's false. Anyway, the point I was trying to convey with even bothering to bring those up (and I realize I didn't make this clear enough) is that if we were for instance, a Pokémon wiki, would you still be advocating for full coverage of Smash? Would you go to a Fire Emblem wiki (or any other franchise with large representation in Smash) expecting to find articles on Rathalos and Mr. Saturn? What makes Mario so special that Smash needs to be treated like full-on Mario games instead of the massive multi-franchise crossovers they are? There's nothing different about Mario 's representation in Smash other than that there's more of it. 1/3 of Nintendo Land's attractions/minigames are themed off of Mario and its offshoots, but we still only cover the Mario content, even deleting Monita's article via proposal (and that's a standalone game and Wii U exclusive, so the arguments you made against SSX on Tour don't apply). Lastly, about the "who would look this stuff up here" bit: just because someone may find some use for us having an article on Rathalos doesn't mean we should have one, I'm sure someone out there also thought it was useful for us to have a list of characters who kissed Mario, but we still got rid of that, and for good reason. The only reasons to look up Solid Snake here instead of, say, Wikipedia or a Metal Gear wiki, is because you either A) want to know how he relates to the Mario franchise (with the answer being "he doesn't, outside of being in Smash) or B) you are already have prior knowledge of Super Mario Wiki's Smash coverage and want info specifically on his Smash appearances (in which case Smash Wiki is much more comprehensive). So, it's not irrelevant, it's just not good enough. 01:01, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * So here's the thing. I wouldn't necessarily just go on any wiki and push for them to start fully covering Smash if they don't already. Every wiki does things their own way and that's fine. But we already do cover Smash, and I personally see no benefit to removing that coverage. As for Nintendo Land, I wouldn't really consider that a proper Mario crossover either since if you'll notice, no Mario characters or locations actually physically appear. It's all just theme park attractions and Miis in costumes, but no elements of the Mario series appear proper. -- 11:56, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * "We already cover the Smash content, so we might as well keep it" is not an argument. It's conservative, change-fearing hogwash. Whether or not the Smash content already exists on the wiki should not be a factor whatsoever. Things change, and so does this wiki. There was a time when people made proposals to split levels from their worlds that failed. Nowadays, such a thing would be preposterous. If that can change, than so can our Smash coverage. There is a benefit to removing it - less Mario-irrelevant junk on our wiki. Smash gets more and more content with each installment, which means more and more articles on Mario-irrelevant fighters, items, stages, and bosses every time a new game or DLC comes out. It's not even consistent; we have articles on every Subspace Emissary stage but almost nothing on Ultimate 's World of Light. 18:38, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * That wasn't the point I was trying to make at all. I'm not saying "change is bad", I'm saying "I don't think this particular change is good". There's a difference between being afraid of change for the sake of it and disagreeing with a specific change being made. I don't consider Smash "Mario-irrelevant junk" and therefore don't think removing it would be a good idea. Also, I've played World of Light and watched Subspace Emissary, I don't see any inconsistency between our coverage of the two since they're vastly different game modes, but I'd be happy to give my thoughts on it if you care to point it out. -- 19:18, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * If you don't see any inconsistency, you aren't looking hard enough. Since you say you've played World of Light, you know that it's split into three major overworlds, each of which has sub-areas. We don't have articles on any of them, just a brief mention of the DK Island sub-area (which is a recreation of the DKC Kongo Jungle map) on the Kongo Jungle and Donkey Kong Island articles. In fact, just about the only thing in World of Light we do cover is the bosses. But Subspace Emissary? Full coverage of every stage, articles on Subspace itself, the Subspace Gunship, Subspace Bomb, Dark Cannon, the Isle of Ancients, Shadow Bugs... what makes The Subspace Emissary so much more worthy of coverage than World of Light? 19:47, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * Subspace Emissary's stages aren't comparable to World of Light, which is really just a glorified world map. (Although we do have an article for Subspace Emissary's world map - which technically should be merged to the Brawl article, since there was a successful TPP back in 2010 to merge it with Subspace Emissary, which has since been merged to the Brawl page, but it was never enacted, and there's no counterproposal that I know of.) But if it's not covered as well as it should be, then it should be expanded. World of Light doesn't exactly have a lot of content unique to it that we would even give coverage to. The Spirit battles aren't changed at all from their Spirit Board counterparts, and the bosses except for Galeem and Dharkon can be fought in Classic Mode routes. There's not even any unique stages there besides the final battle, which is arguably a very heavily modified Final Destination. -- 20:03, March 6, 2021 (EST)

If it helps any of you feel better, I've been hard at work relocating the content (and rewriting) to another wiki (CC-BY-SA compatible) over the past week. Might not be the correct place to mention this, but I can see that Smash coverage is a divisive issue on this wiki, likely in part because some have been used to it on here for several years. Results May Vary (talk) 09:25, March 12, 2021 (EST)
 * Obviously I'd prefer the content to stay here, but I appreciate that it won't be going to waste at least (assuming this proposal does pass). I think a more casual Smash Bros. wiki would be a good resource. -- 16:59, March 12, 2021 (EST)

Glowsquid's comment
I wasn't sure about posting this comment since it's really more about my thoughts about the wiki's coverage of Smash in general rather than the specific points discussed in the proposal, but clearly it's what this comments section turned toward so whatever. At least I'll have something I can link back to.

A Mario crossover vs a adjectiveless crossover

I don’t feel Smash is the same thing as other crossovers featured on the wiki like the Mario & Sonic series, Fortune Street, etc. For Mario & Sonic, the pitch is having Mario and Sonic together, characters with a certain real-world history, is the core premise of the game. Something like Fortune Street is a bit more distanced because it was a long-running franchise before its Mario installments,, but even then a short research on the source series history show earlier installments did not have branded characters sot at least for Fortune Street and its DS predecessor specifically, the combination of Mario and Dragon Quest in a board game is the draw, and thus is makes sense to cover the game in full since Fortune Street is a game that has Mario at the core of its DNA, ie it’s a Mario crossover.

By contrast, the pitch for Smash Bros. is not “Super Mario vs everything else”, it’s ‘’Nintendo crossover’’. Since Mario is Nintendo’s mascot franchise and one of its biggest and most financially successful, there’s obviously a lot of content mined from Mario and its derived series… but not so much it can be said the basis, or cornerstone of the crossover nor is there any authorial statement it is foremost Mario with the other franchises along for the ride.

Oh yeah, the name. It’s probably true ‘’Super Smash Brothers’’ was specifically meant to riff on Super Mario Brothers, but one could just argue it was done for the pun rather than to highlight Mario is meant to be the star of the show. I don’t feel it changes what I argue above.

On cascading coverage and why I think our way of covering Smash Bros. goes into nonsense territory

Smash Bros is a very modular game with a lot of content and mechanics that interact with each other. Currently the thinking is -> Mario characters are playable in the game (and there is other Mario stuff) -> The game gets a page (that part I don’t object to) -> The other characters/items/stages that are not from Mario also get a page, because Mario characters can fight those characters or use those tiems. It’s all quite logical on the surface

The comparison I’m about to make is quite niche and certainly painfully nerdy, but I feel it’s the one that most directly describe the way we do things right now and why I think they’re flawed: Let’s imagine for a moment that there is a wiki on the Mobile Suit Gundam media franchise (there’s one, but picture one that is more exhaustive and like us in term of coverage). Now a good Gundam wiki would cover the Super Robot Wars franchise: for those not familiar. Super Robot Wars is a long-running series of crossover video games that combines multiple franchises from the mech genre in turn-based strategy games that link all those franchises in one continuous storyline (usually). It makes sense: while Gundam is not the basis of the crossver (just as how Mario isn’t really the basis of Smash Bros.), the original anime and its countless sequels and alternate universe spinoffs makes up a large chunk of Super Robot War’s content, so it makes sense to talk about it.

However, if that Gundam Wiki applied the same logic to Super Robot War as we do to Smash Bros, it will go a lot beyond just talking about Super Robot Wars as it is relevant to Gundam. It would have individual pages on the mechs, characters, locations fictional concepts, etc. of other massively popular franchises like Super Dimension Fortress Macross, Mobile Police Patlabor, Neon Genesis Evangelion, the original characters and storylines of Super Robot Wars itself and countless other properties not mentioned, not just because the fictional storyline of Super Robot Wars have those properties intersect, but because the format of Super Robot Wars means you can have the robots from Gundam fight the robots from Macross in the game’s turn-based battles and that counts as an interaction, just as we justify having a page for Joker Persona 5, not because that character has any substantial narrative or real-world ties to the Mario franchise, but because he is playable in a crossover video game Mario also appears in, and Mario can punch him.

Now consider there are well over a dozen of Super Robot Wars games (though granted a subset of it only features the series original characters), exhaustive coverage would mean you end up neck-deep into complete nonsense territory, with well over hundreds of articles on robots, characters, lore etc, that ultimately don’t have any link to the Gundam franchise beyond that they appear in a crossover game, not a Gundam game, but a crossover game that Gundam appears in, taking the warped view that Super Robot Wars is not a crossover game that includes Gundam content, but a Gundam game that includes other fictional franchises. And I can take the analogy further: just as some users here appeal to keeping Smash Bros content not necessarily because of its relevance to Mario but because the existing Smash Bros resource is arguably lacking in certain regards, some users in this hypothetical Gundam wiki scenario could feel that, because of Wikipedia being what it is and the lack of dedicated ressources for the more obscure properties represented, the state of the matter would mean that the Gundam Wiki’s would ironically have the best pages on certains characters, etc, and even if a page on the protagonist of Detonator Orgun does not further the reader’s understand of Gundam as a fictional universe or real-world media franchise, that it should stay as an useful ressource to the western mech fandom. But the "we shouldn't base ourselves on other wikis" goes both ways; just as the fact NIWA wikis don't cover Smash Bros anywhere as rigolously as we do is not an argument in itself for scaling back our coverage, the feeling that the main Smash Bros ressource is lacking in some respects is not an argument to keep it either.

I was going to leave it at that, but the exchange featuring 7feetunder made me wonder... if we have page on Smash-exclusive characters on the basis of "Well you can fight those characters and pick up those items while playing as Mario characters", then for what reason really do we make a distinction for those EA gamecube games. The Mario characters in SSX and NBA Street V3 are just as fully realized as the other playable characters and not segregated to their own mode, meaning they can trade hoops and fouls just as well. Those games being released on other systems do not change that. Bring on the page I say! --Glowsquid (talk) 11:32, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * Those are guest appearances unique to a single release of a multiplatform game, whilst in Smash, Mario's depicted as a headliner character consistently. Those examples are more similar to Link in SoulCalibur II or all those random characters in that one Mortal Kombat game (or was it Tekken?). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:52, March 6, 2021 (EST)
 * I'm not sure if I 100% buy the distinction between Smash Bros. and the Mario & Sonic games. Barring the mere name, what's making Mario & Sonic a Mario crossover and not Smash Bros, and is it arbitrary to cut off the distinction of a part-way Mario game after a third franchise comes in? I know the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia kinda stuck at making Mario play a minor role in Smash Bros compared to a major role in Mario & Sonic, but that might owe to proportion of content rather than Mario's less dominant coexistence with the other franchises. I guess I can help in thinking that question over, that we don't consider Smash Bros a Pikmin crossover or a Animal Crossing crossover or a Legend of Zelda crossover, or it'll be odd to view it that way, compared to seeing Mario & Sonic as a Sonic crossover too or Fortune Street as a Dragon Quest crossover. Perhaps approaching from that angle can help people see that you mean by Smash Bros. having Mario crossed in does not a Mario crossover make. However, I do think the point about Shaquille O'Neal isn't super strong since you can argue guest characters in a game that isn't Mario, but my own devil's advocate asks, why would we have Joker's page, who is also arguably a guest character in Smash Bros., a game that isn't Mario as well? Why is Joker more justified than Shaquille O'Neal? Where does guest end and crossover begin? PM Mariothininking.png 00:33, March 7, 2021 (EST)

Move animal names from the Donkey Kong Country series to just their normal names
Resuming the proposal that left off here per responses in the comments. As I stated there, these animals are often referred to by just their names e.g. "Rambi", including in the credits of the first Donkey Kong Country, and in instruction manuals.

Proposer: Deadline: April 5, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) More common and concise.
 * 3) Sounds good to me.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all; also, I've started a similar discussion here.

Oppose

 * 1) Per Alex95's comment on the original proposal. Princess Peach is usually just Peach, but we use the full name anyway, and it's the same with other characters that have full names like the Sonic characters (unless it's more obscure like Yoshi's 'full name'). Readers searching for the shorter title isn't a problem because of redirects. That's my understanding at least.

Comments
@Results May Vary: You need to state your reason for supporting this proposal. 16:18, March 22, 2021 (EDT)

@Hewer: Except "Princess Peach" is used all the time, whereas "Rambi the Rhino" is barely ever used. 16:40, March 22, 2021 (EDT)
 * What about 'Princess Daisy'? That's very rarely used as far as I know, and it's still the title. There's also the Sonic characters who rarely go by their full names within the Mario & Sonic games. 16:46, March 22, 2021 (EDT)
 * I'm not too familiar with the Sonic franchise but I assume their full titles would be used within that franchise. I should also bring up the title of Bowser, who's full title is "King Bowser" used quite often in certain games, yet we still just call him "Bowser" since that's still used more often, even in profiles. Regarding Daisy, I'm also not familiar with basically any game she appears in (see my userpage why), but looking through her profile page you seem to be right about that, most cards and stuff title her as just "Daisy" but that can be a seperate discussion. In comparison to that, "Princess Peach" is used way more often on similar cards, along with in-game profiles, so keeping that title still makes the most sense. Back to the Donkey Kong animals, I haven't seen an instance of the full titles being used outside of a single quote from Cranky Kong, which you can see on Rambi's page. Then there's the Tropical Freeze bosses, and the Legion of Stationery in Paper Mario: The Origami King, they have full titles too, but we still simply use their normal name. 17:27, March 22, 2021 (EDT)

@Keyblade Master: Not to mention the Luigi's Mansion Portrait Ghosts. 19:10, March 28, 2021 (EDT)

"Place Categories" Or "Location Categories"
All right, normally I believe in fulfilling one proposal before beginning another (see my earlier proposal on minor Super Mario Sunshine locations), and this is more of a minor thing, though I do feel it is important. In fact, I came across it while I was beginning to turn the locations into actual articles. When we have categories for locations in a certain game or series, we always refer to them as "locations" or simply "places" - for instance, Category:WarioWare Gold Places and Category:Super Mario 64 Locations. Though their definitions are virtually the same, each referring to a specific or particular area, this does create an issue with inconsistency. Normally I would switch every instance of this to Category:Locations, though I first wanted to check if this would be necessary, as well as if most of you would prefer Category:Places instead.

Would you prefer every instance being referred to as Category:Locations, or Category:Places? Or do you believe this is unnecessary and prefer neither option? I would prefer the first option as way more categories are referred to as locations rather than places, and would be easier and more efficient to enact.

Sorry if the phrasing here is awkward. I'll be working on my previous proposal in the meanwhile.

Proposer: Deadline: April 12, 2021, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: April 15, 2021, 19:56 GMT

Locations

 * 1) For the reason mentioned above.
 * 2) This is my preferred option though it would be inconsistent with List of places.
 * 3) Maybe it's just me, but "places" feels a little too casual.
 * 4) Per Waluigi Time.
 * 5) Seems more formal.
 * 6) Prefer the less colloquial version so yeah.
 * 7) Per all.
 * 8) Per all.
 * 9) Per proposal and especially Keyblade Master. Whenever I run wikis, I always used the word "Locations" rather than "Places".

Comments
@Hewer: I think there could be another proposal on whether or not to move List of places to "List of locations", which if "Locations" is chosen for the categorizing would keep the consistency in the terms. 18:27, April 8, 2021 (EDT)

"Closed caption of the Mario cartoons"
WildBrain, the owners of DiC and all their assets, made captions for the all of the Mario cartoons. I argue that they should be accepted since they have unique spellings not found anywhere else:


 * Radigator
 * Stoolpigeon
 * The First Mushroom Bank
 * Red hot pepper detector
 * Light plunger
 * Storm Troopa
 * Obi-Wan Toady
 * Koopa-phobia
 * Dealing Dalbert
 * Pot o’ gold coins
 * Retro Reuter
 * All-purpose, portable plumber's helper
 * Mythos
 * Muga the Medicine Woman

Everyone else in the discussion, however, disagrees and wanted me to make this proposal. This also applies to all of the captions for the other two cartoons, which is the reason I put it here. Reminder that WildBrain has access to all of DiC's assets.

Proposer: Deadline: Tuesday, April 20th, 23:59 GMT

Agree

 * 1) Per my reasoning above.

Deny

 * 1) Per everything that was said here and here.
 * 2) Per Keyblade Master. I've said this regarding WildBrain before and I'll say it again, these aren't the people who made the cartoons. This is the company that bought the company that bought the company that made the cartoons. The subpar job they've done with other material (i.e. the YouTube videos) doesn't give me any confidence that they're using the original material for this information, if they even still have access to that anymore.
 * 3) Per what Alex, Glowsquid, and I have said on the aforementioned pages (as well as what I initially brought up here). The Rat-A-Gator concept art completely breaks your argument anyway, and "radigator" is obviously wrong.
 * 4) To cite the great Glowsquid, "[WildBrain] has been blatantly amateurish, including straight up copy-and-pasting our episode summaries for their video description". To summarize, WildBrain has been notorious for copypasting information from this wiki, and their unprofessional corporate structure has led to unnecessary redirects (e.g. Ahehehauhe) or unreliable names. This also applies to companies that merely host these cartoons on their services and deliver somewhat unreliable information (e.g. Apple TV). These companies do not have involvement with the original cartoons additionally, so in any given case, I say to stick with DiC Entertainment, and the staff that created these TV shows for proper sources.
 * 5) - Per all. I'd also like to ask if WildBrain even adds the captions to their shows on streaming services themselves or if it's people from Apple TV and the like doing it
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all. Considering how blatantly they are plagiarizing from the wiki, as well as how unprofessional some of the names they have provided are, I would recommend against using WildBrain as a source on the wiki at all.
 * 8) - (the heck is Aheheauhe?) Per me and everyone else. I'd rather we deny WildBrain entirely.
 * 9) This has been bothering me. I don't see WildBrain as "official," particularly with nonsense like uploading auto-generated video thumbnails.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) General unprofessionalism from WildBrain's part regarding the presentation of the cartoons.
 * 12) Pretty much all of these opposing arguments are valid so far. Yea, I've noticed the copy-paste material as well.
 * 13) Per Glowsquid's comment on Alex's talk and the copy/paste issue. This should have at least been discussed first before going ahead with the mass moves.
 * 14) Per all.
 * 15) Per everyone.
 * 16) Per all.
 * 17) Per all.

Comments
"WildBrain [...] made captions for the all of the Mario cartoons."

Do you have evidence of such? As far as I know, closed captioning is done either by the network itself, or by third-party contractors hired for that purpose (as is the case of Netflix) --Glowsquid (talk) 19:29, April 13, 2021 (EDT)

@Alex95: "Ahehehauhe" refers to this 14-second clip from Flatbush Koopa. It's clearly not intended to be an alternate title for the episode and I really question whether or not we need the redirect. I guess someone might see the video, not know the episode, and try to find it here by searching that? -- 19:49, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * [[File:Paper Mario Dizzy.png]] 19:54, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * Seems like a silly redirect to me. 20:17, April 13, 2021 (EDT)

WildBrain uploaded "Rock TV" yesterday. The end of the description contains the text "Main article: The Legend of Zelda (TV series)," which confirms they're stealing stuff from wikis. It also describes the Super Show!, despite this being an episode of Super Mario World. And we can't forget Ahehehauhe and Evil Dinorsaur. 20:15, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * Wowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww how blatant of them XD 20:56, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * I saw this get brought up by the Wiki's twitter account. I barely knew much about all this at first but now I agree WildBrain is a completely invalid source. 21:17, April 13, 2021 (EDT)

Nobody ever agrees with me online. You guys might as well just pass this as failed. Nobody ever even listens to me and nobody can tell me otherwise. Grandet Omate (talk) 23:30, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * Moping never solved anything. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:46, April 13, 2021 (EDT)
 * I told you on your talk page that you should talk to other people when you bring such decisive modifications to the wiki. It's the one thing to do here, everyone does it out of common sense. While a few of the others' comments have been somewhat demeaning, remember that nobody here is against you; in fact, I personally want to see you exit this slump and flourish. You're not a bad editor. However, should you keep on with the same mistakes you've done so many times by now, I guess that's on you. 03:52, April 14, 2021 (EDT)
 * I know you said before that you have difficulty talking to others, and honestly in reality I do too. However, you should not get upset and self-pity like that if people don't agree with you. It's not that people are not listening to you, we have read your reasoning, but we just disagree with it. Everyone has given their reasons to oppose, you just need to review those with a better attitude. This sort of thing happens all the time on here, all I ask is that you do not take this too personally. 04:45, April 14, 2021 (EDT)

(I'd partially support in the case of spellings that have no known, official alternatives.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:13, April 20, 2021 (EDT)

Apply usual naming rules to Mario Kart course names
According to Naming, this is how we handle the naming of Mario Kart courses that share a name with other subjects:


 * For Mario Kart courses, console abbreviations are used as the identifier whenever possible to match the retro course naming convention (e.g. Daisy Cruiser (GCN)).
 * Due to the Mario Kart 8/Deluxe multi-console situation, the identifier "MK8" is used until confirmation of anything else (e.g. Rainbow Road (MK8)).

The guideline enforces a compromise between our general naming rules and Nintendo's own in-game convention of affixing a console abbreviation to classic courses. In the case of Mario Kart 8 courses, it specifically requests using a game abbreviation as an identifier, whereas another rule states we should generally use the expanded form of the game's title. Neither part of this guideline appears to be justified, they contradict other rules, and read like a remnant of the wiki's bumbling pre-2010 days.

This proposal aims to make our naming rules consistent across the board, applying a "race course" or expanded game-of-origin identifier to Mario Kart course articles instead of the aforementioned. Doing this would prevent confusing situations such as the article for the Donut Plains 1 racetrack from Super Mario Kart being notated “SNES” despite the other Donut Plains 1 subject also originating from an SNES game.

Proposer: Deadline: May 21, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) per proposal.
 * 2) It wouldn't hurt to at least try. Also, using the normal identifiers for the GameCube and DS battle courses feels like it's too rigid of an exception.

Oppose

 * 1) I don't really see anything wrong with the way we do it right now, I think having an exception in the policy to name things like how Nintendo does is fine and I would prefer it to using generic identifiers. Also, I don't think it matters if this contradicts other rules, since the page itself addresses this by making it very clear that this is an exception aiming to match the way Nintendo does it. The way I see it, this is the least confusing because it uses terminology found in the games themselves. As for using 'MK8', I think it's a decent compromise since the games haven't given an official console identifier to those tracks yet, though I would consider changing it to 'Wii U' or something similar, or just using normal identifiers specifically for the Mario Kart 8 tracks since we're not trying to replicate Nintendo's way of doing it in that case.
 * 2) Per Porplemontage's comment.
 * 3) Per all.
 * 4) Per Porplemontage. If anything, we should probably wait until MK8 retro tracks actually appear to see what Nintendo calls them to see if there really is an "inconsistency" here.
 * 5) Per Hewer &amp; Porplemontage. It would be too confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the names of Mario Kart games looking for more about a retro course in particular, and so it seems best to keep it as is (there's no current issue anyway).

Comments
@Hewer: The current naming scheme is confusing by all accounts. The proposal was updated to address your statement. 11:25, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

It is the way it is because Nintendo is essentially providing an identifier for us when they do retro courses. If a person is playing a newer game and look up a retro course, they will probably search how it is shown in the game (e.g. "SNES Rainbow Road") and if they see the article title as "Raindow Road (SNES)" on Google, that makes a lot of sense. "Raindow Road (Super Mario Kart)" isn't great because it doesn't match that extra piece of info Nintendo is attributing to the course, the user might not even know the title for the SNES game, and the course isn't just appearing in Super Mario Kart - it's appearing in the newer game as well. -- 11:40, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * This sounds like trying to fit a square tile into a round hole. Nintendo’s own convention isn’t compatible with our rules and trying to integrate it as such leads to situations like the Donut Plains article doublet I mentioned in the proposal. Also, the “these courses are not exclusive to one game” justification can be extended to electronic systems too; SNES Donut Plains 1 appears on SNES, DS, and mobile systems, so it’s not exclusive to one system like the identifier implies. 13:14, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * If their conventions weren't compatible with our rules then we probably wouldn't have incorporated them into our rules. 14:17, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * And yet, here we are. 14:36, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * One thing worth mentioning is that Nintendo GameCube (battle course) and Nintendo DS (battle course) are somehow exceptions to this rule. I still vividly remember contacting Porplemontage about this three years ago, and while his response was adequate enough (it would be "too dumb" to use "Nintendo DS (DS)"), I don't find it a good excuse to keep the policy exception. And there's also Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit race course layouts which also have their own articles; so would World 1-1 (race course) become "World 1-1 (MKLHC)"? Like Koopa con Carne keeps saying, there's too much confusion with this policy. 14:47, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * I think using normal identifiers for Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit specifically is fine, since there's nothing official to try to match there whereas there is for the other games besides Mario Kart 8. 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

I don't want to lose the "SNES" element in the article title for retro courses since I definitely consider that to be part of the official title, as well as for purposes of SEO and people finding the article they're looking for. Here is my counter-proposal: For tracks which have appeared as retro courses, move them to "SNES Donut Plains 1" format. That doesn't conflict with the level since it's a different title. For the rest, use traditional game identifiers. This creates an inconsistency from track article to track article, but I believe it is the most technically correct solution based on how Nintendo names them, and it eliminates the "MK8" guess. -- 15:23, May 15, 2021 (EDT)
 * I would support that, it stays consistent with how Nintendo does it and technically goes with our policy of using the most recent English name. 16:02, May 15, 2021 (EDT)

Citing WildBrain
A while ago, a proposal was made about using closed captions of the Super Mario cartoons from third-party contractors hired by WildBrain, which we opted to decline because A) WildBrain has been notorious for stealing chunks of information away from us without attribution, B) WildBrain has been entirely unprofessional with their handling of the Super Mario cartoons, and C) closed captions were unreliable compared to the actual script.

However, although we may have disallowed using the closed captions as a source, we still have areas of information that directly source themselves to WildBrain. Similar to how we prohibited using the English Super Mario Encyclopedia over similar issues, we should disallow the usage of WildBrain as a source for these reasons I listed above, and therefore our sources for the Super Mario cartoons should only pertain to the staff involved with the cartoons and DiC Entertainment themselves.

Proposer: Deadline: May 23, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Allow some parts of WildBrain to be used as a source

 * 1) See my comments. I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects, but otherwise we can ignore their names.
 * 2) Per Hewer.

Do not allow WildBrain to be used as a source

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Per proposal.
 * 3) Per pretty much everything that was said in the aforementioned proposal.
 * 4) We don't need redirects like the now-deleted "Ahehehauhe." Per all.
 * 5) Yes, per what I said then
 * 6) Evil Dinorsaur should say it all, really.
 * 7) Per proposal.
 * 8) Per.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) - per all
 * 12) No sourcing. Redirects don't seem necessary either.
 * 13) - Per my reasonings in the previous proposal. I'm indifferent on redirect creations, but Ahehehauhe can stay off our wiki.
 * 14) &mdash; Looks like a no-Brainer to me. We shouldn't be citing sources that are known to copy content directly from our wiki. Per all.

Comments
I think we should allow WildBrain's names to be redirects since the whole point of redirects is to be helpful to readers and there might be some readers who would find those redirects helpful. For example, someone might see the 'Ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and search it up here in search of information on the clip without knowledge of the episode name. Otherwise, I understand why we decided not to cite WildBrain, but I think that we should adjust our naming policy to specify that WildBrain can't be cited after this proposal (depending on its result) like we did with the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. 15:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * I see your point, though I do question if we have to therefore include hundreds of redirects for any particular clip made of any episode, especially since clips can named by anyone, WildBrain included. I should also point out that the 'Ahehehauhe' clip only attached 4k views on YouTube, which doesn't justify the demand for these redirects. 15:24, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * According to REDIRECTS, a redirect is justified if there is a chance someone would find it helpful, which I feel there is in this case. This policy also states that redirects should only be deleted if they are too general or too silly, and redirects like 'Ahehehauhe' don't fall under either of those categories since it's clear what they're referring to and what a reader searching it is most likely looking for, and they come from a source that is, by at least one definition, official. Also note the policy says alternate names as redirects are fine. So going off of our policies there doesn't seem to be a good reason for deleting these redirects, and there's not really a downside to creating a large amount of redirects anyway. 15:43, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * How, precisely, does that not fall under "too silly?" Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:27, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * What the policy seems to mean by 'too silly' is joke redirects and borderline vandalism, judging by its example 'Game with luigi and ghosts 2'. 'Ahehehauhe' has a legitimate reason to exist, and according to the policy, it should exist, since it has some potential to clear up confusion even if we aren't going to use WildBrain's names as page titles. It's comparable to how someone might see the name 'Soarin' Stu' in the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia and search it here, and we have a redirect for it even though we do not use it as a name. 16:57, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * I don't find it feasible anyone would search that specific convoluted and inaccurately-spelled laughing onomatopoeia, personally. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:07, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * "Soarin' Stu" is also a fan-name, originating from this wiki, that was used for multiple years. There's a realistic chance that people who don't know the proper name of the enemy will search it up. Nobody thinks that "Flatbush Koopa" is called "Ahehehauhe," and WildBrain has uploaded the episode under its proper title as well, which has more views (100k vs 4k). 17:26, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * There is a possibility that someone would see the 'ahehehauhe' clip on YouTube and, not knowing the actual name of the episode, search for it here. REDIRECTS states: ' If there's even a small chance that a redirect will help someone, it's not useless'. Also, while I've been using 'ahehehauhe' as an example, there are things like the alternative spellings seen in the subtitles, including 'Obi-Wan Toady', 'Light Plunger', and 'Red hot pepper detector', which aren't redirects even though they may be helpful to certain people, there would be no downside to having them and REDIRECTS says alternate name and spelling mistake redirects are fine. 17:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * Agree with Doc con Schmeltwick's comment above. I sincerely doubt someone will look up WildBrain's channel, find an obscure, 14-second clip, then come to this wiki and input said name. They likely wouldn't even recognize the episode. 20:02, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * The name of a short clip on YouTube doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would warrant a redirect either way. 20:39, May 16, 2021 (EDT)
 * @The Mansion: My whole point is that they wouldn't recognize the episode, and thus would search for the clip's name. That's the purpose of redirects.
 * Even if we refuse to make 'ahehehauhe' a redirect, I think we should at least make the alternate spelling redirects since it is feasible that someone might think they are the correct spellings. 02:37, May 17, 2021 (EDT)

Combine the four pages on Mega Pi'illos into one "Mega Pi'illo" page and change the original four pages to redirects
The four pages about Mega Pi'illos (Cush, Shawn, Phil, and Lowe) are currently quite redundant. With the exception of just a few words (and the "Names in other languages" segment), Cush and Shawn's pages are currently near-identical. Besides having a piece of trivia, Lowe's page is largely a shorter version of Phil's. The main body of all 4 pages consist of a single paragraph detailing the climb up Mount Pajamaja with regards to the Mega Pi'illos, to varying degrees of detail. Additionally, all four pages use the same artwork and claims it to be of the page's subject, despite the actual artwork being unidentified as to which Mega Pi'illo it is.

I propose the four pages be combined into one page titled "Mega Pi'illo", rewritten to accommodate all four of them, and the four existing pages changed into redirects to "Mega Pi'illo."

Proposer: Deadline: May 25, 2021, 23:59 GMT

Merge the four Mega Pi'illo pages

 * 1) Per my proposal.
 * 2) Lowe's article states he is encountered under circumstances nearly identical to Phil. That says pretty much everything.
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) After looking at the pages I realise how similar they are, per all.
 * 5) Repeated articles. I've also been wanting to work on Pi'illo species pages, such as Deco Pi'illo.
 * 6) Per all. I should point out that as of now, Pi'illo Master also has yet to be made into its own article.
 * 7) Much like the WarioWare duos, the Mega Pi'illos don't do anything without their counterpart.
 * 8) Sure.