:::::Page 211: "They [Torpedo Teds] swim straight forward through the water. Some are propelled from Launch Pads." It's a bit of a generic name, but I'd accept "Launch Pad". {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:10, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
:::::Page 211: "They [Torpedo Teds] swim straight forward through the water. Some are propelled from Launch Pads." It's a bit of a generic name, but I'd accept "Launch Pad". {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:10, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
::::::It occurred to me that the possible reason the ''Super Mario Land 2'' names are so literal might actually be for consistency with the original ''Super Mario Land'' names. As for Dark Horse taking names online, that is unfortunate but people should be aware that [http://www.dkvine.com/interactive/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=13535&view=findpost&p=481571 Prima has been caught doing the same] so it is not a new phenomenon. I have a copy of the Japanese version, so in advance of the English release, I've also mentioned most of the affected articles [[User talk:83.156.220.80#Re:Super Mario: The first 30 years|here]]. Even with discrepancies and such (which I imagine should be largely eliminated by forgoing the full citation option), you could see that a fair amount of the wiki's conjectural and foreign tags would still be easily cleaned up with just the partial citation option. Or we can take a more case-by-case approach if it is best. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
::::::It occurred to me that the possible reason the ''Super Mario Land 2'' names are so literal might actually be for consistency with the original ''Super Mario Land'' names. As for Dark Horse taking names online, that is unfortunate but people should be aware that [http://www.dkvine.com/interactive/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=13535&view=findpost&p=481571 Prima has been caught doing the same] so it is not a new phenomenon. I have a copy of the Japanese version, so in advance of the English release, I've also mentioned most of the affected articles [[User talk:83.156.220.80#Re:Super Mario: The first 30 years|here]]. Even with discrepancies and such (which I imagine should be largely eliminated by forgoing the full citation option), you could see that a fair amount of the wiki's conjectural and foreign tags would still be easily cleaned up with just the partial citation option. Or we can take a more case-by-case approach if it is best. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
::I received a copy earlier, and the first thing I did was flip to the SML section to check the new name of the [[Roto-Disc]]-looking obstacle that the Japanese version calls ''Kaitensuru Honō'' ("Spinning Flame") only to find, to my great dismay, that it's labeled as ROTO-DISC. In addition to the [[Keronpa Ball|Kuromame]] mix-up, there are a lot of other oddities that stood out to me like the off "Game Boy Player's Guide" names reused in the SML section, [[Genkotsu|Pipe Fist]] (which was changed this year), [[Parabomb|Para-Bob-omb]] in the SMW section, [[Bubba]] directly mentioned as the secondary name of [[Boss Bass]] in the SM64 section, [[Rainbow Note]] (which should've been "[[Note]]"), [[Fish Bone]] and [[Tweester]] in SMG, [[Sentry Beam]] getting its Japanese name of "Laser Pod" and [[Jump Beamer]] getting the name "Sentry Beam", [[Spoing]] called "Bouncing [[Scuttlebug]]" in SMG yet named properly in the SMG2 section ([[Sprangler]] is intact in both), [[Whimp]], [[Hefty Goomba|Hefty]] and [[Big Goomba]]s in the NSMBU section being respectively and erroneously referred to as Big and [[Mega Goomba]]s in the NSMBWii section, and the general use of certain terms that I know originated from this very wiki from mostly over a year ago like [[Fire Jumping Piranha]], [[Obake Stand|Ghost Vase]], [[Petari|Starbag]], [[Dai Gorō|Mega Grrrol]], [[Pianta captain|the]] ''[[Pianta Village mayor|Super]] [[Pinna Park director|Mario]] [[Noki Elder|Sunshine]]'' [[Noki Elder's grandson|NPCs]], [[Switchback|Switchback Platform]], and the general transliterations in the SML2 section (and I now realize they're from us outside of the [[Three Little Pigheads]]' individual names because the original Japanese version of the ''Encyclopedia'' plainly gave the name of "[[Bomubomu]]" as 「ボムボム1・2・3」and also gave the name of "[[Be]]" as the alternate 「B・フライ」). There's probably much more that I missed since this is such a surreal doozy. On the other hand, ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' happens to be the only modern source I've found that gives [[Cape Mario]] its correct name of Caped Mario. Go figure.
::I'll admit, this is more unusable than I thought and it's no wonder that no one wants to go for the full citation option, but I do see some instances of passable localization buried in it (probably courtesy of the other translator if we're being honest, though regardless it needed tighter quality control as it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Nintendo for allowing a product's release in this rough state, especially after such a long delay). If the partial citation option passes, I believe we can work with the following: [[Falling slab|Falling Ceiling]], [[Tenbōdai Course|Scenic Course]] (unique translation!) and the other SML2 locations, [[Jump Garage|Sentry Garage]], [[Gringill|Giant Gringill]], [[Mini Wanwan|Chibi Chomp]], [[Urchin|Ground Urchin]], [[RemoCon Clown|Remote-Controlled Clown Car]], [[Skull Box|[Torpedo Ted] Launch Pad]], [[Red Skull Box|Targeting Ted Launch Pad]], [[Gūrindai|Piranha Pod]], and possibly other names for things we do not yet have a name for (e.g. Lemmy and Wendy's "Decoy Doll" from SMW or the "Innertube Goomba" and "Skating Goomba" from SM3DW).
::If we go with the no cite option, I'd assume it should at least be acceptable to use ''Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia'' for redirect purposes only, since that would otherwise confuse casual readers. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 19:20, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
Whatever people's thoughts are on this issue, I think this goes to show that making sure wikis are as accurate as possible is important since so many people just assume whatever's on them is 100% factual. And that people should stop treating information on wikis as 100% factual if it's not sourced. [[User:BubbleRevolution|BubbleRevolution]] ([[User talk:BubbleRevolution|talk]]) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Whatever people's thoughts are on this issue, I think this goes to show that making sure wikis are as accurate as possible is important since so many people just assume whatever's on them is 100% factual. And that people should stop treating information on wikis as 100% factual if it's not sourced. [[User:BubbleRevolution|BubbleRevolution]] ([[User talk:BubbleRevolution|talk]]) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
We should probably use their names as redirects. That way, they can't be moved to them. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
We should probably use their names as redirects. That way, they can't be moved to them. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
Revision as of 19:20, October 24, 2018
Current time:
Saturday, May 4th, 08:37 GMT
Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
"Vote" periods last for one week.
Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!").
All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.
How to
Rules
If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option on proposals with more than two choices.
Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.
Basic proposal and support/oppose format
This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "May 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]
====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]
====Oppose====
====Comments====
Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add your username here]}}" at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can just say "Per my proposal".
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPPDiscuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{SettledTPP}}.
All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Delete all Super Smash Bros. challenges pages (discuss) Deadline:April 19, 2024, 23:59 GMTApril 26, 2024, 23:59 GMT May 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Consider Beanies and Octoombas to be related to Goombas rather than direct variants of them (for consistency with Galoomba et al.) (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Split "Baby Fat" from Baby Yoshi (discuss) Deadline: May 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
In Template:Species infobox, expand "Relatives" guidelines to include variant-type relationships with significant differences between species (discuss) Deadline: May 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
To quote the wonderful Super Mario Wiki Twitter, "Dark Horse's English translation of the Super Mario Bros. encyclopedia is out today!.. And it turns out it liberally borrows from the wiki, consistency and accuracy be damned." The link contains quite a few examples and images, but in short, hordes of names are taken from either this wiki or the Mario Wikia verbatim, even if it contradicts the original Japanese encyclopedia, isn't originally from English, or was completely conjectural in the first place. This is different from the oft-cited dubiousness of other guides, which are mostly fine with occasional errors that can easily be set aside. Frankly, if we were to blindly and wholly cite every name in this book, we'd be citing ourselves, and that just seems disastrous for credibility. It's also doubtful, if not outright improbable, that these names were specifically chosen by the authors because they sincerely believed that each and every one of them were perfectly acceptable names in English, especially when they're Japanese transliterations that don't even match the Japanese book. The fact that this book is official is worth considering, but it doesn't mean that it should automatically be accepted without at least taking into account the quality issues that were previously mentioned.
With that said, there are certain names that seem to not originate from the wiki, such as "Sentry Garage" for Jump Garage, and with a lack of an English source, using that seems okay. On the one hand, it'd be like we're picking and choosing what's valid and what isn't, but on the other hand, it's plainly obvious which names were directly borrowed from the wiki, and therefore which names can be easily ignored. Think of it as salvaging whatever parts we can from a trainwreck. EDIT: However, Vent's point about these names potentially stemming from the wiki is also valid, and it's definitely worth considering.
Whether the guide is completely barred from being cited or is only allowed to be partially cited, let me make one thing abundantly clear: we shouldn't allow citogenesis to creep onto our wiki.
Proposer: Time Turner (talk) Deadline: October 30, 2018, 23:59 GMT
Allow the book to be cited
Only allow part of the book to be cited
Alex95 (talk) - I'm for siting names the book uses for something we don't already have an official source for. If we've found an official source already (such as the Keronpa Ball), then we ignore the name the book uses.
BubbleRevolution (talk) - Like Alex95 said above, I'm for citing names of enemies in the book itself which have no other official English sources, like Chibi Wanwan ("Chibi Chomp"), King Bill (Banzai Bill) ("Banzai Bull's-Eye"), but for everything else, it shouldn't be used.
Ultimate Mr. L (talk) If it weren't so obvious that the names were directly copied from the wiki by Dark Horse (who clearly made no effort to understand how this wiki works), I'd vote for the above option. If it gave us no new names for conjectural subjects, then I'd obviously vote below. But I see no way we can pass up this chance for the King Bill issue (among others) to be cleared up. This was meant to be a translation. Dark Horse gave us English names for some things and totally failed on others. So we take the English names and leave the foreign ones as is. The book was approved by Nintendo, not made by them, making it lower tier in terms of.... well, canon, even though Mario doesn't have one of those. Therefore, I think we can a bit more nitpicky about what names we take and which ones we don't. Am I making any sense?
LinkTheLefty (talk) As flimsy as the English translation ended up, this reminds me of the time that Prima directly reused material for their unofficial/unauthorized Yoshi's Story guide in their officially-licensed Nintendo 64 Game Secrets guide, and we cite officialized English names through the latter such as "Shy Guys on Pogo Sticks" that would otherwise never be available. Ignoring it completely would have been counterproductive, and I feel the same about Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia. Either way, Nintendo approved the final product, and you can bet there are going to be very few (if any) opportunities of these old conjectural and foreign names ever getting cleared up, so we have to work with what we've got.
Yoshi the SSM (talk) Per all. Also, if it was part of the naming page, I say the best bet would be current number 4 with margin of new 4 to new 5, as oppose of new 2 or 3 like if it wasn't this way.
Owencrazyboy9 (talk) Per all. After all, some names in the book (i.e, Targeting Ted Launch Pad), to my knowledge, are entirely new and not copy-and-pasted from the wiki.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Gonna vote here too, it was my original choice before I changed my mind. Per BubbleRevolution and LTL, they sum up my thoughts for this side nicely.
CompliensCreator (talk) Per BubbleRevolution, Mr. L, and LinkTheLefty. I feel if an enemy otherwise doesn't have an official English name, it's probably best to use whichever one it's given in the book, since otherwise, I don't know if we'll ever get names that are "more official."
Glowsquid (talk) Citogenesis is kinda not cool and stuff.
Metalex123 (talk) The book should not be cited at all, since it contains unofficial names. But since it is an official book, the book should have its own page, with mentions that some names in it are unofficial names taken from this and other wikis, so it doesn't count as a source. We don't know if the unique names in it are from other unofficial places, so we can't risk having fake information on the wiki. We could make redirects for those fake names (with the reason being that it's in an official book), but since they're mostly fan names, those names shouldn't appear on normal pages. That's just my opinion though. Please don't make this an official source...
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) I had a feeling this would happen. Dark Horse has somehow managed to get worse from Arts & Artifacts.
TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. Many of these names were clearly taken from this wiki, since they use names that were marked as conjectural on here, such as "Soarin' Stu" and "Mandibug Stack", and are incredibly inconsistent.
Hypnotoad (talk) Per Glowsquid and Metalex123, this would not be a good precedent and would generate confusion.
Turboo (talk) Per Anton, Glowsquid, and Metalex123.
Waluigi Time (talk) If you ask me, the fact that citing parts of this book is basically the same as citing ourselves ruins its credibility as a whole.
Results May Vary (talk) Metalex made a solid point. And honestly, this is making me question official terms to begin with...
Lakituthequick (talk) I unironically like the idea of the wiki making things canon, but that's a bad idea for non-English names and I'd rather have it all or nothing. So nothing it is. Per all.
Qyzxf (talk) Per all. Especially Metalex makes the perfect point.
Vent (talk) Per Glowsquid and Metalex, plus the thing I pointed out in the Discord about even the supposed original names such as 'Sentry Garage' may still be based on mangled information they found on this Wiki. Citing them could be seen as something of an endorsement and I don't believe such sloppy work deserves to be endorsed.
Bazooka Mario (talk) I don't strongly support either position, just leaning on playing extra cautious. I just want to see how this pans out in the end. Maybe they will clean up their act, Dark Horse. But I feel this is a huge policy decision, especially now that the book is circulated in the Mario fandom. How are we going to proceed in responding to potential editors who don't realize that the names from Dark Horse aren't to be used for the wiki? Do we use a template? Do we add a refnote at the source? Do we write policy and put that in a template (e.g. {{Dark Horse}}, containing text that says why it's not a good source) that becomes the automatic response?
Comments
Yes, they do, hence my fury when the SML2 page was leaked. But Rudy the Clown is still on that name. It's licensed by Nintendo, though, so perhaps it's this trope at play. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Maybe we should reconsider Rudy the Clown. Regardless, when the authors of the book are supposed to be translating from a source that already provides a slew of official names, smushing together all of the fan names and other junk reeks more of laziness or complacentness rather than a dedicated effort to ascend the fanon. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 17:59, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
What about the individual Three Little Pighead names? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Hence the middle option (although since those names are transliterated Japanese unlike Sentry Garage, I'm curious to know if those are from the Japanese guide). Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:03, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Per what I said to Doc and within the proposal, it feels unlikely that the writers are genuinely making an attempt to officially adopt these name, especially since this is supposed to be a translation. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:15, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
If the partial citation option wins, we should clarify the placement of the book among acceptable sources for naming. I suggest either specifying that it gets lowest priority in officially licensed media, or giving it a special sixth place underneath development names. That way, it handles conjectural and foreign names as needed, but we still clearly use older or alternate names in the event of contradictions. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Could you give an example of when this would come into effect? Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:46, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
It seems like we have some articles that are already in effect when the Super Mario Land 2 page was shown off, like Be. LinkTheLefty (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Those are just transliterations of the Japanese names that the wiki was already using, though. Especially since they obfuscate its origins and removes the macrons and other accents for pronunciation, I wouldn't be comfortable citing the book for those enemies. Hello, I'm Time Turner. 18:54, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Perhaps, but apparently other cases in separate sections like Red Skull Boxes are now identified as Targeting Ted Launch Pads, which I'm fairly certain is a brand new name (correct me if it's from elsewhere). I don't have my hands on a copy yet, so I can't point out other examples right now. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
Page 211: "They [Torpedo Teds] swim straight forward through the water. Some are propelled from Launch Pads." It's a bit of a generic name, but I'd accept "Launch Pad". Hello, I'm Time Turner. 19:10, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
It occurred to me that the possible reason the Super Mario Land 2 names are so literal might actually be for consistency with the original Super Mario Land names. As for Dark Horse taking names online, that is unfortunate but people should be aware that Prima has been caught doing the same so it is not a new phenomenon. I have a copy of the Japanese version, so in advance of the English release, I've also mentioned most of the affected articles here. Even with discrepancies and such (which I imagine should be largely eliminated by forgoing the full citation option), you could see that a fair amount of the wiki's conjectural and foreign tags would still be easily cleaned up with just the partial citation option. Or we can take a more case-by-case approach if it is best. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
I received a copy earlier, and the first thing I did was flip to the SML section to check the new name of the Roto-Disc-looking obstacle that the Japanese version calls Kaitensuru Honō ("Spinning Flame") only to find, to my great dismay, that it's labeled as ROTO-DISC. In addition to the Kuromame mix-up, there are a lot of other oddities that stood out to me like the off "Game Boy Player's Guide" names reused in the SML section, Pipe Fist (which was changed this year), Para-Bob-omb in the SMW section, Bubba directly mentioned as the secondary name of Boss Bass in the SM64 section, Rainbow Note (which should've been "Note"), Fish Bone and Tweester in SMG, Sentry Beam getting its Japanese name of "Laser Pod" and Jump Beamer getting the name "Sentry Beam", Spoing called "Bouncing Scuttlebug" in SMG yet named properly in the SMG2 section (Sprangler is intact in both), Whimp, Hefty and Big Goombas in the NSMBU section being respectively and erroneously referred to as Big and Mega Goombas in the NSMBWii section, and the general use of certain terms that I know originated from this very wiki from mostly over a year ago like Fire Jumping Piranha, Ghost Vase, Starbag, Mega Grrrol, theSuperMarioSunshineNPCs, Switchback Platform, and the general transliterations in the SML2 section (and I now realize they're from us outside of the Three Little Pigheads' individual names because the original Japanese version of the Encyclopedia plainly gave the name of "Bomubomu" as 「ボムボム1・2・3」and also gave the name of "Be" as the alternate 「B・フライ」). There's probably much more that I missed since this is such a surreal doozy. On the other hand, Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia happens to be the only modern source I've found that gives Cape Mario its correct name of Caped Mario. Go figure.
I'll admit, this is more unusable than I thought and it's no wonder that no one wants to go for the full citation option, but I do see some instances of passable localization buried in it (probably courtesy of the other translator if we're being honest, though regardless it needed tighter quality control as it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Nintendo for allowing a product's release in this rough state, especially after such a long delay). If the partial citation option passes, I believe we can work with the following: Falling Ceiling, Scenic Course (unique translation!) and the other SML2 locations, Sentry Garage, Giant Gringill, Chibi Chomp, Ground Urchin, Remote-Controlled Clown Car, [Torpedo Ted] Launch Pad, Targeting Ted Launch Pad, Piranha Pod, and possibly other names for things we do not yet have a name for (e.g. Lemmy and Wendy's "Decoy Doll" from SMW or the "Innertube Goomba" and "Skating Goomba" from SM3DW).
If we go with the no cite option, I'd assume it should at least be acceptable to use Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia for redirect purposes only, since that would otherwise confuse casual readers. LinkTheLefty (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
Whatever people's thoughts are on this issue, I think this goes to show that making sure wikis are as accurate as possible is important since so many people just assume whatever's on them is 100% factual. And that people should stop treating information on wikis as 100% factual if it's not sourced. BubbleRevolution (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
We should probably use their names as redirects. That way, they can't be moved to them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2018 (EDT)
(--) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (EDT)
