MarioWiki:Proposals

Standardize citations for archived pages
Many web pages that are used as citations on the Mario Wiki are no longer available at their original links. Consequently, the citations use links from web page archival sites such as archive.today or the Wayback Machine. This can be seen on articles that reference the English translation of the Mario Portal, such as Banzai Bill, as well as other articles, such as Nintendo GameCube. Including archived citations is especially important for web pages that are volatile by design, such as online store listings for merchandise. However, nowhere does Citations feature a template for how to properly cite archived web pages; therefore, an example of a citation for an archived page should be created under the heading What to put as references.

EDIT: Per Koopa con Carne's comments, I've revised my recommendations for a standardized template below.

The current basic template for citations of non-archived pages looks like this: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

In order to make citations of archived pages as simple as possible, they should only link to the archived page, followed by the date and timestamp (if available) of the archived page, along with the name of the archival website: "Author Name (January 1, 2000). . Publisher. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Archival Website. Retrieved January 1, 2022."

This is what an actual citation would look like under this standard, using one of the references on the Nintendo GameCube article as an example: "Satterfield, Shane (August 25, 2000). Nintendo's GameCube Unveiled. GameSpot. Archived September 5, 2015 via Wayback Machine. Retrieved July 15, 2022."

Here's another example, using the citation of the Mario Portal on the Banzai Bill article (because this specific page does not have an author nor a release date attributed to it, these details are omitted from the citation): "Game Archives"

As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration. However, in cases where archived links are necessary, such as volatile links or links that are already dead, a standard method of citation would be useful to implement.

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

Support

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) I think I'd rather have it link to both the archive and the original, but I can see why that might not be ideal and this is still better than nothing so per proposal.
 * 3) Per proposal.

Comments
Can you articulate some specifics for this standard? Namely, would it suffice to include the link to a snapshot, or would editors be requested to also add the time, date, and name of the archivation website of that particular snapshot? You are putting forward the Banzai Bill citation as a template and, though I agree on encouraging comprehensive fact-checking and easy readability/access (as the user who basically pushed for this whole format across the wiki over the past years), I reckon some editors may not like being forced by policy to tick so many boxes when structuring their links. 00:50, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've edited the description of my proposal to reflect your criticisms. If there's anything else I was unclear about, please let me know. 11:57, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I wouldn't disallow snapshot timestamps. I recognise that the presence of such info creates an inconsistency with the way the original link's access date is formatted, but one could argue the timestamp is a defining, unique attribute of the snapshot. I.E., a snapshot taken at 09:00:00 UTC on January 1, 2000 is stored separately from another snapshot taken 17:00:00 UTC on the same day, and (on Wayback Machine at least) there's a set waiting period before a new snapshot can be created, so there exist no two simultaneous snapshots of a given web page. Another proviso in your proposal I would like to address regards the way broken links are handled: it's fairly counterintuitive to put forth a link that doesn't work and treat the working archive link as secondary; the way I've gone with this has been to treat the archive links as any other regular link, complete with its original website's name and access date, and sandwich the archival details in-between the former two, like so:". website. Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC via Mayback Wachine. Retrieved January 1, 2022." An additional practice I've seen on Wikipedia is to also append the original link as an accessory, as "Archived January 1, 2000, 09:00:00 UTC from the via Wayback Machine", which I suppose makes documentation more thorough--if a bit overly so, which is why I suspect some editors may find fault in this addition.  20:30, October 10, 2022 (EDT)
 * I've made more revisions to the template I recommended for citing archived links. I elected to simply include only the archived link within the citation, both because the original link is always available on any credible archived page, and for simplicity's sake so editors don't find it too tedious to implement said template. 23:35, October 10, 2022 (EDT)

So, is the proposal now championing the prohibition of first-hand links in favour of archived links, or just a guideline recommendation for using the latter? The last statement of the proposal is in direct contradiction with the rest: "As a clarification, this proposal does not mean to mandate that every citation of a web page should include an archived link; that should be left to editor consideration." 18:04, October 11, 2022 (EDT)
 * For additional clarification to that final sentence in particular, users should decide on their own whether to use an archived link in their citation (especially for pages that are volatile or already dead on the live web), or if using a regular link would be sufficient (this applies to most pages). However, if the user decides that an archived link would be appropriate, the standardized template described above should be used. There should be a template for citing archived links in addition to the existing template for citing regular links; that was the goal of this proposal in the first place. There will always be outliers and exceptions (for example, the reference on Il Piantissimo's article would be difficult to fit into a standard template), but having these guidelines is good practice because it sets the standard for credible and accessible citations. 21:33, October 11, 2022 (EDT)

New features
None at the moment.

Remove "Koopa" and other name particles from Koopaling article titles
Starting with Mario Kart 8 on Wii U hitherto the time of this proposal, Mario games have exclusively referred to Koopalings using their first names: Larry, Ludwig, Wendy etc. These games include Paper Mario: Color Splash, Mario & Luigi games, Mario Kart Tour, Dr. Mario World, Super Smash Bros. games, and Mario & Sonic games (Rio 2016; Tokyo 2020).

The Koopaling article names on this wiki do not reflect this state of affairs: currently, they use the naming scheme established in old manuals, which is stylised by way of the word "Koopa" attached as a surname or nobiliary title of sorts. Said naming scheme has seen sparse use in more recent years, being specifically reserved to ancillary material such as the New Super Mario Bros. Wii Prima Guide, this video, and most likely more--I invite knowledgeable editors to expand this list for future reference. As dictated by the source priority policy, this material should not override what the games themselves put forward. In addition, the more concise versions of these characters' names would better serve readers and contributors alike.

Given my statement above, the object of this proposal is to simply change Koopaling articles, and most pages directly related to the individual characters, to display only their first name. The page List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip Koopa is excluded from the proposal's scope, as its title reflects the character's name used in the SMB3 cartoon. The following is a list of affected pages, with target titles in brackets:

I would also like us to hash out how to phrase the opening paragraphs in their character articles; namely, whether to list the short name or the full name first. For this, I'm splitting the support option into two possible directions:
 * 1) " Larry, referred to in full as Larry Koopa and known as Cheatsy Koopa in the cartoons, [...]"
 * 2) " Larry Koopa, or simply Larry, known as Cheatsy Koopa in the cartoons, [...]"

I suppose some editors may prefer the second direction, given that it's common practice in academic and academically-modeled resources to start out an article's text with the subject's full name, and not necessarily the best known version of the name.

Proposer: Deadline: September 25, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 2, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 9, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 16, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Support (option 1)

 * 1) Preferred option. Can't wait to make it easier to type out the names of these roster-padding sons of bitches.
 * 2) Per con Carne's proposal :)
 * 3) Per proposal.
 * 4) After some thought, per all and per the support voters here.
 * 5) - Per all.
 * 6) Strongly per "most commonly used English name" which has been the basis every single time this comes up (I would say "List of DIC cartoon episodes featuring Hip" too since I distinctly remember lines using his first name, but I'm not about to bingewatch to confirm if full name or first only is more common there).
 * 7) Per all, given that the "Koopa" parts of their names are not as frequently used. By the same logic, shouldn't Bowser's page be called "King Bowser Koopa" or Mario's page be called "Mario Mario"?

- Full_name parameter exists for a reason and the full names are rarely used, unlike say Kammy Koopa, who is referred to pretty much only as such. Switching to other option, same reasoning applies Honestly, either wording works for me, but could be best to roll with their first names only to match article titles.

Support (option 2)

 * 1) Second choice.
 * 2) I'm surprised no one has voted for the second support option; changing mentions of the Koopalings to just their first names would improve reader and editor convenience, while using their full names as the very first words of each of their articles would help make their full name immediately clear (and help clarify that the article  refers to Roy Koopa, not Roy from Fire Emblem or Roy from Mario Tennis: Power Tour). This option makes sense to me because their full names are still commonly used, unlike Mario Mario, Princess Peach Toadstool, and T. Yoshisaur Munchakoopas. Additionally, it sets both an academic, professional standard and the standard already set by the edge cases of characters with intentionally long full names, like Squirps and The Old Psychic Lady.
 * 3) My preference would be an approach closer to this (also considering that the given full names are subject to modification, especially in old western media appearances).
 * 4) - Per
 * 5) Per all. (Professor E. Gadd on a similar boat?)
 * 6) Per all.
 * 7) Per all

Oppose

 * 1) Per Mister Wu in the comments and the previous proposal over this. The names are still sometimes used in-game with recent examples, and this largely seems to stem from the extended names just not being used in Japan. (You could bring in the "it's closer to Japanese" argument, but I don't really like the idea of using that to decide which English names should be used.)
 * 2) Per Waluigi Time. These names are still used quite frequently and don't need to be changed.
 * 3) I would agree with not referring to them by the full names for games that don't use them at all, otherwise per all.
 * 4) If the full names had been completely out of use after the first appearance or so like Boo Diddly, I would have supported this. And then there's few Koopa characters like Kylie Koopa whose first name was used in her follow-up appearance. I don't know the reason for Smash Bros. fighters having articles under their full names if they have any, but when I see an example like Wolf and Wolf O'Donnell, using full names looks valid enough and better over identifiers (like this).
 * 5) Per Waluigi Time, the names are still used on occasion enough compared to Princess Peach Toadstool.
 * 6) Per waluigi time
 * 7) - Really struggle to see any advantage to this. If the full names are still in use and there's no official confirmation they've been dropped, what's the point? How does typing "Koopa" on the end of the name, on the rare occasions you need to, waste any time at all? Also both example sentences provided for the support option are far more awkwardly worded than what's currently there.
 * 8) Until someone can elaborate on why policy discourages linking to redirects, I don't see the need to rename well-established names to simpler names that I feel were simplified for game-context reasons that aren't necessarily applicable to wikis.
 * 9) Per all.
 * 10) Per all.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Per all.
 * 13) Per all.

Comments
I'd like to remind yet again that in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate the full names are all acknowledged - they also were acknowledged in the Wii U version of Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games that featured the Theme of Larry Koopa. Also, please, proposal votes based on personal hatred do no good to the wiki, especially since the only multi slot roster "padding" the Koopalings did since Mario Kart 8 and its Deluxe version was in the now defunct Dr. Mario World and in Mario Kart Tour (where it's pretty bold to compare it to the actual padding of the variants). They share the slot with Bowser Jr. in the Smash Bros. games and they are guests in the Mario & Sonic games, meaning that they only occupy one slot. --Mister Wu (talk) 15:31, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Considering the tone of my statement of disdain and the fact that I added it at the tail end of a series of arguments made in good faith, I would say that it is very clearly meant to be taken as a joke. I have no strong attachments towards any video game characters, so your accusation that I'm using "hatred" as a thrust to my argument is not only insulting, but blown out of proportion. 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * Fine, I take that part back (although just so you know, fan votes have been a thing in the past, so be wary that some users did vote out of attachment to characters, meaning that jokes like this one can be misunderstood). In any case, sorry for the misunderstanding.--Mister Wu (talk) 09:14, September 19, 2022 (EDT)

I'd actually like to take this a bit further by questioning Peach and Daisy; as of right now their article names are "Princess Peach"/"Princess Daisy", but much like how very few, if any, modern games ever refer to the Koopalings by their full names, very few, if any games references Peach and Daisy by their titles in game. Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario Golf, Smash Bros, they all just refer to them as Peach and Daisy. And if the fact that it's a title has anything to do with it, why isn't Bowser's article named "King Bowser"? I'd wager we could probably move their articles to just Peach and Daisy for the same reasons.
 * Origami King actually does use "Princess Peach" quite a bit: for example, there's Olivia saying "My brother and Princess Peach must both be in there..." and Bowser says "Anyway, where's Princess Peach?", both in the endgame. 19:37, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * The "Princess" title is still widely in use, such as in TOK as Scrooge said and on the Play Nintendo site. It would seem that only roster-heavy spin-offs refer to them with only their personal names. 19:42, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * That example does help me see the difference in this situation, mainly cause I'm comparing a title to a full name. I guess it makes sense that Peach and Daisy use their princess title cause it's a title. And it makes sense that the Koopalings don't go by their full names often cause that would literally be like going up to your best friend and using their full name just to refer to them. So from a realistic standpoint, it makes sense that games like Paper Jam or Color Splash don't just have everyone referring to them by their full names in dialogue like they would when referring to Peach as "Princess Peach" (I guess it's also worth mentioning that in Color Splash, Peach's introduction does use her full title while the Koopalings don't use their full names.) That being said, using spin-offs like Mario Kart might not be the best examples, since most characters go by their standard names anyway.

@Opposition: The amount of media that refers to the Koopalings using only their first name (including, as mentioned in the proposal, almost every single game they appeared in during the last decade) far surpasses the number of instances where their full name is used. Participants to the previous proposal brought up isolated, relatively minor instances of the Koopalings' full names being used, particularly in merchandise and print media, and treated them as top-priority sources despite going counter to what the naming policy says. In the spirit of hopefully convincing people that it's misguided to do so, I raise another piece of merch, the Super Mario Trading Card Collection, released in April 2022 (so pretty recent), which respects the naming model used in games. Shouldn't it similarly be taken into consideration, and be measured against a random Larry Koopa toy and a Monopoly set? Because it's clear that merchandise releases are not consistent among themselves in the least, so why not turn to what the games already very clearly establish? 19:10, September 18, 2022 (EDT)
 * The thing is, they're not contradictory (or even different, technically) names, and it's not even really an inconsistency. Sometimes they use the full name, other times they use a shortened version. I don't see any harm in using the full one if it's still in use. -- 19:51, September 18, 2022 (EDT)

@Opposition: I'm challenging someone to explain why "the names are occasionally used" (in things like Smash Bros. and merchandise no less, which as I've demonstrated above aren't even consistent with themselves) is being so strongly bandied around as an argument against designating the names that are put front and center in most appearances of these characters to their wiki articles. So far, zero proper rationale has been given for the former direction in either of the three proposals that have concerned this matter, other than a couple of arguments that can be best defined as mental gymnastics. Nobody is arguing that we should get rid of the names altogether, just that using them in such a representative fashion isn't the proper way to go--and I've already proposed two methods to handle their full names in their lead, because, much like LinkTheLefty has previously stated, these names are significant enough to deserve a mention as such. That doesn't mean Squirps is a contender for a move to "Prince Squirp Korogaline Squirpina" though. 10:30, September 21, 2022 (EDT)


 * I've already explained at least for my part that I think it's fine keeping the full names since the most commonly used ones are just simplifications of those names, and the full ones are still in use. If the full names had been dropped entirely for an extensive period of time, yeah I could see that, but they're clearly still around. I don't think that's mental gymnastics myself, but if you feel that the arguments presented so far aren't "proper rationale" I'm not sure there's much more to say. -- 12:16, September 21, 2022 (EDT)
 * "since the most commonly used ones are just simplifications of those names, and the full ones are still in use" This straight up argues doing the opposite of what the policy I cited above says to do. 17:30, September 21, 2022 (EDT)

"How does typing "Koopa" on the end of the name, on the rare occasions you need to, waste any time at all?" Except they're not "rare" as you claim. I found myself piping links to their articles far more often than not, because--and I re-reiterate--their one-word names have seen infinitely more use in various media throughout the years. I didn't put a lot of focus on this point in the proposal, but having to only type in one word whenever I link would definitely save some effort. "Also both example sentences provided for the support option are far more awkwardly worded than what's currently there." If you have anything better, provided a scenario in which this proposal passes, I'm open to it. 07:46, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Well... to address the second point, you don't need to change it at all? To address the first, this is all basically just opinion so there's no definitive answer to this, but it's just 5 extra letters. You would need to type it, at a stretch, once per article if it's not already linked - or you don't even need to type them at all, as their first names redirect to their articles anyway. Unless there's suddenly been a massive flood of new Koopaling media/appearances I'm not sure how this could cause any real issue, and the solution the proposal suggests is effectively already in place. If it's causing that much of a problem, you could just leave it for someone else to edit. 10:54, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * Those 5 letters, "Koopa", need to be typed out in addition to re-typing the Koopaling's unique name for the sake of piping the link to their article (the wording has to be apposite to what the game in question uses anyway--see Naming--and that's most games really). Piped linking has to be done because current policy discourages linking to redirect pages. "Unless there's suddenly been a massive flood of new Koopaling media/appearances" -- there has. Assuredly, for almost a decade now. And there have been very, very few instances, verging on non-significant, in this past decade where their full names were used. (This has to be about the fifth time I'm stating this.) I encourage you to look at and compare the examples everyone brought up so far in this discussion as well as in previous relevant talks. 11:16, September 23, 2022 (EDT)
 * It might be the fifth time you've said that, but it's an assumption, not a fact. It's not even true if you count the Smash Ultimate and Mario & Sonic examples Mister Wu mentioned, or the merch where it's used. Why does it matter anyway, why does that justify changing the name? There's no sign the full names have been dropped completely, so it's nothing to do with the naming policy, and the fact that they were used in the past - in games that are often re-released - means they're relevant. Also, piping the link is... really not a huge task. If anything it's a very minor inconvenience, which would take at most a minute to resolve if you had to do it for all seven - and something you're unlikely to run into more than once every few months, at a stretch. It's also something you need to do everywhere on the website, why is it particularly bad in this case? Just feels like removing relevant info for a pointless reason, if I'm honest. 11:30, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
 * When facts stated ad nauseam are being brushed off as "assumptions", and that they "don't justify changing the names", it's when I officially give up arguing. If a handful of (obscure) instances in a total of two/three titles out of 10 back to back + some 2017 Monopoly game are enough to overpower the rest, then fine: by all means go against policy if you so wish. This same line of thinking can be used to rename Squirps to the character's full name, as I've mentioned above. "If anything it's a very minor inconvenience, which would take at most a minute to resolve if you had to do it for all seven" Most links concerning Koopalings have to be piped; it's as inconvenient as typing the same word twice everytime it comes up. I've been active enough around these parts for the past several years to know what I'm talking about. 12:10, September 24, 2022 (EDT)
 * @MrConcreteDonkey: No one is claiming that the full names have been completely dropped, nor is anyone calling for their removal from the wiki. We're just saying that most of the more recent games use the shortened names without mentioning the full ones, so we should retitle the articles while still making the full names immediately obvious in the lead and infobox. I don't see how this can be classified as 'removing relevant info for a pointless reason' when no info is being removed here. 14:49, September 24, 2022 (EDT)

I'm not ready to vote on this yet (even though I supported the previous proposal), but I would just like to say that I think the difference between the two support options is extremely trivial, to the point where I don't understand why the issue even warranted separate voting options for them. Both support options have users voting exclusively for them, which is only going to increase this prop's chances of stalemating, given how polarizing this is. 17:15, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
 * I admit I wasn't really expecting the proposal to be polarising in the first place, hence my lack of foresight. Trying to sort out minor, secondary issues with separate voting options in a proposal is a practice I will reconsider doing from here on out. 07:46, October 2, 2022 (EDT)
 * Aside from the issue of splitting the vote for something pretty trivial, something like figuring out wording (when it's as minor as this) is probably better suited for a discussion either during the proposal or after it passes, for future reference. And uh, if it passes, then the wording is technically enforced by proposal and can't be rewritten without another proposal to overturn it, which is a pretty weird situation for something that's not controversial. -- 13:07, October 2, 2022 (EDT)

Merge all non-Mario universe Super Smash Bros. Stages into a collective article
Throughout the past few months the wiki has been trimming down on Super Smash Bros. content. Mutliple propsoals have now been passed supporting the trimming of Smash content including propsoals merging items, deleting general technqiues and most recently the merging of bosses. Up until I recently beleived that Smash should receive full coverage on this wiki becuause of the high level of represention Mario and its sub-franchies recive in these games. However the recent trimming of content combined with the existence of Smash Wiki I have changed my mind on this. The next step that should be taken in trimming smash content is would be to merge the stages into one collective artcile.

This is probably the most radical proposal in the trimming of Smash content so far giving the stages are a big part of the Super Smash Bros. franchise. However if we are no longer going to have seperate artciles for Items and Bosses then I think it now has to be questioned to wherever or not non-Mario stages should be also still have seperate pages given this the Mario Wiki that they based on locations that have nothing or very little to do with the Mario franchise and that seperste artciles of these stages exist on Smash Wiki.

Given that this the Mario Wiki that all stages based locations from the Mario and the sub-franchises should keep their artciles. By keeping them split it will emphasis that this the Mario Wiki by given increased focus on elements from Smash that are based on Mario. Therefore should this propsoal pass stages from these franchises which are covered by this wiki remain split:


 * Mario
 * Donkey Kong
 * Yoshi
 * Wario

One series where I think there is question mark to wherever they should be split or merged are Smash oringal stages, ie Battlefield and Final Destination. I would be also keep these with their own articles as these stages have the most hertiage of all Smash stages in the series and that they are not specfially based on a non-Mario franchise. I will therefore provide two options for merging one that sees the Smash oringnal stages remain split and the one that sees them merged.

As for all the other franchises inclduing not listed above they would all be merged into an idvidual artcile with the page names being replaced by redirects and include external links to Smash Wiki. Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage.

I'm very much aware that if this proposal passes it would be a very signifcant change for the wiki. But I beleive now given the trimming of smash content that has been taking place it is one that I beleive should hapoen. (Amendments made to proposal in comments below)

Proposer: Deadline: October 8, 2022, 23:59 GMT Extended to October 15, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge all non-Mario universe stages excluding stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Per proposals, first prefrence

Merge all non-Mario universe stages including stages orignal to Smash

 * 1) Second prefrence.
 * 2) I'm in agreement with the proposal, and generally also with the original proposition to have some of the information trimmed, such as the soundtrack listings (although I wouldn't exactly restrict stage entries to only one paragraph, but I digress). The way Super Mario Wiki covers Smash content is an infamously messy attempt at a compromise between the practices of a bygone era of the wiki and its current efforts to curate information. Most of these stages, while not entirely out of the wiki's scope given their presence in a crossover game, have too tenuous a connection to Mario to have dedicated articles; related information is much better conveyed on Smash Wiki, i.e. someone can go there to see Dream Land's track selection if that's a concern. For the record, I would support a similar treatment for fighters that haven't appeared in Mario media.
 * 3) After some thought, I think this is also a fine option.
 * 4) Per Koopa con Carne. I see little to no reason to keep entire Smash articles with little to no relation to the Mario franchise if said information is documented far more comprehensively on SmashWiki; it just sets a standard of redundant documentation. People aren't visiting the Mario Wiki to learn about Brinstar.
 * 5) Since simply deleting Smash content that is irrelevant to Mario doesn't seem to be an option for this wiki for some reason, this is the best compromise I guess. Per proposal.

Merge only non-Mario adventure mode and subspace emissary stages

 * 1) Merging all stages seems like biting off more than we can chew right now, but these in particular aren't really significant enough to warrant separate articles for them.
 * 2) Per my reasoning in the comments
 * 3) I think that the main stages are prominent enough to remain separate, per Waluigi Time’s vote below, but I feel like these stages are less significant and can be merged.
 * 4) Per TheFlameChomp. the adventure mode and subspace emissary stages don't need separate pages.
 * 5) Per all, the arguments for stages being too prominent to merge don't really apply to the adventure mode stages.
 * 6) Per all. I agree to this most.
 * 7) Second choice; per all. Even if most non-Mario-related stages won't be merged, I strongly feel that these stages have too little relation to Mario to be split.
 * 8) The main stages are just as essential to Smash as the fighters, so I see no reason to merge them. Per all.

Keep all Smash stages split

 * 1) Creating a single page to contain every non-Mario stage in the series history, as this proposal seems to aim to do, is going to be way too messy. I'm also strongly against this specific sentence: "Futhermore the infoboxes for the non-mario stages are removed and the text body should be limited to one paragrah per stage." By doing that, we either lose information while trying to keep it trimmed to an arbitrary maximum (why?) or we have all the information we can talk about regarding each stage clumped into a single paragraph, which isn't nice to read. Take a look at Dream Land (Super Smash Bros.) for example, and try to think of how this would look merged. It's not pretty. Stages are a big enough part of the series gameplay that I think they're fine keeping separate, and frankly, I wasn't really too happy about items being merged either, but at least that was easier to pull off.
 * 2) - Too much, too far. Engaging pushback mode.
 * 3) I feel stages are the second to only playable roster in terms of prominence in a Smash Bros. game (I mean we didn't get an "Everything is Here!" for stages 😒) so I feel a lot of other content should be merged first before we consider stages.
 * 4) I may consider The Subspace Emissary, which is mostly Smash-original content (and the parts that aren't, aren't Mario-related), but Adventure mode mostly consists of normal stages, and one of the nonstandard stages gets utility outside of the mode via Event Match.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Per all. At least, until we can adequately address the issues brought up by other users.
 * 7) Per all.

Comments
I'm very conflicted about this. I think non-Mario Subspace Emissary stages such as Battleship Halberd Bridge or The Path to the Ruins need to be merged, but regular stages that shape Smash Bros. into what it is are fine. Not to mention, Battlefield according to the last Smash proposal will be merged with Fighting Polygons and other teams, so that would mean merging a stage that was already just merged. Keeping it unsplit alone would also be seen as weird. Your proposal also does not make an exception for Wrecking Crew (stage). Please add an option to only merge non-Mario Subspace Emissary levels Spectrogram (talk) 13:07, October 1, 2022 (EDT)
 * I agree with merging Subspace Emissary stages, along with Melee Adventure Mode stages barring Mushroom Kingdom. 17:23, October 1, 2022 (EDT)

Thanks for all the feedback given on this proposal, I created this proposal because I feel like it should either be all or nothing when consdiering Smash content, either it should be all merged or all split and I felt based off the pervious proposals held that the consenus of smash content leaned towards it being merged. By having items and bosses merged but stages split i feel it is middle of the road but i do understand the points made of stages being more important. It seems very likely that this proposal is not going to pass but i'll going make amendments based of the things said to see if changes any minds. Firstly as per comments from Spectrogram and 7feetunder I've added the extra option to merge non-Mario adventure mode subpace emissary stages. Secondly in regards to infobox removals and trimming of content, i've decided to strike that off from the proposal given ideas clearly sound unpopular. Thirdly in regards to Wrecking Crewe I completly forgot that stage existed and if this proposal were to pass then that would also stay split. Lastly if this proposal passes then maybe rather than one aritcle it be mutliple articles perhaps one per game to avoid it being messey. That being said even despite these ameadments the consenus clearly belevies the stages should remain split and fully see where all of you are coming from the points made but I curious to see what you all think of these amendments.

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.