MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: March 2, 2026, 22:08 (UTC)

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below). Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so. All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has 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 other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
2. A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
5. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
6. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
7. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
8. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
9. 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(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
   • 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.
10. 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 "(blocked)" 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.
11. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
12. 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.
13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
14. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
15. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
17. 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 should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.
18. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
19. All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.
20. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
21. Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
22. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
23. 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.
24. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
25. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option 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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[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 simply say "Per proposal".

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".

===[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|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount 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 {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), 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.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Deletions

None at the moment.

Moves

• Clarifying the rules for identifiers for shared titles (discuss) by EvieMaybe; Deadline: March 7, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merges

• Merge Mario Hoops 3-on-3 Tourneys into their respective Cup articles (discuss) by LadySophie17; Deadline: March 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Splits

None at the moment.

Miscellaneous

• Determine whether Mario & Wario and Wario's Woods are part of the Wario franchise (discuss) by Brett; Deadline: March 8, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Determine how to split the Other section on Template:Browser (discuss) by Camwoodstock; Deadline: March 14, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)

Note: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.

Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle

Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Note: Fully implemented only for Mario Party 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Star Rush

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)

Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 2025)

Overhaul sponsor pages, Seandwalsh (ended June 26, 2025)

Reorganize recurring theme articles to use history sections, Ahemtoday (ended July 2, 2025)

Permit creation of categories based on microgame themes, PawPatroler (ended August 3, 2025)

Note: Fully implemented for WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!, WarioWare: D.I.Y., WarioWare: D.I.Y. Showcase, and WarioWare: Get It Together!

Revamp colorful tables, Camwoodstock (ended August 14, 2025)

Make articles for the licensed songs in The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Sargent Deez (ended September 17, 2025)

Note: Articles for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" and "Mr. Blue Sky" have not been created yet

Change game quote lists to game scripts, Scrooge200 (ended September 21, 2025)

Create an article for Gourmandise, Sargent Deez (ended October 4, 2025)

Stop using icon-based level names for Super Mario Bros. 3, PopitTart (ended October 21, 2025)

End the use of "new course" and "classic course" as universal definitions within the Mario Kart series, Polley001 (ended January 26, 2026)

Establish a "character article" structure, LadySophie17 (ended January 27, 2026)

Replace profiles with infoboxes for enemies and bosses from the Paper Mario series, Sorbetti (ended February 3, 2026)

Make all release dates use individual flags (if possible), Yoshi18 (ended February 8, 2026)

Talk page proposals

Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)

Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects (Draft page), Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Red Bonus Game House, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.

Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Split the Animal Crossing series (now Crossovers with Animal Crossing) (Draft page), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)

Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article (Draft page), EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)

Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)

Determine which subjects belong in Category:Aliens, Technetium (ended June 14, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.

Split A Magical Tour of Yoshi's Island from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Rykitu (ended July 9, 2025)

Decide how to handle hammer-based moves in Category:Hammers, SolemnStormcloud (ended July 21, 2025)

Treat Pyoro as a series, janMisali (ended September 1, 2025)

Determine whether a Final Smash is one of a fighter's special moves, Salmancer (ended September 13, 2025)

Split Challenge, VS. Game/You VS. Boo, the Album and the Toy Box + its individual toys from Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Snessy (ended December 23, 2025)

Decide whether to use title case in English meanings of foreign names where applicable when not present in the source language, PaperSplash (ended December 26, 2025)

Merge Bob-omba, Goombob and Hulu with Bob-omb Buddy, Galoomba and Bamboo Dancer respectively, Snessy (ended December 30, 2025)

Treat courses that debuted in Mario Kart Tour and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe as Tour and 8 Deluxe courses respectively, Polterpup (ended January 1, 2026)

Consider "LUCKY" misses from the Paper Mario series to be a game mechanic, Pizza Master (ended January 13, 2026)

Move Wakkiki info to Akiki, FanOfYoshi (ended January 17, 2026)

Split Floaty Fluff from Fluff (object), Sorbetti (ended January 20, 2026)

Determine which clothing and other gear deserves individual articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 21, 2026)

Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back

Split the Sunset Express train from the level of the same name, Wandering Poplin (ended January 23, 2026)

Determine what qualifies as a game (and create appropriate categories in the process), SuperGamer18 (ended February 2, 2026)

Add "arrangement_of" and "arrangements" parameters to the theme infobox, Ahemtoday (ended February 9, 2026)

Declare Super Smash Bros. - Gameplay & Quest for the amiibo! a guest appearance and delete Jack (Quest for the amiibo!), Salmancer (ended February 22, 2026)

Add music types to track tables (SSBU Sound Test), The Eggo55 (ended February 27, 2026)

Determine whether discontinued media counts as lost media, Pizza Master (ended February 28, 2026)

Determine which conjecturally named advertisement characters get articles, Rykitu (ended March 1, 2026)

Writing guidelines

Stop considering most asset re-uses as "references" (usually)

So, music and voice clips have been determined to not count as references for the sake of the "references to previous games/references in later games" section. This leaves a few blind spots, though, which are all featured in Mario Party 5:

• Engine re-use: If a game re-uses the same engine as a previous game, is that a reference? ...This is the one we disagree with the most, because engines are explicitly made to be re-used between games all the time, and those games tend to vary wildly. It was already rather dubious in the era where proprietary engines were more common, but in an era where there are multiple Mario games that use Unreal Engine 4, it feels a bit absurd.
• Voice actor re-use: A weird edge-case the voice clip proposal didn't account for. Mario Party 5 asserts that the narrator being voiced by the same person as in Mario Party 4 is a "reference"... Is it?
• Sound effect re-use: If a game re-uses a sound effect from a previous game, is that a reference? Seeing as we don't consider music re-use a reference, and our coverage for sound effects actually borrows quite a bit in format with how we handle music, we feel like this is similarly fair game.
• Graphical re-use: If a game re-uses sprites, models, or even model animations from a previous game, is that a reference? There is a bit of an asterisk to this (namely about sprites, as those are far more frequently re-used), but, just see the paragraph below. Presently, Mario Party 5 gladly asserts that model animation re-use is a reference.
• Voice clip re-use: ...Now, admittedly, we're mostly including this in the conversation as, per a previous proposal, we already prohibit this. But, for the sake of including an option to not only allow the other instances we've listed, but to revert the results of the original voice clip proposal, we might as well bring it up again.

Now, obviously, there is a bit of an asterisk that we're borrowing from the voice clip proposal; in the event where the asset re-use is very much meant to refer back to exactly one game, a-la how Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020 features the Tokyo 1964 events that expressly harken back to the original Super Mario Bros. (or really, all the times Nintendo brings back the Super Mario Bros. art style as an intentional throwback, from Mario Clock to Super Mario Maker), then those, obviously, are fair game to acknowledge as references. This is actually an edge-case that's worth keeping in mind, as sprite re-use done for the sake of a throwback is something that happens constantly; it's one of the most common references the series does! This is more-so about things that don't have that sort of pretense; there are many "model re-use references" that boil down to "both of these games released during the same console generation, and beyond that, we can literally only speculate as to why this model got re-used in this game".

(As an asterisk to the asterisk, we don't think this should count for engine re-use, though, since we... Don't imagine Nintendo would ever go out of their way to use an older engine for the sake of a throwback or a "reference." There are a few companies that'll go back to older hardware as part of re-releases of older games and make, effectively, fully-licensed homebrew, but Nintendo is not one of those companies. When they're done with a piece of hardware, let alone a game engine, they're done with it.)

EDIT: Per Arend (in his vote) and Yoshi18 (in the comments), we've added a bit of a median option; rather than removing these outright, we simply create a new section along the lines of "Recycled assets from other games", which is dedicated to tracking these more precisely while keeping the References section clean. For the sake of having an actual policy for this, we'll say that, if a re-used asset cannot be reasonably justified as being a deliberate throwback (such as Super Mario Bros. Special's Sidestepper sprites being based loosely off those in Punch Ball Mario Bros. in terms of how it shades it) it will default to the "recycled assets" section; however, something more clearly intended to be a throwback (such as Mario Calculator) would still be included in the references section. The "Recycled assets" section should be listed after the "References to previous/in future games" sections, to make this priority clearer to readers.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) & Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: March 5, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

None of these should count as references (prohibit all)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) We doubt many people would argue Princess Peach: Showtime! is a reference to Yoshi's Crafted World because they use Unreal Engine 4, that every game featuring Charles Martinet is a reference to Mario Teaches Typing, that every use of the Coin sound is a reference to Mario Bros., or that New Super Mario Bros. U is referencing New Super Mario Bros. Wii by re-using that game's models. There are far, far more pragmatically-driven reasons for each of these than an intentional throwback.
2. Arend (talk) We're still doing this? Regardless, I've said this once before and I will say it again: we really should consider introducing sections for listing reused assets, rather than lumping them in with the intentional references.
3. Altendo (talk) Per proposal. I doubt that any of these would count as "references".
4. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
5. Wandering Poplin (talk) Like I said on the last proposal like this, unless the asset is specifically calling back to an earlier appearance, (such as the SM64 Mario model reappearing in Super Mario Odyssey), it is not a reference, it's reused assets and nothing more.

Track recycled assets in a separate section from the "references" section

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. While we feel tracking recycled assets in general is a bit silly, it does happen relatively frequently, and Nintendo is known for re-contextualizing recycled assets in all sorts of weird ways. Cough cough, Majora's Mask.
2. Hewer (talk) Second choice. (What makes tracking recycled assets "sillier" than tracking references is beyond me.)
3. Arend (talk) This should be a nice compromise to list all these reuses without getting them mixed with the intentional references.
4. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice. Per Arend.
5. Wandering Poplin (talk) Very secondary. For this to work, we'll need some hard rules about what qualifies for this section, since I don't think listing "Yoshi's Story" for nearly every post 2000's appearance of the character would be that helpful, nor a very wise idea. (And the issue gets even worse for characters who only ever had one voice recording section, like Professor E. Gadd.)
6. Altendo (talk) Second choice, per all.
7. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't like listing them as references because they're just for budget reasons most of the time, so listing where assets are re-used would be better. We'd just have to ensure they're re-used, through direct comparisons, similar dev teams or being sequels, etc. over just "they look similar." (Also, would listing re-uses of assets that didn't originate from Mario count? I ask because Mario & Sonic Long Title 2012 re-uses a song from a Club Penguin Wii game of all things.)
8. The Dab Master (talk) Per all.
9. EvieMaybe (talk) this could be reasonable, too.

These should count as references, alongside voice clip re-use (allow all)

1. Hewer (talk) I think a game reusing assets like voice clips from a previous one is interesting and notable information, and the reference sections are a handy place to include it. I don't understand the desire to actively remove information like this from our coverage, or why it's so important to restrict the reference sections to only "intentional throwbacks". If we're really desperate to do that then I could maybe settle for an option that allows asset re-use to be covered in a sub-section or something, but I oppose outright removal of the information.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) per Hewer. while i think we could stand to be more judicious (stuff like miscellaneous voice clips and stock artwork aren't really REFERENCES, just assets that happened to be used in two games), this is still information that should be covered. i personally see the References section as "how does this game exist in relation to other games in the franchise?", and stuff like reused animations and sound effects very much fall under that.
3. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Per all.

Comments (This section is a reference to "Delete Alternative Proto Piranha Images")

@Camwoodstock: The Charles Martinet and Coin examples in your vote reasoning would not be considered references for the same reason we already don't consider every appearance of Mario to be a reference to Donkey Kong. But I would be fine listing NSMBU's model reuse as a reference and don't feel strongly either way regarding engine reuse. (Also, FYI, the previous proposal you linked at the start of this one didn't actually determine reused music should not count as a reference, just that very commonly recurring themes such as Ground BGM shouldn't be considered references every time they appear.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:01, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

@Arend: The thing is that asset reuse often is an "intentional" reference, such as the reuse of classic sprites as was brought up in the proposal. And anyway, we didn't develop these games, so we don't necessarily know for sure what the "intent" was. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:40, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

1. Honestly, I think the reused assets from Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash to Mario Tennis Aces (most models), and then from Mario Tennis Aces to Mario Tennis Fever (several entrance animations) are less "intentional reference", and more "for the sake of convenience" and "to save on time or money" (actually, come to think of it, all three of these games have reused voice clips from Mario Power Tennis in one way, which I'm not sure is also an intentional reference).
2. "we don't necessarily know for sure what the "intent" was" Exactly. So why not go for the safe option and list them as reused assets, instead of lumping them in with the intentional references when we don't even know if they were intended to be as such?

rend (talk) (edits) 16:42, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

I don't know where this idea that the reference sections absolutely have to be limited to "intentional references" came from because nothing on the actual pages really seems to suggest that. My preference is for them to list any way in which a game acknowledges or reuses from a previous game. Even if the reasons for asset reuse in many cases probably are to do with saving resources, that doesn't make them less "intentional" or less deserving of coverage. For one reason or another, the developers still intentionally chose to reuse those animations from that game. That said, I already said in my vote that I'd settle for including asset reuse in a separate list, perhaps a subsection in the reference sections. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:41, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make a voting option to give reused assets a specific section as @Arend suggested. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Went ahead and added that! you didn't see us forget to vote in it at first you can't prove it ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 17:47, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Cam! Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:37, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

@Wandering Poplin, could you clarify on what you meant about listing Yoshi's Story for every post-2000s appearance of Yoshi? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:36, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Yoshi's voice recordings from Yoshi's Story have since been reused for most of his appearances since then, such as Super Smash Bros., Yoshi's Woolly World, Super Mario 64 DS, etc. It hasn't been literally every appearance, mind you. Titles such as Mario Party 1 & 2, Super Mario Sunshine, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder are a few exceptions to that trend.

But my point is that I don't think it'd be very helpful to point out which game reuses Yoshi's voice clips from that game when it pretty much comprises all of his appearances with voice acting for the past 25+ years.

(While I was writing this, I did notice that my concern may have already been partially addressed by Hewer's first comment on this section, but I decided to respond to the question anyway.) Wandering Poplin (talk) 19:29, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

This is a problem we already have to deal with in reference sections, though. We don't list every appearance of Mario as a reference to Donkey Kong, or every appearance of Bowser as a reference to Super Mario Bros. And anyway, I do think this wiki could do a better job at explaining whether a character's voice clips in a given game are new recordings or reused from previous appearances. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:35, February 19, 2026 (UTC)

Removals

None at the moment.

New features

Deprecate the Stub and Construction templates, and replace them with a new template

The {{Stub}} and {{Construction}} templates are not very... useful. The majority of articles that are marked as stubs don't even have any specifics on what information is missing, and the Construction template does not even have the option to display that. While one could sit down and attempt to improve them, I have decided to rethink the system from the ground up. Inspired by The Cutting Room Floor's "to-do" template and Wikipedia's stub message templates, this proposal aims to codify a new family of article notice templates: the To-do templates.

These templates would serve a similar purpose to Stub and Construction, featuring:

• A section= parameter, to mark only a section of the article as incomplete;
• A user= parameter, in case the article is actively being worked on by one or more users;
• A parameter to describe what the article needs, with room to add an entire bullet-point list. (at the time of writing, TCRF's Super Mario Bros. Wonder page is a good example of what that would look like.)

The key difference is that there would not be one template, but several. Series-specific sub-templates, such as {{to-do Mario Kart}} and {{to-do Mario vs. Donkey Kong}}, would mark the required editing as specifically corresponding to one series, and sort the page under a specific category named something like "Category:Articles needing Mario Kart-related information", allowing users with specific areas of expertise to focus their knowledge on the articles that need it.

The main benefit here is transparency: editors benefit from knowing exactly what articles need work and what that work needs to be, and readers benefit from being informed that there is information missing, and that the article currently does not tell the full story. Additionally, outright replacing Stub and Construction allows their presence to serve as a progress tracker for the proposal's implementation, as well as encouraging people not accustomed to the new standard to not use the old templates to make the switch; the templates will be marked as "deprecated" if this proposal passes, immediately telling anyone who uses them that they should not be used anymore.

However, I acknowledge that this would leave the {{Rewrite}} family of templates mostly redundant. I am not sure if they should be deprecated as well or not, so I will create two options for it.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk), with help from Porplemontage (talk)
Deadline: March 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Implement the To-do templates; replace Stub, Construction, and the Rewrites

1. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Out of these three, the {{rewrite}} templates are still the most useful
3. PopitTart (talk) I have always been somewhat confused by the coexistence of stub, construction, and the various rewrite templates. For a long time i genuinely didn't know the latter existed, because the former two functionally overlap with it so much. I think it would be better to have one family that covers all their use cases.

Implement the To-do templates; replace only Stub and Construction

1. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice. While I think {{stub}} template is still somewhat useful, I can absolutely agree that the {{construction}} template isn't. A maintenance template like that should absolutely have a reasoning parameter and I always thought it's weird that the {{construction}} lacked such a parameter. Merging them into your {{to-do}} template idea would definitely fix that.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per Yoshi18. The to-do template also can provide specifics on what needs to be done. The stub template could also do that, but here it is more organized.

To-comment

If I may propose another idea, maybe we could also have a template for if we need more languages. The {{stub}} never seemed to fit to me for that. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:58, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe what is causing the confusion of stub templates is some strange applications of them I've seen, including a relatively recent redesign of {{stub}} last year to make them appear nigh identical to {{rewrite-expand}}[1] except with different wording. What {{stub}} was meant to do, as far as I understood it from my experience (I'm not sure if there were any recent developments on how to apply stub, I wasn't always there to attend to policy matters), was reserved for incredibly short articles with significant expansion potential such as Sean where it barely qualifies as an article and there is almost everything inadequate with how the article covers information and not for articles that require more information but are substantial otherwise (in most cases this is the job for {{rewrite-expand}}). Koopa_Bros.#Gallery does not have the correct template ({{image}} should've been used). Neither do Banana Queen, Loading zone, Orbot & Cubot, Prince_Mush#Paper_Mario:_The_Thousand-Year_Door_.28Nintendo_Switch.29, Spoiled Rotten, Mario_Tennis_(Nintendo_64)#Controls, Ancient Record, ({{rewrite-expand}} is the correct one; and A LOT of these template ask for meager specifics which is NOT what the stub template is for). The proposal was built off understanding that the wrong application of {{stub}} I'm seeing is the actual practice. There can be debate if the legacy way of applying {{stub}} is considered impractical now, but I want to make it clear if the problem of the stub template is its design and not improper editor discretion before we take steps to deprecate stub all together (it's possible that a template of a to-do list instead of stub could wind up swamping the entire page, where either rewrite-expand, perhaps with a link to the talk page listing all the problems, or stub depending on how problematic the article is, could've been much better uses). It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:14, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, {{stub}} was redesigned per this proposal. --Steve (talk) 19:22, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I do admit that I mostly use {{stub}} if an article/section needs expansion, but I think that the reason why I (and many others) use {{stub}}, as opposed to {{rewrite}}, is because {{rewrite-expand}} wouldn't fit if an article/section only needs expansion but no rewrite. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:25, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

i feel like all of these points just serve to reinforce the idea of deprecating the Stub template. a to-do list swamping a very short page is a feature, not a bug; it clearly communicates exactly how much work needs to be done on it. replacing all the Stub templates will also help us find all those false positives you listed and replace them with something more useful, as well as letting us stay on top of any potential future misuses. — eviemaybe (talk) 19:28, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I don't wholly agree. Stub is supposed to be used for articles that barely pass for actual articles or barren sections like in Pennington#Super_Mario-kun that have the bare minimum to at least find out if a character exists in a particular chapter, and if it was used properly, you could easily see a list of all the stub pages in Category:Stubs or WhatLinksHere for stubs and know right away that all of them have serious information issues while you're not getting this information immediately if you browse transclusions of {{rewrite-expand}} or the to-do list template which could vary more widely in problems but aren't as dire as stubs. Sean could get a to-do list that specifies the article needs information on a character's personality, a character's gameplay, a character's quotes, a character's sprites, a character's screenshots, a character's story relevance, but then if you have to list it all out, isn't that what {{rewrite}} / {{rewrite-expand}} with reason parameters for? Also there are articles or sections that have immediate problems even if you're not familiar with the content like Pennington#Super_Mario-kun; I don't think it's productive to be required to engage in a lot of research figuring out what's exactly wrong in the first place; this is what stub is exactly for, isn't it? Even if you could collapse every single problem the article has, I think a talk page is already supposed to be equipped for that, which is why we often employ links to talk pages detailing what's wrong with an article to the talk page. To-do list might be better equipped to deal with the current setup. I can see benefits involved such as specifying better what's wrong in a longer list. I'm not arguing against to-do lists on the front of a page, I just don't think they should be substitutes for {{stub}} and {{rewrite-expand}} especially when those two already have a strong presence in the wiki. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:47, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be a version of "rewrite-expand" that's just "expand" (i.e., there's some information that needs to be added but what's already there is good enough that it doesn't need to be rewritten), and the way "stub" is currently used fills this niche. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:46, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

That's honestly kinda what I tried to say earlier. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 21:08, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps but I'm not fond of altering existing templates based on word choice? If we need to clarify the difference between {{rewrite-expand}} and {{stub}}, which in this wiki I don't believe we've ever codified the difference between the two, it's just something you pick up from experience, we can do this. But I don't like renaming templates and memorizing an new set of templates. I adjusted from moreimages to image|more=yes because editors decided it's better to have everything in one template, and I don't like introducing hassle with improvement tags unless necessary. It's another bit of why I'm not particularly keen deprecating more commonly used templates. I want to improve articles, not try to play scavenger hunt and look up which templates I need to use now. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:25, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this response relates to my comment? I'm saying that I think the current usage of "stub" fills a niche that is otherwise vacant, not that we need to rename or change any existing templates. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:44, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

My big concern with this is that it'll encourage people to be lazy with their edits and just pile-up to do lists rather than incorporating that information into the article themselves. Over on TCRF, I had found that someone added "Unused sound effects" with a link to a dead YouTube video, and now I can't add information on those sound effects because I don't know what they are. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:44, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

also a feature, not a bug. without the template, those "lazy" people wouldn't actually bother to add the info at all, and we'd be left with no awareness that there are unused sound effects in the first place. even if it's not a job well done, it's better than nothing. — eviemaybe (talk) 22:59, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

Per @EvieMaybe, also, just a reminder, but people can be lazy with their edits and just pile-up things that need to be fixed rather than incorporating that information into the article/section themselves with the existing templates as well (mainly {{stub}}, and to an extend {{construction}} since you can't even give a reasoning for applying the template). Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:07, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

Just used {{stub}} on some other articles; once again, a "{{more-languages}}" template would be welcome to me. Though perhaps it's something I should propose myself later. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:27, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

Changes

Remove requirement to cite in-game NIOLs (names in other languages) for levels, missions, challenges, and other areas

Over time, I grew more supportive of the policy that states all names in other languages should be cited, despite initially opposing the proposal that put it into motion. You'll see in my edit history that many of my recent edits have focused on improving NIOL sourcing. Indeed, this endeavor has clear benefits that my initial oppose perhaps didn't quite foresee--but I maintain that it also led to a lot of redundancy.

I've noticed a trend where certain articles, specifically NSMBU challenges and Donkey Kong Bananza sub-locations, technically fulfill the requirement, but in a superficial way: a simple "in-game name" statement that isn't all that meaningful. In my aforementioned oppose vote, I addressed this situation directly: many of these names are observable just by normally playing through a game or watching footage of it, and rather than forcing a mandated citation to signal self-evident info, one can use the "note" column of the NIOL table.

The reason I'm focusing on levels, missions, and challenges for this proposal is because these elements are almost always presented to players via dedicated selection screens. They're consistently, clearly, and somewhat predictably displayed as part of standard gameplay. It's a convention that characters, items, and even overarching places do not always benefit from. I think indiscriminately requiring citations for levels, challenges, and the like adds like value.

• What won't get removed?
  The proposal does not mandate that any and all existing NIOL citations for a level, mission, or challenge be removed, even if the names originate from the game itself. This proposal aims for a softer implementation of the described change that doesn't overwrite genuine efforts to highlight the name, either through a walkthrough video, a screenshot, or an internal string. Users can still cite level names if they so wish; it just won't be a requirement to do so, and the citations need to be meaningful and palpable.
• What gets removed?
  Any NIOL citation for the above that amounts to a plain "in-game name" statement. Automated citation checks will be disabled using this method, and names that do require a citation (see below) but don't have one will use a classic {{ref needed}} tag instead.
• What will still require citations?
  Any NIOL that originates from outside the game. Games where this extends to include Super Mario Land 2 (level names are derived from supplemental material), Donkey Kong Land (levels are only ever mentioned in the instruction manual), and Super Mario Sunshine (the bonus Shine Sprites that do not correspond to a designated episode are only named in player guides).
  • If the game itself follows a live-service model or is available for a limited time, but the level, challenge, or mission title is otherwise easily observable in-game during that timeframe, it is up to the editor to decide whether a citation is needed or not. I personally lean towards citing such cases, but, once again, in a way that references some actual evidence.

****

Update 20:44, February 28, 2026 (UTC)
The proposal has been updated with a middle-ground option. The policy will remain enforced in the cases outlined here, but will require more constructive referencing habits. By this I mean that rather than just slapping the game's title as a reference (which unaware or bad faith editors can always pass off as evidence, and the resulting citations would more easily fly under the radar), editors will need to provide more substantive material that clearly verifies a NIOL, such as a video, screenshot, or an official webpage.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: March 14, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (make it optional to cite in-game NIOLs for these particular cases)

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
2. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I know this option won't succeed but I've been increasingly souring with the increased editorial expenditure of effort required to source auxiliary names in other languages lately that I strongly feel any method to curb the ridiculous amount of unsourced statements that plague our articles which require editors to carefully scrutinize video footage from multiple separate languages (in which most readers wouldn't typically care much for because most of this audience are English speakers; only reason we don't have multi-lingual wiki to cover these tracks is just because of lack of interest/expenses required to host them) and learning how to use modding tools only to extract names in such languages from various text files would be appreciated.
3. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Xiahou Ba.
4. Shadow2 (talk) If we don't have to cite the source of the English title when it's just the in-game name, I don't see why we have to for other languages if they're just the in-game names.
5. Blinker (talk) Per my comment below.
6. ^ The Dab Master (talk) Secondary choice; per all.

Half-oppose (keep requiring NIOL citations for these cases, but discourage superficial referencing)

1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per this.
2. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't really see why this is a "half oppose" when it's more of a double-down, as it's far more rigorous to demand a link of some sort over just "In-game name.", actually being more strict about how these should be sourced than the original opposition option is. But to be honest, culling these "In-game name." sources has been something we've wanted for awhile. Not only is it just as fallible to error as any other, but it feels similarly like kind of an admission of defeat when it comes to properly sourcing things. Just a link to a longplay with a timestamp, or a link to an image, will suffice. Also, per our rationale on our (now canned) vote for the oppose option, we feel like just throwing our hands up and just admitting we don't care to verify some sources is... Dismal.
3. Sorbetti (talk) Yes, this is what I was looking for. For me, there's really no difference between having no citations and a citation that only says "in-game name." In both cases, you're blindly trusting something you can't verify yourself most of the time. On the recent Hisstocrat page, the name is cited with an image, and that's how it should generally be, in my opinion.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) also voting for this, per Camwoodstock. the harder a source is to falsify, the better.
5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
6. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) This is the option that'll most likely to succeed, so I'll also voice support for this.
7. Jdtendo (talk) I typically think of these "In-game name" citations as "non-citations" because they don't provide more information than not having a citation at all.
8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
9. Yoshi18 (talk) While I do think that sourcing these foreigns names is annoying and most readers probably wouldn't even care, it's still somewhat important, but we should at least be more lenient with what we see as "deprecated sources".
10. Altendo^[2] Second choice.
11. The Dab Master^[3] (talk) Primary choice; per all, particularly Sorbetti.
12. Maw-Ray Master (talk) First choice. While it is important that editors should cite all foreign names, a simple "In-game name" citation says very little about where the name can be found. I feel that editors should provide more information on where the name is found, such as the specific location where the name is found and possibly the localization, e.g.: "In-game name in the [location name] of the [localization name/language] localization of [game name]".

Oppose (keep requiring NIOL citations for these cases)

1. EvieMaybe (talk) very recently, we've had to remove some completely made up Polish names a user added to various Mario Kart 8 tracks, and the only way we caught that they were made up was that they were not cited. for easily accessible names like these, i see citations as a verification step: a user that bothers to add a citation is most likely not a user who does not understand how NIOL tables works and is making stuff up. verifying and citing these names is quite easy, and the only reason it has not been done is the volume of the task; i would rather wait a bit until someone gets around to it and have the confirmation that all the names there are genuine, than to have another situation like MK8 above.
2. Altendo^[1] Per EvieMaybe. Having verification isn't always a bad thing; it can confirm names given to a subject. If a YouTube video isn't available on a game in another language, it's as simple as taking a screenshot of the game and then uploading it to the wiki for proof (or to another website then linking it afterwards). Case point (this is admittedly unrelated to the area example, but I thought I'd still bring it up), when I found the Japanese and Korean names for ? Candy and Candy Shop, I was able to get them by watching walkthrough videos of the subjects, then I cited them appropriately because I wanted to present evidence for the translations being real. Keeping the requirement works both ways; if proof of the name through an image or video exists on the internet (or it can be uploaded through a playthrough of a foreign game), it can easily be cited, it's as simple as that. But if no proof of it exists on the internet (which means it cannot be cited), then we shouldn't verify that a name in another language is real if no proof of the name exists.
3. Blinker (talk) Per my comment below. Anything but the so-called "half-oppose" option.
4. Maw-Ray Master (talk) Second choice. While admittedly the "In-game name" citations aren't very specific, they're at least better than having no citation at all.

#Camwoodstock (talk) Per EvieMaybe. It's very nice to have these sanity checks, weeding out made-up names, and we have had tangible cases where doing this has yielded benefits. We have a userbase that has already brought down the amount of sourcing issues (not just for foreign names, but all sourcing issues) down by over a thousand over the past 14 months of us keeping an eye on the to-do bar, from a high of 19,771 to 18,242 now. It's a long road getting there, but just because a task is long and time-consuming, doesn't mean it's not worth doing. We would sooner want to see a push for this task being more organized, rather than throw our hands in the air and say "make up whatever names you want in these cases, we're just too lazy!" just over 5% of the way in.

Comments (remove requirement to cite in-game NIOLs for levels etc.)

@opposition, is is sufficient to simply add "in-game name" or "game title and publisher" as a citation, then? Had the user "referenced" those Polish names the way NIOLs are at Piranha Plant Hideaway, they would have technically fulfilled the requirement and would have made them harder for editors to catch. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 16:04, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

I think that's more of a problem with how in-game names are cited. Sorbetti (talk) 16:08, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

Would it be any less sufficient than if the Polish name was added with a citation that said "Official Polish Mario Kart 8 Deluxe guide, published 2023, page 46"? Anyone superficially glancing at the page would take both citations to be true. Anyone who bothered to verify them would just as easily find out they are both blatantly false. There is no Polish localization for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, that's evident and easy to prove. They are course names, making them also extremely easy to find in-game, so even for other languages, in this particular case, I think "in-game name" would be a sufficient citation (although I would prefer something like "in-game name in the course select screen"). — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 20:52, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

At that point, it comes down to whether the editor who adds that citation is acting in good faith or being deceptive. I don't think this is something that the current overarching NIOL policy can really solve. It's up to us to spot errors or wrongdoings. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 21:05, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. So if a citation is clear and concise (e.g.: "in-game name" for something which appears in a main menu screen), then there's no need to demand video evidence or more complex wording. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 23:49, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

I've added a new option; please review the update note at the end of the proposal. Tagging current voters: @EvieMaybe, @Altendo, @Camwoodstock -- KOOPA CON CARNE 20:44, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

Is there a preferred way to do this, even? A way to order the languages or what to say when you got it in-game? Would linking to my giant interlingual spreadsheets for proof help more than just saying "in-game display name"?

Also we shouldn't count on videos for everything because there isn't a single Dream Team Canadian French playthrough on YouTube. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:54, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

Obviously, not every game is going to have a longplay in every language it released for; in those cases, other avenues such as screenshots or text dumps will suffice. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 22:40, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

But where do we put those in the reference? I noticed Smoldergeist's Canadian French name was wrong, and since it had been there for a while, I uploaded a screenshot as proof. But I don't want to play through this 40 hour game again in a language I don't speak for a hundred screenshots, so I would prefer being able to somehow just reference this extensive text dump from every region that I organized myself. (Incidentally, this also caught an inconsistency with Mini Pi'illoid and Mini Pi'illoid X that I don't think had been discovered beforehand.) Scrooge200 (talk) 23:46, February 28, 2026 (UTC)

we currently cite a text dump for Mario Kart World names (see Lobster Roller). is this something you'd prefer better? — eviemaybe (talk) 01:55, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

Well, a Google Sheet is something that isn't stored on-site, cannot be reliably backed up, and can go down at the whim of a single person. Scrooge200 (talk) 03:10, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

the fact that it is a google sheet is not particularly relevant here. i'm talking about the format, not the medium. — eviemaybe (talk) 04:35, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I think that would work, as long as we have something that's easy for people to contribute to (say I add item names for an RPG and someone else wants to add enemy names). Additionally, would just including a sample of relevant text and context in the translation be okay, like Mustard Café chef and snowball? Scrooge200 (talk) 06:41, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

that works for subjects named within dialogue, but the relevant text for the subjects this proposal is about, like Dolphin Shoals, is "Dolphin Shoals". — eviemaybe (talk) 19:09, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

That has no relevance to anything in this conversation. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:48, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

For sourcing, I'm thinking of doing something like this. You might need to download it to see. Scrooge200 (talk) 01:03, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I honestly always thought the wiki should be more lenient with foreign name sources. I understand that they're still important but they're not so important as, say, game/console release dates. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:04, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I find it absurd, the idea of requiring that names in other languages not only be cited, but always have accompanying proof that the name is indeed used, when you would never apply that same logic to practically anything else. The purpose of a citation should be for other people to easily verify the information being conveyed, by knowing where they can look to verify it. Sure, if we can aid in that by providing a method of checking that doesn't involve owning the game, great, but it shouldn't be a requirement. After all, would we apply the same requirement to statements like "Goombas can be defeated by jumping on top of them"? If not, then I ask why foreign names of all things should receive that sort of treatment. Blinker (talk) 21:48, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

It ties into my overall gripe of having editors be ridiculously meticulous over what amounts to unimportant information for the vast majority of this wiki's audience. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 23:07, March 1, 2026 (UTC)

I look at the Names in other languages sections on articles and find it reassuring when a name has been properly cited. Abstaining from voting for now, but while I do believe that all foreign names should be cited (including in-game names), I feel that they should be properly cited, at the bare minimum including a link to a source, or at least providing sufficient information on the source where the name is found ("In-game name" is rather vague). By "sufficient", I mean that one should at least put the specific location where the name is found, such as a selection screen or in-game map, and possibly also the localization of the game ("iQue" for example). I don't think that the requirement for citing in-game names should be removed, as per EvieMaybe, citations are an extra step to prove that the name is real, and the only way I was able to verify a fake name was because it was unsourced; see here and here.

As far as I can tell, there's no consistent way to indicate whether a name is an in-game name or not, so I feel that removing the requirement would make it harder for one to verify whether a foreign name was made-up or not; someone can easily pass off a fake name as a real name by not including a Ref needed template next to the name. (Then again, English names can also be made-up, but the reason stated in the proposal requiring citations for foreign names was that these names can be more easily verified, as we are mainly an English-speaking wiki.) The proposed solution also seems somewhat redundant: If a named subject only appears in one game, what good does it do to highlight that the name comes from the game in the Notes section?

That said, I do feel that, though including a link to a source for an in-game name is helpful, it is not always practical, as not every game has a thorough playthrough of in every available language. In this case, an in-game name citation be can be used instead, but it needs to be more descriptive to allow others to easily verify it. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 00:57, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

So would all instances of a source providing no image, video or website but still provides which menu or location the name is found (such as what I've found for the international names of Music Bash) have to be deleted, or only the ones that only say "in-game name"? rend (talk) (edits) 19:39, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

I think they @Maw-Ray Master meant only the ones that simply say "in-game name" without elaborating. Though I do wonder how you're supposed to elaborate for Mario Party minigames or Mario Kart courses. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:51, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

...o-kay, but I would like this to be said by the proposer, @Koopa con Carne, as well; especially him, being the one who made the proposal in the first place. There's always a possibility that the proposer doesn't share the exact idea from a regular voter even if they vote for the same option. rend (talk) (edits) 21:09, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

As stated in the proposal, level names tend to be consistently displayed where you'd expect them, i.e. by hovering your character or cursor over the corresponding icon in a level selection menu or map. A citation stating the exact level subset of this level wouldn't add much value since that should already be mentioned in the article's body. Readers can intuitively tell that "level X pertains to world Y" stays consistent across localizations; I can't think at the moment of any example where a level is reassigned to a different world between localizations, but if there were, I assume that's the kind of trivia you'd see in the article's lede.
I assume your question relates to how character or enemy names are sometimes cited using certain in-game lines of dialogue. That's not something a reader can deduce from sheer context, it's something you're compelled to point to as an editor and that makes those specific citations more substantive. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 21:36, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

...I'm not sure if that really answers my question at all, this seems rather related to Yoshi18's question.
What I wanted to know is whether citations such as what I've cited for for the international names of Music Bash (which sources what is essentially an entry in an in-game manual and in which menu and submenu it would be found; the citation reads: "Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit in-game Info menu, Gameplay section, Gate Features subsection."), would have to be removed, or if the removal only applies to citations that say nothing but "in-game name" verbatim. rend (talk) (edits) 22:06, March 2, 2026 (UTC)

References

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.