MarioWiki talk:Lists of citations

@NewMarioURU

One of the sources listed here for New Super Mario Bros. U is the Russian YouTube channel "@NewMarioURU". I've encountered some reason to doubt that this channel is official. Given this and the fact that the channel only shows English footage, do you think this calls for it to be removed as a source? If there's nothing I'm missing, this channel isn't a citable source of any official Russian names.

AmossGuy (talk) 20:23, November 10, 2025 (EST)

This YouTube channel was created and supported by Nintendo of Europe GmbH, much like the ones they hosted in Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. It is not fan ran.

Nintendo pulled its Russian websites shortly after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and this has fragmented older sources of information. However, Nintendo officially did have a robust marketing presence directed towards Russian players, and this YouTube channel is one of the few ones that remains relatively accessible. This YouTube channel is as old as its European counterparts that do link to other channels (which are also viewable in these references), had videos published on the same schedule, and the descriptions in these videos are identical or only slightly modified from the ones provided in-game in the Russian localization of New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, which can be accessed in its entirety here. (Also, just like the YouTube videos themselves, the videos within New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe are also of the English version of the game). If this YouTube channel was not official, the fact that the descriptions are identical for most of these videos is an extraordinary coincidence. - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:14, November 10, 2025 (EST)

Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining so thoroughly. AmossGuy (talk) 23:22, November 10, 2025 (EST)

Any time! - Nintendo101 (talk) 23:26, November 10, 2025 (EST)

About the protection of the citation list pages

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that must be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

I don't think the citation pages (with the exception of this page) should have editing restricted to administrators. While the citation lists are both in the MarioWiki, meaning they usually receive protection due them explaining the rules of the website, I feel that the citation pages (with the exception of this page) are a community effort and restricting editing on these pages hinders it by allowing only administrators to edit the page, despite most of these pages being lists of citations, which are expected to be edited when new sources are discovered. Having to request an administrator to add a source to the page removes the autonomy with adding sources to the pages, and can become annoying if one adds multiple sources in a short period of time (like me).

Likewise, removing a unofficial or nonexistent source with the citation pages being protected is equally difficult, although this is much less likely due to the likelihood that unofficial sources are added being lower.

While I believe that this protection was added so that bad faith editors are not easily able to add a unofficial or nonexistent source, this protection also hinders good faith editors who take their time in ensuring that sources are official before adding it to the page. And while administrators usually tend to have more experience that normal users, this doesn't mean that they don't occasionally make mistakes. And I don't recall there being a talk page discussion on whether the pages should protected before it was implemented.

I think a reasonable compromise would be this: have the pages be restricted to autoconfirmed users instead of administrators so that non-administrators (like me) can add sources that we find and remove sources that seem to be dubious or unofficial. I think this a good compromise to prevent bad faith anonymous users from adding dubious or unofficial sources while also allowing good faith editors to edit the pages, adding sources that we find, and removing sources that seem dubious or unofficial. It's very similar to editing the Names in other languages sections; similar to how one adds names to the section provided it exists in official media, one adds citations to the list of citations pages provided it exists in official media. Conversely, as one removes names from the Names in other languages sections that seem dubious or unofficial, one removes citations from the list of citations pages if they seem dubious or unofficial.

It's a community project, and everyone should do their part in making sure our citations are as accurate and comprehensive as possible, alongside other pages on the website. Restricting the pages to allow only administrators to edit them hinders the effort. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 19:45, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Maw-Ray Master. I am sympathetic to your frustrations, as I have noticed you have added several instruction booklets for Swedish, Danish, and Greek, and generally uncovered a lot of rare sources for articles, like the seemingly infinite number of dubs produced for the DIC cartoons. Your diligence to tracking down cryptic and obscure sources is appreciated. However, I want to clarify that the decision to even move these lists from my personal sandboxes to MarioWiki's proper infrastructure was based on internal staff discussions, and the majority of the citations here were integrated and formatted by myself. So while Maruigi Khed and you have certainly contributed to these lists and they feature a diversity of sources first retrieved by independent members of the userbase for various articles, the lists themselves are materially not a community effort. Protecting these pages helps futureproof them - I do worry about vandalization happening under our radar, or unofficial (or even fake) citations being added without being caught. I see good, active users incorrectly format citations, forget certain details, or misapply certain bits of information in them all the time, and while staff are certainly not immune to such oversights, keeping the pool of contributors narrow at least mitigates the odds of those things happening. I trust good faith users to raise talk pages if they have something they believe is legitimate.

With all that being said, I think your suggestion to broaden protecting to autoconfirmed users to be reasonable. I just still have some personal reservations for the reasons I specify in the above paragraph. Hopefully other users and staff members would be willing to share what they think. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:35, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I think non-staff contributions should instead be suggested on the talk page, so that staff can then incorporate them into the page. This allows regular users to contribute, while also protecting the page, AND adding an extra layer of verification to catch unofficial or misapplied sources. Would this be an acceptable compromise, @Maw-Ray Master?— eviemaybe (talk) 23:11, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

I'm just worried about spamming many suggestions onto the talk page as, for game citations, I prefer to add citations as I check each individual game rather than check every single game at once and adding them simultaneously. It helps keep the adding of citations reasonable and allows me to not feel compelled to check each individual source at once; with the pages protected, I feel that I'm compelled to add all of the sources at once rather than individually so that I avoid spamming suggestions onto the talk page. As for verifying if a game citation is official, usually what I do is to check online listings to see if the source exists. In general:

• Verifying the existence of English instruction booklets is usually relatively easy: all one has to do is search "[Name of game] instruction booklet", and it usually will appear if it exists. As Nintendo is based in Japan, verifying the existence of Japanese instruction booklets is just about as easy as verifying English instruction booklets; all one one has to do is type "[Name of game] instruction booklet Japanese", and it usually will appear. One's chances finding of such a booklet are increased if the user types this in Japanese.
• Verifying the existence of instruction booklets for other West European languages is usually relatively easy as well, at least for the languages Nintendo of Europe GmbH usually releases them in (French, German, Italian, European Spanish). Like with English instruction booklets, booklets in these languages usually can be found by typing "[Name of game] instruction booklet [Name of language]", with one's chances finding the booklet increased of if one types the translations of "instruction booklet" and the name of language in that language.
• Verifying the existence Scandinavian instruction booklets, including Swedish instruction booklets, is a little bit more difficult, as listings for just the instruction booklet are much more rare. Instead, I usually go on Tradera, a Swedish online marketplace based in Stockholm, Sweden, and search for the game I am looking for on that website. Because the website is based in Sweden, you are more likely to get listings of Swedish releases of a game, and, if you're lucky, you may be able to view a few pages inside the release's instruction booklet.
• Verifying the existence of Greek instruction booklets has probably been the most difficult for me to verify so far, as you're not even guaranteed to find a listing of a release of a game in that particular language. For this, I usually check Vendora, a Greek online marketplace. I've had some success in verifying the existence a few Greek instruction booklets on that website, but as mentioned before, it's not guaranteed that you'll find a listing of a game in Greek, and I have had times where I couldn't prove the existence of a Greek instruction booklet, even on that website.
• The verification of other game sources that do not originate from a game's instruction booklet can be verified by searching the source to see if it even exists. Unlike instruction booklets, which are usually by default official sources, sources that originate from outside the instruction booklets may not be official. For this, one usually checks the copyright to see if Nintendo, or one of its licensed distributors, is listed. If not, the source is most likely unofficial.

I haven't checked enough games to verify the existence of Chinese and Korean instruction booklets, but from what I've done so far, they may be even more difficult to verify than instruction booklets in any other language.

As for citations being incorrectly applied or formatted, I usually try to follow the style guidelines for formatting citations per MarioWiki:Citations when adding a source onto one of the Lists of citations pages. But I can see how they can formatted incorrectly by users, including myself. As such, I'd recommend adding some guidelines for formatting citations onto the main Lists of citations page, so that users will be able to know how to properly format citations when adding a source onto one of the pages.

As for vandalism, protecting the pages to allow only autoconfirmed users already takes care of anonymous users who are vandals. If an autoconfirmed user were to vandalize the page, the vandalism could be easily reverted by a staff member or another user.

In summary, here's what I would propose as a compromise:

1. Broaden the protection to allow autoconfirmed users to edit the list of citations pages. That way, normal users will be able to add citations that they find without having to repeatedly ask a staff member to do it for them. It also allows users to remove citations if they are unable to verify them, without having to ask a staff member beforehand.
2. Lay some ground rules as to how the List of citations pages should be formatted, including how to properly cite a source and link to MarioWiki:Citations. This will help users in properly formatting citations when adding a source onto one of the pages, including staff members.

Do you think this is a good compromise? Maw-Ray Master (talk) 01:13, April 16, 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, opening the page up to autoconfirmed users still has the issue of adding too much information too quickly to be checked. Everyone has a chance of being wrong, and while normally we can rely on each other to change incorrect information, citation formatting (especially when it is meant to be a reference for other users) is especially tricky to get just right. Heck, I don't even trust myself to do it. As it stands I would rather bottleneck the addition of citations to a talk page so they can, in due time, be checked by a knowledgeable staff member and incorporated in the page. — Lady Sophie_17 ^(T|C) 13:53, April 16, 2026 (UTC)

I'd think I'd rather be able to add citations directly to the pages, and have a staff member correct any formatting/citation issues later on. While I understand the concern of users adding too much information for a staff member to check, I'd prefer adding citations onto the page with a brief summary of what citations were added onto/edited on the page rather than explain every single detail onto a talk page. I think it takes more time to explain citations on a talk page so that a staff member can add them over just directly adding them to a page and briefly summarizing what has been added. If a user adds incorrect information, a staff member can come over and correct the citations later.

As I mentioned above, the citation formatting issues can easily be solved by explaining the rules on how to format a citation when adding a source onto the main lists of citations page. The page will have a link to MarioWiki:Citations, specifically the "Using the cite template" section. That way, when users go onto this page to add citations, they'll know to check that page to know how to properly format a citation when adding a source.

I think what my main concern is that the talk pages will end up being clogged up with requests asking to add citations onto pages because non-staff members aren't able to directly add them onto the pages. I'd rather rather allow autoconfirmed users to add citations onto the page, saving the talk pages for more important issues, like questioning whether a citation is official or even exists and one doesn't know.

I think the suggestion I mentioned above addresses most of the issues users have identified with broading protection to allow autoconfirmed users, and to resolve the issues you have mentioned, I think users should be allowed to edit the citation pages, and have staff members check and correct any citations that are added later on. I'd also recommend adding a guideline on the main lists of citations page explaining how to properly format a citation, including a link to MarioWiki:Citations#Using the cite template so that one can properly format a citation when adding a source onto one of the pages. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 17:42, April 16, 2026 (UTC)

Another issue that I should probably mention when requesting sources to be added by a staff member is that a staff member might not come on to check the talk pages, and the requests on the talk pages just remain unanswered. As an example, I added sources for all of the Swedish instruction booklets in the mainline Super Mario series three days ago (see here), and no one has bothered to put the citations onto the mainline Super Mario series citation list since. As my citations are online listings, these citations also face the problem of eventually breaking when the item is no longer available. Allowing autoconfirmed users to edit the pages eliminates both of these problems and allows regular users to directly edit the page without having to make a request to add the sources on a talk page and wait for a staff member to respond to their request, which might not be responded to for a long time. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 07:02, April 21, 2026 (UTC)

Disregard the example; the sources have been added. But the point still stands. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 09:49, April 22, 2026 (UTC)