MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
===Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"===
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
As we all know, many wikis (including the Super Mario Wiki), like to simply say "British English". But I think this just isn't right. It has been like this for long, even though we know that, unlike American English (which spelling really is exclusive to America, or people like me who prefer it over Commonwealth English most of the time), Commonwealth English spelling isn't exclusive to the United Kingdom, and (as a more famous example) also used Oceania. So this proposal aims to change this to avoid making it look like this spelling is only used in the United Kingdom/Europe. Per {{User|EvieMaybe|Evie}}'s comment; This is an inclusive wiki, so we should be using the more international (inclusive) term. Cause sometimes, who cares what Nintendo does? If they don't want to acknowledge Oceania, it's their own fault. But we ''can't'' make that same mistake.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
|}
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 with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
#Actions that [[MarioWiki:Administrators|sysops]] feel are appropriate to have community approval first will be added by a sysop.
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
##Monday to Thrusday: 5pm
##Friday and Saturday: 8pm
##Sunday: 3pm
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#The '''original proposer''' calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary.


Archive sub-pages will be made eventually. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
====Rename to "Commonwealth English"/"English (Commonwealth)"====
#{{User|Yoshi18|Yoshi18 (Commonwealth)}} Per proposal. My primary choice.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - I mean, I ''already'' write it as this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu (Commonwealth)}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not. Per proposal.
#{{User|Nelsonic|Nelsonic (Commonwealth)}} Per all.


So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
====Stay with "British English"/"English (United Kingdom)"====
#{{User|SmokedChili}} "British English" is fine, even "European English" would be better, because it's Nintendo of Europe who localized differently for the markets the NA versions don't reach. Making this  "Commonwealth English" would generalize and obscure this too much because that's the group the different non-American Englishes all fall into, and it's not all about spelling, the vocabularies also differ.
#{{User|Hewer}} Voting for this as a "do nothing" option. I've seen both terms used on the wiki and they're essentially interchangeable. I don't see the need to enforce a strict policy about which one to use when they're both commonly used terms that mean the same thing.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty (Teatime)}} [https://www.nintendo.com/en-gb/Games/Smart-device-games/Nintendo-Today--2786335.html Nintendo uses the terms "U.S. English" and "British English"]
#{{User|Technetium}} Per LinkTheLefty.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per LinkTheLefty.


__TOC__
====Commonwealth Comments====
Just to be clear: British English is going bye-bye, but Australian English and Canadian English, also listed in the cite template's [[Template:Cite#Optional parameters|language codes]], remain intact? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:45, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
::[[Heart Panel|Some]][[List of Tetris & Dr. Mario staff|time]]s. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:::Yeah, but in terms of games, Canadian English is never used. Mostly the gaming pages (like the game infobox) and pages that state the differences between American and Commonwealth English (like most of ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour]]''{{'}}s minigames) are my main target now. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|SmokedChili}} I understand your argument, but consider that, as I said; British English isn't only used in the ''United Kingdom'' or ''Europe''. Its spelling (which is the thing that matters in games), is also used in Australia (which is the reason PAL used to exist). That the vocabularies differ doesn't really matter, because the Australian versions is just identical to British version. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Australia localize the same, so bringing up Nintendo of America doesn't really seem to be needed. Also, yes that's right. Every country except America and Canada use the Commonwealth spelling, which is the reason it should be changed. It's really not exclusive to only '''''one''''' country. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 06:52, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:Nintendo Australia doesn't do translations of its own. Australian versions are identical to EU versions simply because Australia is Nintendo of Europe's territory. Same with Canada to Nintendo of America. And since US English is used over Canadian English in Canada, so should the English translation by NOE be recognised as British/European English. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 17:10, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:But even then, excluding the games, the spelling is still identical and Oceania should be noted. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 06:44, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
::Not really, unless Nintendo specifically says they're using Commonwealth English. You keep insisting British and Australian English are identical simply because of their shared spelling while downplaying vocalubaries, and that's not mentioning grammar differences. As I said, Australia is NOE territory and thus gets British/European English text which ignores traits of Australian English like how US English versions ignore the traits of Canadian English. [[User:SmokedChili|SmokedChili]] ([[User talk:SmokedChili|talk]]) 13:28, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|Hewer}} I get what your meaning, but as the above, Commonwealth English may have originated in the UK, but is no longer exclusive to it. It's like telling ''Australians'' that they're writing in ''British'' English; it's just not right. "British English/English (United Kingdom)" is basically an old term now that spelling isn't exclusive to the UK anymore and should be changed. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:00, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:I mean, if "English" isn't exclusive to England, why must "British English" be exclusive to Britain? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:56, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:That's true, but you can't really compare them because, England is just a province (that is named ''after'' the language), while Britain (aka the UK) is a whole country, which isn't named after anything. The more-used term for Commonwealth English comes from there, unlike with England, where the name of the province itself comes from the language. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:10, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::If "British English" is the more common term for Commonwealth English, why should the origins of the term matter? Would you avoid using the term "American football" because the sport is also played outside America? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::The term matters because it was just simply "English" + the name of the country, even though it's not the only country it's spoken in. "English (United Kingdom/Europe)" is an even better example, the spelling is not exclusive to either of those. What's Oceania then? Nothing? Just see it like (Normal) Dutch and Flemish Dutch. Hollandic Dutch is mostly just called Dutch, because of the fact it's not only spoken in The Netherlands. While Flemish Dutch (or simply Flemish) is called like that, because it's only Flanders (Belgium). Also yes, I mostly say "rugby", because it shares many similarities. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 18:32, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Plenty of languages are spoken outside of the countries they are named after or originate from. I don't think "British English" implies that it's only spoken in Britain, just that it's a version originating from Britain, much like how Spanish isn't only spoken in Spain, French isn't only spoken in France, Italian isn't only spoken in Italy, etc. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:58, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::But you know what the thing is here, we actually ''do'' distinguish Spanish and French, and say they're only spoken in either America or Europe, because we know whole Europe speaks/writes it the way they do in the French of France and whole America speaks/writes it the way they do in the French of Canada (it's the same case for Spanish, but with Europe and Latin America). I don't know if Italian has any differences between countries though. I have never seen them in our game infoboxes at least. Plus, French and Spanish have a whole sentence structure difference compared to their American counterparts, unlike Commonwealth English, which just has some spelling differences, like an extra "u" in words like "colour". {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 06:44, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
::::That still doesn't refute my point that names of languages (or language variations) don't have to perfectly describe every place in the world where the language is spoken. Italian is still called "Italian" even when it's spoken in Switzerland, and it wouldn't be incorrect to describe Latin American Spanish as just "Spanish", despite it not being spoken in Spain. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:00, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
::::True, but this is actually my point; We call it Latin American Spanish because it's only spoken in Latin America (similar to Flemish Dutch), but European Spanish is mostly referred to as ''Spanish'' because other countries using it are (nearly) identical. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 13:53, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
:::::Doesn't your point about lack of differences between countries actually hurt your argument? There aren't many differences between the English used in the UK and other Commonwealth countries (and Nintendo doesn't make different localisations for them). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 14:45, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
:::::The lack of differences (that they are identical) is the reason why we have to merge British English with Australian English to Commonwealth (or since we never use Australian English, just British English being changed to Commonwealth English). {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:20, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
::::::i don't understand why we SHOULDN'T use the more international alternative, to be honest. this is an inclusive wiki {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 23:41, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::As I said in my vote, I don't have a problem with using the term "Commonwealth English" if we want, I just don't see the need to enforce a strict policy that replaces one perfectly valid term with another. As I've been arguing, I don't think the term "British English" excludes other countries any more than "English" does. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:52, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::To be honest, we don't. We should give users the ability to write it in both ways, instead of just strictly needing to say to British English. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 16:30, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Wait, is the idea with the new option just that like... "British English" and "Commonwealth English" are used interchangeably, depending on the editor's tastes??? We really, really hope we're missing something here, because if we have that exactly correct, that's... Not great. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 16:56, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:I have taken this what you're saying here into account. And I've decided to just undo everything. Per Evie, this is an inclusive wiki. So this time, who cares what Nintendo does? If they don't wanna be inclusive, it's their own fault. But we can't just blatantly make the ''same'' mistake because Nintendo does it. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:11, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:@Camwoodstock: I'm not sure the proposer realised that being able to use either is the current policy. I don't personally see the issue with it, though. Like, would you go around policing whether people type "US English" or "American English"? Would you enforce a policy that requires us to always say "start" instead of "begin"? There are times where multiple different ways of saying the same thing can all be correct.
:@Yoshi18: Again, it's not a "mistake" to call English as it's spoken in countries such as Britain "British English" any more than it's a mistake to call Spanish as it's spoken in Mexico "Spanish". Most dictionaries I've seen also denote terms as "British". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 17:20, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::"US English" and "American English" are the ''same''. "British English" and "Commonwealth English" is ''not'' the ''same''. The first one basically covers only one country and the second one is more inclusive and covers others (more famously Australia). And once again, on this wiki, we call the Spanish from Mexico "Latin American Spanish". "British English" is at this point just a less formal term that nobody bothers changing (because maybe we're too scared for change which is fine but it needs to happen one day), since even some dictionaries use it. I'm pretty sure that if I would change it everywhere now, on game articles (like [[Bowser Jr.'s Pound for Pound]]), the [[Template:Languages|Languages template]], I would get warned (or maybe even a last warning). I need to be the one that finally says something about this, and tells that it's wrong (though people are of course still allowed to have their own taste). And will my announcement be heard? Perhaps? But this ''needs'' to change some day and if I have to be the one that calls it out, so be it. But I said what I said and I'm not gonna change my decision. That would just show that I don't really know what I want. But this time I'm 100% sure what I want and that ''is this''. For our ''inclusive'' wiki (Per Evie) to be one of the firsts that acknowledges and uses the more ''inclusive'' term. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 18:00, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::Uh, I thought your argument for this proposal was based on "British English" and "Commonwealth English" being the same thing? If they're ''not'' the same thing, why would we change a more specific phrase to be less specific? Nintendo doesn't make different English localisations for Australia, they just use the same British/European localisations. Much like how most modern games just have a single (American) English localisation that gets used for all English-speaking countries. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:30, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|LinkTheLefty}} See my comment above. We don't always have to blatantly copy everything Nintendo does. In this case, they are not being inclusive. And it's their own fault if they decide not to be, but ''we'' are an inclusive wiki, so we should use the more inclusive term. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:14, May 4, 2025 (EDT)


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
===Allow old names to be used for article titles if it avoids confusion===
The core target of this proposal is "[[Koopa Beach 2]] no wait its [[SNES Koopa Beach 2]] oh no actually it's [[SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2]]-even-though-it-isnt-a-successor-to-[[N64 Koopa Troopa Beach|Koopa Troopa Beach]] no wait now it IS [[Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)|Koopa Troopa Beach]]-even-though-it-isnt-Koopa Troopa Beach-nor-is-it-a-course-that-isnt-asuccessor". Yeah.


==New Features==
This wiki has a policy that I've always believed to be somewhat flawed, where article titles must always use the most recent name for a subject, no matter how unknown or rarely used it is, or how iconic or popular the older name is, with zero exceptions at all. This goes without saying: but that's flawed. Koopa Beach 2 has now proved that for us here.
''No proposals here yet.''


==Policies==
With the classic prefixes added in Mario Kart DS, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Beach 2", okay that's fair.


===User Fairness===
In Mario Kart Tour, however, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa '''Troopa''' Beach 2" - which immediately is now creating confusion. It's a successor to [[Koopa Beach 1]], not [[N64 Koopa Troopa Beach|Koopa Troopa Beach]], but the name doesn't illustrate that. Combined with the fact that more people are going to know it as "Koopa Beach 2", there's already a significant amount of confusion created by an already flawed policy.
We keep a strict line on user behavior here, but should we set it in stone as a policy? Would contain:
*No personal attacks: punishable by ban
*No edit warring: punishable by warning if excessive
*"Assume good faith" &ndash; already on Wikipedia, assume a user is here to help the project unless (s)he shows malicious behavior


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
Then Mario Kart World comes in, and renames the course once again. Now it is called "[[Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)|Koopa Troopa Beach]]". I do not need to explain how much the policy overcomplicates this.
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June


====Set in Stone====
So: Koopa Beach 1 and Koopa Beach 2 are courses from Super Mario Kart while Koopa Troopa Beach is a course from Mario Kart 64. In Mario Kart Tour, Koopa Beach 2 was renamed to SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 while in America in Mario Kart 7, Koopa Troopa Beach is called N64 Koopa Beach, but only in America, while in Tour it's back to N64 Koopa Troopa Beach. In Mario Kart World, SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 is now just "Koopa Troopa Beach". It's bad enough, so much so that it literally caused confusion on this wiki whether it was SNES or N64 or not, and the name of the course is the sole blame. Yet, this wiki doesn't tackle the issue: because the policy MUST be enforced at all times.
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; couldn't hurt.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:Plumber/sig|Yeah, Hk, but Link kept bugging us about it.}}
#{{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{User:Dinosaur bob/sig}} &ndash; I think it's better that way- it gives more incentive to play nice.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; I doubt these are reeeeally necessary, but, as Wayoshi said, they wouldn't hurt.


====Leave it Unsaid====
So: because of the policy, the pages name now needs to be renamed to "Koopa Troopa Beach". But, here's the issue:
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]-We aren't idiots. No need to set it in stone.
 
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - no need for a guidline for everything. I'm with unwritten rules.
Naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Super Mario Kart)" is a bad idea since there is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach", while naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)" also makes no sense since the course obviously did not debut in Mario Kart World. The easiest option is to leave it as "SNES Koopa Beach 2", the name most people will search for anyways, and specify in the article the name is different in subsequent games (which it already does). Maybe a template at the top of the article can be added to inform readers about the article using an older name. I believe that enforcing a policy, especially one with little benefits like this, and forcing it with zero exceptions is a harmful idea, and it's showing now more than ever before.
#No need to make a rule for what is essentially  common sence.[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
 
We can tell from gameplay, screenshots, and of course the in game world map icon, that the course is just Koopa Beach 2 with little gameplay changes - just a name change.
 
So the options are simple:
 
•Keep the name policy as it is: this would rename the article to "Koopa Troopa Beach", which creates confusion and conflict.
 
or...
 
•Allow the policy to be changed, so articles can still use old names if it avoids confusion and conflict: this would effect the Koopa Beach 2 article by renaming it back to "SNES Koopa Beach 2" with the article going into detail about the subsequent name changes.
 
Koopa Beach 2 is just one example: inevitably there will be more in the future, and it's best to get this sorted now before then.
 
To keep things as simple as possible with as little grey area as possible: let's say the definition of "creating confusion" is if two subjects names are different, but then one is changed so it is now identical to the other, despite them not being so in their original appearance.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Allow older names to be used if it prevents confusion====
#{{User|YoYo}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Tails777}} I know I'm likely in the minority of this, but the Koopa Beach 2 example just makes sense to me. I understand the mentality and reason for prioritizing the most recent names, but ''Mario Kart'' tracks feel like an interesting case. I feel it's imminent that we'll eventually address ''Mario Kart's'' use of console prefixes, as the release of ''Mario Kart World'' means that several tracks that used their prefixes prior now logically have to be moved back, which creates an inconsistency with not only other tracks that do use prefixes, but other tracks that may be in the same game. Koopa Beach 2 still feels like a perfect example of this; all possible names for this track will be misleading in some sense, especially with the existence of N64 Koopa Troopa Beach (which, might I add, never had its name moved even when it was shortened between the time frame of ''Mario Kart 7'' and ''Mario Kart Tour'') and while that's for sure not up to us to try and fix, I just feel like it's not a terrible idea to allow some leniency in a specific case like this. Key word: "specific", I also feel that the "used if it prevents confusion" part of the title should be priority here.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I'm with Tails on this one. Quite frankly, the Koopa Beach example reminds me of some of the ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' and ''Super Mario 64'' names, where we keep things consistent either to name sets or for better interchangeability. Some discretion is fine.
 
====Keep the policy as is, with zero exceptions====
#{{User|Hewer}} Very strong oppose. It isn't our place to decide that official names are bad or confusing, we should report on them and use them accurately regardless of our opinions. I'd much rather maintain an accurate and consistent naming policy than start arbitrarily ignoring names we don't like. Besides, it's not like any of the games this course appears in are very obscure - a lot of people are gonna play Mario Kart World and may come to know the course as "Koopa Troopa Beach", and it may confuse ''them'' to see the wiki using a different name for it. "Koopa Beach 2" (a name that hasn't been used in a game in twenty years) being the name you're personally used to doesn't make it more correct than the newer name.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per Hewer. The wiki already covers eight ([[Rainbow Road (Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit)|arguably nine]]) entirely separate courses named Rainbow Road. This is fine.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If Nintendo broke it, we're not allowed to fix it. We report, not embellish. We call [[Hand Slap|Donkey Kong's move where he slaps the ground]] a "ground pound" in prose, even when this leads to confusion with the [[Ground Pound]]. (The only reason the page is named "Hand Slap" is because there wasn't a non-remake Donkey Kong video game for the entirety of the Nintendo Switch's lifespan, leaving Smash Ultimate to reassert Hand Slap.) Maybe on a different wiki, with a different culture, we would consider using older names for clarity. But currently, it is more important on this wiki to be correct than to match fandom expectation.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is incredibly subjective, and also not very helpful unless you already know which one is the SNES track and which one is the N64 track? per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Salmancer and Evie; it's more important to us to be accurate to a confusing source, and the far more subjective follow-up question of "what even counts as a 'bad name'?" doesn't appeal to us.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} While I agree that Nintendo's official names can be confusing ([[Super Mario Bros.|t]][[Super Mario Bros. (Game & Watch)|h]][[Super Mario Bros. (Nelsonic Game Watch)|e]][[Super Mario Bros. (pinball)|r]][[Super Mario Bros. (handheld pinball game)|e']][[Super Mario Bros. (Puzzler)|s]] [[Super Mario Bros. (Water Teaser)|t]][[The Super Mario Bros. Movie|w]][[Super Mario Bros. (board)|e]][[Super Mario Bros. (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!)|n]][[Super Mario Bros. (WarioWare: Twisted!)|t]][[Super_Mario_Bros._(Stomp!)|y-]][[Super Mario Brothers (WarioWare: Smooth Moves)|i]][[Super_Mario_Bros._(WarioWare:_Get_It_Together!)|s]][[Super_Mario_Bros._(activity_books)|h]] [[Super Mario Bros. (manga)|d]][[The_Super_Mario_Bros._Super_Show!|i]][[Super_Mario_Bros._(FAST_channel)|f]]ferent things that are all called ''Super Mario Bros.''), I don't think we should use older names. Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all, especially PopitTart and Nelsonic.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all, especially Hewer, PopitTart, Salmancer and Evie. They make a ''very'' good and strong point.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all. Also, the N64 course's article is already titled ''N64'' Koopa Troopa Beach, so the article about the course from ''Super Mario Kart'' and ''Mario Kart World'' can just be titled "Koopa Troopa Beach" - case closed. If anything, this makes it ''less'' confusing.


====Comments====
====Comments====
We have something called [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Make an exception to source priority for articles with identical names|source]] [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Regarding the above (source priority exception)|priority]] [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences|exception]], even though it's not mentioned in the guideline proper. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 04:37, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:Wasn't that [[Talk:Elder Princess Shroob#Move to "Princess Shroob (elder)" (proposal edition)|not intended to affect in-game names]]? (I know I opposed that proposal but I might vote differently if it happened again) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:49, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::All the names mentioned in the proposal here are in-game, I think, so there's difference. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 04:57, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:::So source priority exception wouldn't take effect at all then, right? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:03, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::::I'm just pointing out that leniency is a thing, so this proposal could basically be seen as another extension of that. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:11, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
@PopitTart, I advise you actually read the proposal. Those are all named as such since they debuted, so identifying them different like we do now is perfectly okay. This is not the same. There is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach" therefore identifying it the same way is not applicable. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 05:59, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:Iit wasn't called Koopa Troopa Beach in SMK, but it is now. That's just... what Nintendo is choosing to call it now. And it still debuted in SMK, even after getting a name change.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 06:14, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
==New features==
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


===Patrollers===
==Changes==
I have heard this issue in chat. We have ended up battling vandalism very well after a bad rash, so patrollers have become obsolete. The only patroller who has used his powers actively was Great Gonzo, who I promoted to sysophood two days ago.
===Rename "List of (game) staff" articles to "(game) credits" and include what happens in credits sequences===
"Credits" is generally the proper term when listing staff in media. As for the latter part, while we do have an article about ending [[Parade]]s, I think it couldn't hurt to mention what happens while the credits roll in the article opener. e.g for ''Super Paper Mario''{{'}}s article: "During the credits, images of scenes throughout the game are shown". Listing the staff itself will remain unchanged.


So is it time to remove the patroller group? Currently {{user|Confused}} and {{user|Aipom}} are patrollers.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
====Both====
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu credits}} Per proposal
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I'm all in for using the more famous term "credits". Per proposal!


====Keep====
====Only rename articles====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; Never know when another bad rash will come along. I'll find more active users to replace the original four if necessary.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig|We should always have 4 Patrollers.}}
#Maybe we just need more patrollers...<br><small>Sorry, but</small> [[User:Confused|<span style="color:Red;">I</span>]] [[User talk:Confused|<span style="color:Blue;">am</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Confused|<span style="color:Green;">Confused</span>]] 23:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User:Plumber/sig|We need 2 more. <small>not that it'll be me</small>}}
#{{User:Aipom/sig}} What will happen to us?


====Get Rid Of====
====Only include credits sequence information====
#I really don't think they're needed. Even with patrollers, the administrators are still doing most of the anti-vandal work. No offense to the current patrollers, but they haven't done much vandal fighting since their promotion. I feel we have enough admins at the moment to withstand another vandal attack even without patrollers, anyway. (that's just my opinion, though). --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}}
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Primary choice, per the sequence part of the proposal and Waluigi Time's issue.
#Really I mean, instead of being patrollers isn't it easier to make them sysop or something? <big> '''[[Thief Wario|Silent but deadly!]]''' '''Super'''''[[User:Super Luigi 821|Luigi]]'''''821''''' '''''[[Fracktail|You lost everything. Way to go genious.]]''' </big>
 
#Agree, we have than enough sysop, and there hasn't been a big vandal attack for long. [[User:Gofer|Sorry, dudes.]]
====Neither====
#Patrollers no longer seem necessary to me for reasons already given by other users; if a user really deserves promotion, he should be a Systems Operator (not that we don't already have enough of even those, too). {{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} My issue here is that this doesn't account for games without credits sequences or instances where staff members are uncredited, and even if it did that would create an inconsistency with page titles. I'm not necessarily opposed to including information about credits sequences but don't really see it as necessary for that page.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Secondary choice, per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Salmancer}} per Waluigi Time. Though I'm drawing a blank for where on an article to talk about the credits. Setting sections?
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Would this also apply to games that don't have a credits roll, like [[Super Mario Bros.]]? I think it would be misleading to refer to the [[List of Super Mario Bros. staff|list of staff]] as "credits" if so. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 08:06, April 24, 2025 (EDT)


===Peer Reviews===
===Allow objects to be listed on level articles===
So far, they aren't working out well and people are ignoring them.
So I tried adding level objects to SMB3 level pages and was told I need to do a proposal first. I don't see why it should be an issue; after all, we already list items, enemies, music tracks, timer seconds, and other such things on each of them. If we're going to have exact counts of every coin in a stage, why can't we list a stage as having Brick Blocks or P-Switches or unmoving obstacles or specific types of platforms or recurring ambient/decorative objects? Doesn't make much sense when you get right down to it. The easiest way to find out what levels a gimmick is used, after all, is to click on an image and see what pages it's linked on; not linking them on it makes it exponentially harder to find out where something is used with no benefit gained from not having them, and given they're generally short articles anyway, they're not going to get in the way of anything - ''object''ively!


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Plumber/sig}} <br>
EDIT: At the insistence of the opposition, I have added an option to only have interactive objects - as much as I personally disagree with that sentiment.
'''Deadline:''' ''June 6, 2007''


====Get rid of====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
#{{User:Plumber/sig}} 00:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': May 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#No one is really reviewing the articles {{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
#{{User:isyou/sig}}


====Keep====
====Support - Full equality for all objects (includes interactive and decorative objects in the same section)====
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - I'd say, better less feature articles than many bad ones.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
# The old system sucked, people were voting for theirs favorite characters rather than for the qulality of the article itself. [[User:Gofer|I might review some...]]
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User:Dinosaur bob/sig}} -I've done a few edits to Yoshi already. Just point me towards the other articles and I'll see what I and my meager talents can do.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}


====Comments====
*<s>#{{User|Yoshi18}} In my opinion, it's absurd the wiki doesn't do this already. Objects are important things in levels. From simple objects, such as Brick Blocks, to objects that are able to change the whole level layout, such as !-Switches. And now I'm basically only talking about the 2D games! The 3D games have ''much'' more in store, when talking about objects (mainly dynamic objects). Since the level pages are also short anyway, this is a good way to usefully expand on them more. And as you said, if we literally have ''the time'' to count the amount of coins, we ''surely'' have ''the time'' to count objects.</s>
*<s>#{{User|Arend}} ...we don't do this already?!</s>
 
====Support - Separate but equal (includes interactive and decorative objects in separate sections)====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Hewer}} Sure, no harm in being thorough.
 
====Half-support - Tangibility above all (includes interactive objects alone)====
#{{User|Tails777}} If this focuses more on stuff like palettes for Goombas, blocks, coins and such, I'm personally okay with that. Less so if it's like, every frame for every sprite, but I'm personally more on this option overall.
#{{User|Hewer}} Second choice.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} - This makes far more sense to list off, and to be frank, we're a bit shocked that listing these course gimmick objects isn't done already. Without background objects gumming up the list into borderline Sisyphean heights, it's a lot more helpful to your average reader--and to be frank, a lot better of a workload--to know specific course elements like [[Note Block]]s or [[Clear Pipe]]s or [[POW Block]]s or what-not are in a stage, rather than. If there's a bush.
#{{User|Arend}} ''There'' you go, ''this'' is what I initially thought the proposal was for. Once again... we don't do this already?!
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} This option is something that shouldn't need a proposal, and I think the fact that we don't do it already is because nobody's bothered to rather than it being explicitly not allowed. Like I said in my original vote, if this was what was being done I doubt it would be controversial at all, it was the decorative background tiles being included that caused problems.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Covering these kinds of objects is super useful for the wiki.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} As I previously mentioned in my opposition, this approach makes a lot of sense to me and I believe listing interactive elements is beneficial.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} i don't like having to amend my vote like this, but i guess this options aligns closer to how i think these oughta be covered. per WT and Camwoodstock
#{{User|Mario}} Seems like the best choice. But I would also support including nongeneric objects that are decorative under here (for instance, if there is a Lakitu Cloud in the background that is purely decorative, i.e. can't be interacted with, it should still be included).
#{{User|PopitTart}} I would prefer something like a bulleted list or table rather than a gallery, but there definitely should be lists of these things in some form. and the inverse as well, telling what levels the objects are in on their articles.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I was originally for the support option, but seeing the arguments on the ''óbject''ion side made, I began to doubt which side I should choose. This seems like the perfect solution actually. Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Sure, paritcularly if it matches the tables we have for enemies and items in level articles. However, I hope folks do not use this an justification to list, say, every colored iteration or design of something like a Semisolid Platform within the level (sans the [[White Block (platform)|White Block]], which has a function distinct from other Semisolid Platforms). If there is no difference in function, I think only one example of the object should be visually displayed.
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} We don't really ''need'' a proposal for this, we've been doing this for years until somehow, purely decorative background fodder became a relevant thing to discuss? Whatever, at least this will have basis solidified in writing than formless editor discretion.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per other votes for this.
 
====''Object''ion - Objects are second-class subjects====
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Waluigi Time. Listing every single background subject/things you don't interact with is too much.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per EvieMaybe and Waluigi Time, this proposal is just far too vague. If you're gonna count the powerup-shaped clouds and distinct colors of semisolid platform, then you ought to also count the fossils and rocks that appear in the terrain of NSMBU levels and [[:File:NSLU Under Construction Luigi Sighting.jpg|each one of the different colors of Hard Block]] that make up hidden Luigis in NSLU. In addition, why is the goal listed as two separate gallery entries? They're literally one and the same. This proposal kinda just feels like an excuse to justify your (somewhat excessive) SMB3 sprite rips.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Per all. And we don't need the object listings on the [[Ice Land#Gallery|SMB3 world pages]] either.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If we want to set the mood for a level, we can just add more screenshots. And make the {{Fake link|Hill}} article to store up lists of every location with Hills. I'm voting here and not for the interactive items list so that this resolves as "no changes". I still don't want to curse anyone with the burden of counting beads. Or trying to count every coin the [[Gold P Switch]] in [[Conkdor Canyon]] causes to fall. Which declaring that all articles are expected to have lists of interactive objects does.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per my comment below. I already thought the inclusion of non-interactive objects/elements was excessive, and I disagree with the proposed approach regarding interactive ones.
 
*<s>{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time. The core concept is fine, but we feel like a list of background elements is overkill; it would be incredibly asinine to list [[Horsetail]]s in every single Mario level they appear in. If there was an option for just things that had tangible gameplay impact, we'd support it in a heartbeat, but for now... Too much, sorry.</s>
*<s>{{User|Arend}} I'm all for ''functional'' and ''interactable'' objects being listed - P-Switches and whatnot - and am baffled we still haven't done this - but after seeing Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, Eviemaybe, and others' concerns, and re-reading through the proposal, I've realized that the proposal also wants (recurring) ''background'' objects to be listed - like the dome-shaped hills or the horsetail plants - AND treats them the same as the functional and interactable ones, even though they add nothing but background aesthetic. If only there were an option that just allows the objects that can be interacted with and/or have functions in gameplay. If only such an option that ditches the background fodder was there...</s>
*<s>{{User|Waluigi Time}} I agree with this line of thinking, to an extent. Brick Blocks, P Switches, and other objects that the player can interact with should be listed on level articles. If that was the sole issue here, I doubt this would be at all controversial. However, going as far as [[World_1-1_(Super_Mario_Bros._3)#Objects.2C_scenery.2C_and_other_level_features|having a gallery that includes every single bush or cloud background tile in the level]], which this proposal advocates for, is overboard. And keep in mind we're only talking about SMB3 here, a relatively simple NES game. Imagine how out of hand it would be if we had a gallery of every single background model in a Galaxy or Odyssey level that the player can't even interact with.</s>
*<s>{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. I agree with what others have said, in that listing functional objects would be beneficial and I would support adding that kind of thing to articles. However, I believe there is a big difference between functional objects and background objects, and I do not agree with filling object lists with background tiles which exist as decorations.</s>
*<s>{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Salmancer's comment. This proposal is concerningly vague about what counts as "an object". Do ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''{{'}}s decorative objects<ref name=SMBWObjects1>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGp-YzVAyhc|author=Rimea|title=The Secret Purpose of These Rocks|date=November 13, 2024|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref><ref name=SMBWObjects2>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OYc74qkd7U|author=Rimea|title=The Secret of These Pumpkins|date=February 3, 2025|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> count as distinct objects? This proposal was sparked by you including stuff like hills or clouds in [[World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)|World 1-2]] of ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', and those are just tileset elements, so if those count then these absolutely count. Even if we limit it to "objects" which affect gameplay, what about ''Super Mario Galaxy''{{'}}s invisible gravity areas?<ref name=SMGGravity>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLH_0T_xv3I|author=Jasper|title=How Spherical Planets Bent the Rules in Super Mario Galaxy|date=September 29, 2020|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> What about ''Super Mario Bros.'', which constructs everything in its levels out of "objects"?<ref name=SMBLevels>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysdUajrhL8|author=Retro Game Mechanics Explained|title=Super Mario Bros. Glitch Levels Explained|date=November 26, 2022|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> Limiting it once again to subjects with pages, would this require us to count every [[coin]] of every [[level]] of [[List of games by date|every game]]? As long as this proposal remains so vague and undefined about its goals, I cannot in good conscience vote for it, and even then, properly defining these goals would pretty much require this proposal to be canceled and another to be raised. If you plan on trying again, I recommend including clear criteria for what an "object" is, as well as a draft of how a page would look like if this proposal passed. Until then, I'm opposing this.</s>
*<s>{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per EvieMaybe.</s>
*<s>{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my comments below.</s>
 
====Object comments====
I really, really don't want to have to count [[bead]]s in every course, and I'm not sure there is anyone who does want to. Or for a more common example, counting coins in [[New Super Mario Bros. 2]], though at least for them size is not a meaningful property of coins. I'm not sure we want to have stub notices saying we have to count up every last one of these minor dealy-bobs. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 17:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm not advocating anything be counted, I brought that up as a thing I've already seen done without anyone taking issue with it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|Waluigi Time}} - There's a reason I said "recurring" ambient objects, as in decorations that appear throughout the game. I'm not counting level geometry that's all part of one big cohesive model (as that is one object, technically) or random parallax details (if anything, layered backgrounds could have their own gallery section). Given many of the background objects have pages of their own (like [[tree]] and [[cactus]]), it makes sense to include them in my point of view. Basically, when an asset can actually be isolated without severe edits to the source, which would take out most of what would be a potential "bloating" issue in games more graphically complex than, for instance, ''Super Mario World''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:The Models Resource's upload of the Metro Kingdom contains 133 separate model files making up that environment. I could very easily isolate and render each piece without having to make any edits whatsoever. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:12, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::Honestly? Views of 3D map files seem like an interesting thing to have, though they'd have their own sections of course. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:24, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::The map as a whole, yes, I agree. It would be nice to have more comprehensive images of 3D environments without having to resort to other means like Noclip, I feel like that's something we're lacking for certain games. I don't think we need to get into the individual bits and bobs that make up those maps, however. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::Well much of what I uploaded are combinations anyway, so I think that those combined would still be the same thing in spirit. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
;References cited in EvieMaybe's (now-cancelled) vote
<references/>
 
{{@|EvieMaybe}} - I have stated numerous times that this proposal has nothing to do with counting things. I brought up coin counts as something I have already seen done by other users on SMB3 pages, which no one took issue with. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:i appreciate the clarification, but it does not change my opinion that this proposal is poorly concieved and poorly executed. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:42, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::I must ask, what issues arise with having full coverage of this? If I want to know what stages an asset appears in, the best way to find that out is to see where the image is linked to. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:47, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Checking the articles that an image is linked to seems like relatively extreme Wiki-fu. Aside from not being intuitive without understanding how Mediawiki works, it has two weaknesses. One is that the moment a second game reuses assets from another game the results will be covered in false positives. (Good luck differentiating New Super Mario Bros. U courses from New Super Luigi U courses solely on their titles. Example: [[:File:NSMBU Gliding Waddlewing Artwork.png]]) The second is that the results are sorted alphebetically, which isn't useful from a user perspective. Back when courses/levels/whatever were always "World X-Y", the results would match the order of the game. Ignore the game article in those results and sure, this works. But as of New Mario U courses can have all manner of names, which means the list of articles an image is linked to haphazardly jumps between Worlds and game order with little rhyme or reason. The best way to find what levels have what objects is the simplest: have the Wiki's writers make the list for the reader. Easier said than done the bigger the game involved, yes, but it generally more accessible and it doesn't bloat out a course article with a gallery of clouds and hills. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:05, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::"Relatively extreme?" It's an ''extreme''ly obvious and straightforward thing to do, and I am floored to learn that some people don't do that. Also, given most of the level titles are in the format of "World #-#" anyway, they're pretty much sorted in order anyway, so that argument makes no sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:22, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::::i'm afraid you might've fallen victim to the good ol' [https://xkcd.com/2501/ XKCD pitfall]. the average user does not have the technical know-how nor the familiarity to think "to find out in which levels this enemy appears, i should check what pages link to this image of it" (hell, ''i'' wouldn'tve come up with that on my own, and i literally just used citations on a proposal answer). even then, trying to float it as a solution for flooding level pages with sprite rips of what amounts to every single individual graphic used in a stage is absurd. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:01, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::::Again, for what reason should we ''not'' feature decorative objects? They're important to the stage's visual identity. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:20, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::Because the concept of listing every "decorative object" is absolutely Sisyphean. Lets stick with SMB3 as an example. If we're including the various shapes of powerup-like clouds, what about the other shapes of clouds with anywhere from 1 to 3 pairs of eyes? or the hills which come in varying amounts of lumpiness? If we're including the various designs of semisolid, should we include the various designs of ground? Do the large vertical posts in airships get a special mention? Both the aboveground and underground palettes of 1-5? On the topic of underground, are the dark sparkly background tile things an object? How many distinct pipe "objects" are in 7-1? Decor simply isn't rigidly defined at all like things that matter to gameplay.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:37, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::::::I'd consider wiki'ing on such an expansive franchise as this an enjoyable sort of Sisyphean endeavor, myself. Anyways, I held myself back from including the "background walls" in my initial uploads, so I wasn't including them; I'd consider different colors of pipes, blocks, and ground to be fair game for "interactive objects," and the posts on the airship levels are just a particular shape of the "ground" there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:49, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|PopitTart}} - Because they are functionally two different things. Granted, the flashing card probably should be listed as an item (along with the balls Boom Boom drops and the Koopalings' wands), as that is technically what it is, while the "holding box" is a background object. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:Sure, as far as the NES is ''technically'' concerned, the latter is on the background layer and the former is on the sprite layer, but as far as the wiki is ''practically'' concerned, they are ''The Goal''. one thing. Just like a Goal Pole is a pole and flag, and an SMW goalpost is the posts and the ribbon. Conveying them separately to the reader doesn't do anything but tell them the level has a goal (shocking!) over the span of two separate gallery items.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
I worry this proposal is framed around a {{wp|Motte-and-bailey fallacy|motte-and-bailey argument}}. I do not imagine anyone taking issue with the inclusion of interactable objects within a level article like switches and blocks, and if that was the only thing you had done, I doubt anyone would have taken issue with it and may have even appreciated it. What raised eyebrows was the inclusion of noninteractive background elements like clouds. While the background elements are part of the game's visual identity and probably are worth discussing somewhere on the wiki, I imagine most folks would find that their documentation in the ''level'' articles, as well as every single color and iteration of each noninteractive background element within a level, is gratuitous and reduces the utility of the level articles. That is the actual issue - not the inclusion of tactile objects like blocks and switches. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:I would certainly support a more nuanced proposal to document the actual contents of a level in detail. Pikipedia has lists of enemies, collectables, and reoccurring obstacles for each area, (along with the inverse lists of each area the subjects appear in) which are extraordinarily useful.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:[[File:SMB Goomba Sprite.gif]][[File:SMBBlueGoomba.gif]][[File:SMB Question Block.gif]][[File:SMB QuestionBlockUndergroundAnim.gif]][[File:SMBCoin.gif]][[File:SMB CoinUnderground.gif]][[File:SMB1 Sprite Coin.gif]][[File:SMB Green Horsetail Short.png]][[File:SMB White Horsetail Short.png]][[File:Warp Pipe SMB.png]][[File:Warp Pipe Orange SMB.png]]<-If this is OK...<br>
:[[File:SMB3 Goomba Sprite.gif]][[File:SMB3 Goomba cave.gif]][[File:Ani smb3qblock.gif]][[File:SMB3 Q Block tile cave.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin Sprite.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin tile dark.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin sprite land.gif]][[File:SMB3 Tree green.png]][[File:SMB3 Tree orange.png]][[File:WarpPipeSMB3.png]][[File:SMB3 Pipe desert vertical.png]]<-Then this is OK.<br>
:Note that none of the upper row are my uploads. It's perfectly serviceable to document all possible static palettes. SMB3 just has a lot due to being a big game on small hardware, with the remakes lessening that by a lot due to having more palettes with more values available. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::I think there are some misunderstandings going on. I at least welcome hosting those types of assets on the same premise as you. But this proposal is about documenting noninteractive background details on the level articles, and I would not support that for any game because it dilutes those articles.
::I also do not think those were the types of assets folks found gratuitous or would have encouraged being cut. Those are illustrative and cute. A better example would be including both the [[:File:SMB3 HUD Japanese.png|Japanese HUD]] and the [[:File:SMB3 score bar.png|international one]] with only a pixel being different between. The visual difference is not even distinguishable during gameplay because they are both on black backgrounds, so we are not really earnestly illustrating anything by hosting both of them, in my view. I'm sure similar comments can be made about rubble. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Much of the time they're not on black backgrounds, but on various shades of blue, orange, or otherwise. Anyways, if y'all insist, I'll alter the proposal to have different options. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|Tails777}} - Different animations for one subject are for their own galleries, don't worry there. I'd consider separate images for different static frames of the same animation to be redundant once the image itself has been uploaded, and I've spend the past few weeks uploading the game's animations. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:59, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
Where would a "yes but only if object has an article on the wiki already" most likely fall under because I'd probably just stick with this? Isn't that the status quo already? {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:08, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:Why trees but no pyramids? [[File:Ashley Icon Win WWMI.png|32px]] [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:17, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::Hm yeah good point, if object has an article and(or?) the player can interact with it. The tree article I've tried to limit to ones the player can do things with OR it's a greater setting. That being said, you can point out to the opposition that if a hypothetical decorative-only and nongeneric object, like a background Skewer, is in a level, it will probably be appropriate to be listed in the article. If so, why not hills? {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:23, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::[[File:SMB3 Hills hill normal small.png]] Well I labeled these "hills," but given they're only as tall as Small Mario who's to say what they are? And unlike pyramids, they're not moved to the distant background with parallax scrolling in the remakes, so they're definitely a small, close thing. Not to mention SMB's horsetails, which have lore significance in that game. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:36, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
I would like to know more about the intended approach regarding interactive objects, especially those that have animations. I would, for example, be opposed to seeing the same object multiple times with the same animation in an effort to merely highlight palette-related differences. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 14:32, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:What do you mean? I think it is the right thing to do, to, for instance, include a Koopa Troopa's land and cave palettes if both appear in a single level, since the idea is to show what actually appears in the level. So if these two pipes appear in the same level, [[File:WarpPipeSMB3.png]][[File:SMB3 Pipe cave normal vertical.png]], then they absolutely should both be accounted for. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:06, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::I think that a single instance of such things is sufficient as a representation of what is in a level, especially if a map is included. For me, the utility in highlighting differences of this sort would be if there were a possibility of confusing the object in question with a similar one based on those differences. {{User:Mario4Ever/sig}} 15:53, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:::I see palette as one of the main things that needs represented when visually documenting NES subjects, simply because of how limited it is. That also avoids the problem of deciding which should have "priority" if there's multiple in one level. Then there's things like green Paratroopas using different animations depending on their behavior, as the flying ones flap faster than the hopping ones. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:20, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
Out of curiosity, how would we handle these on pages such as [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)]] or [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros. Special)]]? Would those get a table like enemies and items, or would they be a gallery a-la the ''Mario 3'' example? {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 14:34, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:Probably a gallery? Personally, I don't see much benefit in having a table for things that are more difficult or even impossible to objectively quantify. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 15:06, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::I personally think a table would be okay if we're talking about the interactive objects: [[Brick Block]]s, [[Hidden Block]]s and the like. I don't see the point of background objects listed in a table, though. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:52, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
:::Yes, but then we get into weird things like spikes. Do we include each spike? Each two-spike tile? Each connected spike bed? It gets confusing at that point. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:56, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::Doc if you are serious about including every palette of an object to the level articles, then I am going to rescind my vote. Doing stuff like that is beyond the scope of what makes level articles actually helpful reference material. I would support including different palettes of Warp Pipes on their own personal gallery, but not in the level articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:41, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::Oh, sorry, didn't notice your objection on that. In that case, I'm considering nixing the orange and green semisolid blocks to focus on just the blue ones since they're the only ones whose palette actually changes by location. The others, I am having different sections for different parts of the levels and they never have multiple palettes for pipes and such in SMB3. So like, the "main area" list has the green ones and the "secret area" one has the black ones, if that makes sense. If that's too much, I can merge those and just have one, but I have to wonder which would get priority in stages with multiple linear sections? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 11:53, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::::I think I would feel more comfortable with my vote if you could provide a mock-up of how one of these level articles would look, even if a rough one. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:00, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::::Like [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros. 3)|this]], but remove all but one of the semisolid platform images. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:34, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::::::I guess that's alright. But could we not have a table that explains what each of these things are to readers, like with enemies and items? I don't assume folks go in with that knowledge. I am also pretty sure we could include colored backgrounds for the sprite columns too. That could look nice. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:45, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::I see no issue with doing so. This proposal is about having them there in the first place, not about how they are laid out. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:50, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::::::::I didn't look very carefully beforehand - we usually don't provide descriptions for enemies and items unless there's an important tidbit, so forget that. And I am not sure knowing how many Cloud Blocks are in the level is as important as how many 1-Up Mushrooms are there, so a gallery is probably fine.
::::::::This is tangential, but I did do a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=World_1-1_(Super_Mario_Bros._3)&diff=4875676&oldid=4873651 small test] with colored backgrounds for the sprite columns. I'm not sure I'd support this for games where the background isn't really a solid color (like GameCube or Nintendo DS games, as examples), but I think it looks nice here. What do you all think? - 12:59, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::::Yeah, the main reason I included it is because it factors into things such as P-Switch flashing for this game specifically. In games with gradient, parallax, and texture backgrounds, there's no way and no point in replicating it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:08, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
::::::::::Glad we are on the same page. I have seen other folks attempt colored backgrounds for things like the ''New Super Mario Bros.'' titles and I do not think it looks right. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 13:24, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Permit sprite uploads of particle effects===
Particle effects are specific visuals in games (and other media) that are used to represent things such as movement, weather, action, and other such things that might fly under the radar for many people but help make the environment and setting that much more lifelike. {{file link|Obtaing the First Power Star SM64.gif|You can see at least two here.}} Most of them require some amount of interaction to appear, so it's not really a case where we can just have "only interactive ones;" they pretty much all are, as either you affect them, they affect you, or as most often is, both. They include:
*Puffs and clouds of {{file link|MK64 Choco Mountain Cliff.png|smoke}}, {{file link|Red Coins of the Dirty Lake.png|mist}}, or {{file link|Golf JC Particle bunker.gif|dust}}
*{{file link|SM64DS Castle Basement.png|Fire}}
*{{file link|RainMGTT.png|Rain}} and {{file link|Shreddin Shell.png|snow}}
*{{file link|TLL Sprite Wind.png|Wind}} and {{file link|DKC3GBA Current.png|current}} effects
*{{file link|Soak the Sun.png|Lens flares}} and {{file link|SMO Seaside Odyssey Landing Site.jpg|rainbow effects}}
*{{file link|SMB3 Splash normal.gif|Splashes}} and {{file link|JollyRoger.png|bubbles}}
*{{file link|Fritz 2.png|Electrical sparks}} and {{file link|DKC3GBA Electric beam.png|beams}}
*{{file link|MK64 Moo Moo Farm 2.png|Explosions!}}
*Certain text popups (like {{file link|SMW ShellCombo.png|image-based point and 1up callouts in early games}}, {{file link|SMS Mario Sleeping.png|sleepy Z's in many games}}, {{file link|CycloneBros2.png|the "good!" things in early RPGs}}, and {{file link|Mario Kart 64 Kalamari Desert.jpg|those POOMP things in ''Mario Kart 64''}} - I'm not counting {{file link|NSMBW World 2-C Screenshot.png|ones that just use typed font}} like standard dialogue as that is stored as a font file rather than an image file as particles are)
*POW and glow effects (like the things that mark button presses in {{file link|BounceBros3.png|MLSS}} and {{file link|MLSSDX BounceBros.png|its remake}}, respectively)
*{{file link|SMB3 Shine item.gif|Shines, sparkles, and twinkles}}
*Background critters in certain games (like {{file link|DKR Fish.png|the fish}} in ''Diddy Kong Racing'')
*{{file link|SM64DS Fortress Entrance.png|Rubble}}
*{{file link|NSMBW Kamek Using Magic.png|Magic!}}
*{{file link|SuperstarSagaBowsersMinionsTheEnd.jpg|Fireworks}}
*{{file link|SMB3 Sweat.gif|Emote}} {{file link|Wario-Fatigue-MSS.png|effects}}
*{{file link|SMG T-Shape Planet.png|That star glow in ''Galaxy''}}
*{{file link|NSMBW World 3-T Screenshot.png|Whatever you'd call this}}
 
They do not include other sorts of visual effects like postprocessing, shaders, distance-based fog, and other more nebulous things that can't really be captured in a truly isolated image.
 
Unsurprisingly, many of these are generic and in later games, may come from stock libraries of images (which, in my opinion, is its own piece of interest, like how the investigation of [[Wet-Dry World]]'s background went on for a while). Others, however, feature unique animations that may differ depending on the source; when looking at "puffs of smoke" animations in ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', {{file link|SMB3 Puff title.gif|I}} {{file link|SMB3 Puff normal.gif|counted}} ''{{file link|SMB3 Puff strong enemy defeat.gif|seven}}'' {{file link|SMB3 Puff cannon.gif|distinct}} {{file link|SMB3 Puff hammer.gif|smoke}} {{file link|SMB3 Puff laser.gif|puff}} {{file link|SMB3 Puff Bowser.gif|animations}}, which I found to be interesting as I was unaware there were more than one. And I think it's time that this oft-overlooked immersion tool got some appreciation here. Generally speaking, they'd go on the game's own gallery page, though ones that specifically relate to other defined subjects can go on their galleries as well. EDIT: I have also [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Particle effect|drafted a page]] specifically for the subject, so they can be added there as well.
 
I tried doing this without a proposal, and no-one seemed to mind when I uploaded ones for NES ''Golf'' and some other games. However, when I included their animations among my ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' rips, it was specifically brought up by a few users that they didn't see the utility in featuring them, though others defended their presence - namely in the fact that the Super Mario Wiki is "[[Mariowiki:About|a collaborative encyclopedia dedicated to documenting '''''anything and everything''''' about the ''Super Mario'' franchise and related series,]]" meaning this is the place most people would go to if they were specifically looking for something like that. And we can't just rely on TSR; not only is it wrong to lean on another website, but their content never has processed or animated ones, so... where else ''would'' they be uploaded, if not here? So anyway, I'd like to set the record straight with the community: are they OK, or should they be nixed? I'm ultimately fine with either, but I want there to be some amount of consistency rather than the nebulous, arbitrary thing we have now.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: Particle party (yes particles)====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Perticle
#{{User|Hewer}} Sure, it's valid and somewhat interesting information about the games we cover. I can't think of a reason why someone would oppose this beyond "it doesn't interest me personally", which doesn't make it not notable.


==Miscellaneous==
====Oppose: Hay fever (no particles)====


===Mario Awards: Wiki or Forum===
====Status quo: Leave it without specific rules in place (maybe particles?)====
The very exciting '''[[MarioWiki:Anniversary|Mario Awards]]''' (Saturday August 11th), an all-day event, will cap off with a 4-hour ceremony (7-11p EDT), presenting the results of the 30 awards to be voted on starting Sunday June 10. However, should this excellent event be
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I am not wholly opposed to particle effects and the like. They are often part of the visual identity of the games they come from and are an under-documented element online. However, I do think we should exercise discretion. Maybe not every single colored iteration of the same particle is necessary to have on the wiki. Maybe we should not just host them unceremoniously in a gallery with minimal context: it would be create if we had a article that explained what particle effects are and why I (the reader) should or could care about them substantively, and the assets were uploaded to illustrate that point. We document many things on the site that are part of this franchise's identity, including things I would have never thought about documenting like [[List of fonts|fonts]] and [[List of references on the Internet#Memes|memes]]. That stuff is cool, but we do not host every single instance, for example, of a font being used in a game. Or uploaded every letter/character individually. Discretion and curation is an important skill for making good reference material like our wiki.
*on the wiki, with more members, or
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per N101. as an aside, i don't appreciate the name of this voting option, as i am not voting for this because i want it "left nebulous and undefined". i notice that a lot of recent proposals tend to name their non-Support options something disdainful, and i do not enjoy it in the slightest.
*on the forum, with a select but likely active group of members?
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per all, especially Nintendo101. While it's nice to have a good illustration of things, is such a thing as ''too'' much, to the point where it just becomes unhelpful. There's a reason that the Mario Kart course pages pruned all but one variant of their Tour icons awhile back; it isn't particularly "helpful" to see the exact same image but with a different character in the foreground when one variant would do the trick just as well. Likewise, it'd be nice to have various particle effects, but it'd be rather overkill to have every possible variant based entirely on what the palette of the current level is when you could understand it just as well with only one of those. Unless the differences are actually significant enough to be worth noting <small>(so like... honestly, the only example that comes directly to mind is how the Sharp X1 version of ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'' has two distinct sprites for Buzzy Beetles, one for if they appear on a blue background and one for if they appear on a black background, and it's the only game in the videogame that does a trick like that, but like, that's an enemy and not a particle, and okay you get it)</small>, one is really all you need. And, like Evie, we don't exactly appreciate the implication that a policy that, while definitely in need of being made more clear--seriously, our policy pages are in pretty dire need of a rewrite after a ton of proposals that have changed them and introduced edge cases--is "without specific rules in place". They do exist, they just need to be conveyed a lot better.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all. While it's true that we're "a collaborative encyclopedia dedicated to documenting anything and everything about the Super Mario franchise and related series", we're also not an asset dump. If particle effects have illustrative value, users should have the freedom to upload them, but that doesn't mean we need to upload every single one just to have it. Similarly, if the texture for a model, for example, had some illustrative value, I would support it, but I would not support blanket uploading every single texture ever for the sake of valuing consistency for its own sake over editorial discretion and curation. The other options of uploading literally everything or uploading nothing at all are certainly not preferable.
#{{User|Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior}} Absolutely not.


Here I list some '''facts''' (''not'' pros/cons) for both. Look carefully.
====Comments, queries, and other (regarding particles)====
can you add an option to just upload them when they're needed for illustrative purposes? i think that's what would align with a wiki's goals the most. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:18, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
:What is "needed" is itself subjective, unfortunately, as everything that can be done with a sprite rip of them can also be done with a screenshot (and some might argue can be done better through that). And given they're almost entirely based around interaction, there's not really any way to determine what should get more weight than any others. As such, anything that can't be consistently enforced in a way that would have an interpretation that is agreed upon by all users would be option 3. Note that this is based on ''allowing'' them to be uploaded, not ''requiring'' them to be. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 10:25, May 4, 2025 (EDT)


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
{{@|EvieMaybe}} - IDK, I didn't think it was harsh (and "nebula" loosely relates to particles) but I guess "disdain" is in the eye of the beholder, but I've renamed it. The purpose of having the options have specific names, in my experience, is so you can tell which proposal is being opposed on the recent changes list. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:33, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June


<table style="color:black;padding:5px;background:none" width=90% align=center><tr>
{{@|Nintendo101}} - I agree that there should be better textual explanations of them here, but before that can really be implemented we need enough visuals uploaded. This is just the first step. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:36, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
<td style="background:#f0f0ff;text-align:left" width=45%><big>'''Wiki'''</big>
:Perhaps other folks approach things differently, but I typically start writing things first and upload visual assets after the fact when they feel needed. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 12:38, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
*More users can participate
::And that is also how I would typically do that, but when the subject is itself a visual effect, that gives the visual aspect a higher priority in my opinion. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 12:41, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
*Open page: One long page shows it all
::[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick/Projects/Particle effect|Here]] is a quickly made demo of an article on the subject. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 16:23, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
*Templates can be used to block off presentations from comments, or sections prepared ahead of time
*Edit conflicts can be severe problem if there are no premade sections
*Official record is where it all started
</td><td style="background:#f0f0ff;text-align:right" width=45%><big>'''Forum'''</big>
*Less but maybe the most active users can participate
*Multiple pages: hard to navigate, 20 posts won't take long to fill up
*Flood control: have to wait 20 seconds between editing a post, which can be annoying
*Double/triple posting and beyond instead of editing original post may be common in excitement
*No edit conflicts
*Official record is on a sub-site, not the main site
</td></tr></table>


====Wiki====
@Camwoodstock: The difference with the Mario Kart icons situation is that [[:Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons|we still have all those images]], just not on the course pages themselves. If we're covering every officially used [[list of fonts|font]] and [[list of hashtags|hashtag]], I don't see why we should draw the line at fully covering visual effects that appear in the games themselves. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:43, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
#&nbsp;


====Forum====
{{@|Waluigi Time}} - I don't think textures that are intended to be applied to fully 3D models are a good comparison; that would seem more like uploading palettes (as in, just the four-to-32 squares of color) not applied to anything. And while I agree that we are in the strictest sense "not an asset dump," I do not think that obstructing the uploading of processed assets (as opposed to unprocessed ones) is warranted. If you can tell what something is supposed to be and it is an accurate rendition of how it appears in the medium in question, while not being 100% redundant with another uploaded asset, there should be no problem. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:07, May 5, 2025 (EDT)
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]
:No, in terms of 3D models, the closest thing to a palette are vertex colors. A texture is more like an atlas, and textures come in more forms than just albedo/diffuse and depending on the game, compromise of multiple necessary components including ambient occlusion and normal maps, things that you can see as intended in a model but cannot be segregated from one another. {{User:Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior/sig}} 18:12, May 6, 2025 (EDT)
#<big> '''[[Thief Wario|Silent but deadly!]]''' '''Super'''''[[User:Super Luigi 821|Luigi]]'''''821''''' '''''[[Fracktail|You lost everything. Way to go genious.]]''' </big>
::I'd say vertex colors are more akin to the tinting you'd see in some later 2D games, personally. Either way, that's pretty different from the subject here, which are unique standalone graphics. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:14, May 6, 2025 (EDT)
#I agree. Forum should be used more. Plus there are a lot of wiki glitches.<br><small>Sorry, but</small> [[User:Confused|<span style="color:Red;">I</span>]] [[User talk:Confused|<span style="color:Blue;">am</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Confused|<span style="color:Green;">Confused</span>]] 23:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}


<h4>Comments</h4>
==Miscellaneous==
===Move Chat===
===What is a game? 2: electric boogaloo===
In order to deter Willy and protect this silly little anniversary thing, it has come to tha attention of many that the chat should be moved back to the forums.  
Per some of the oppose votes on the previous proposal. I can understand not adding these games to the [[list of games]], though I personally do not think they should remain classified as merchandise, either. Because of this, I think these games should have their own spot somewhere, instead of remaining in a list/gallery that covers a wide range of things. I believe these games should move to a dedicated {{fake link|list of physical games}} or something along the lines of that.
*Unfortunately, this might lower the number of users in chat.
(To note, I do not believe this contradicts the recent previous proposal, since this proposal is asking where physical games go, acting semi-independently of the original proposal, though I will temporarily withdraw it if it does contradict/overturn the previous decision.)
*This would deter Willy and other trolls.


'''Proposer:''' [[User:HK-47|Hk]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 6 June
'''Deadline''': May 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Let it lie where it is====
====Create a dedicated list for only physical games====
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.


====Create a catch all list of games with both video and physical games====
#{{User|Nelsonic}} This also works.


====Move Chat to Forum====
====Do not move physical games from their current location====
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}}


<h4>Comments</h4>
====The Comment Games 2====

Latest revision as of 18:14, May 6, 2025

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, May 7th, 13:13 GMT
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 link to the 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 GMT).
    • 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 GMT.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  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. 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.
  18. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  19. 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.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

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 GMT

====[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 20 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 GMT

;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 GMT

;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 GMT

;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

Moves

  • Rename Count Down to "Clock (boss)" or "watch (boss)" (discuss) by LinkTheLefty; Deadline: May 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merges

Splits

Miscellaneous

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.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
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)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Make a page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, Koopa con Carne (ended April 11, 2025)
Split Mario & Sonic game categories by version, Technetium (ended April 16, 2025)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025)
Add Play Nintendo games and Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land to the list of games, Nelsonic (ended May 3, 2025)
Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series, Koopa con Carne (ended May 4, 2025)
Rework "References" sections, EvieMaybe (ended May 5, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
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, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Refocus Papa Mario as "Mario's dad", Superstarxalien169 (ended April 4, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025)
Clean up the Pipe Cannon article, PrincessPeachFan (ended April 21, 2025)
Split Funky's Bodacious Bistro from Funky's Flights, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 27, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025)
Split Big Luma from Luma, Kirby the Formling (ended April 28, 2025)
Remove Mario Kart information from Potted Piranha Plant's article, Kirby the Formling (ended May 3, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"

As we all know, many wikis (including the Super Mario Wiki), like to simply say "British English". But I think this just isn't right. It has been like this for long, even though we know that, unlike American English (which spelling really is exclusive to America, or people like me who prefer it over Commonwealth English most of the time), Commonwealth English spelling isn't exclusive to the United Kingdom, and (as a more famous example) also used Oceania. So this proposal aims to change this to avoid making it look like this spelling is only used in the United Kingdom/Europe. Per Evie (talk)'s comment; This is an inclusive wiki, so we should be using the more international (inclusive) term. Cause sometimes, who cares what Nintendo does? If they don't want to acknowledge Oceania, it's their own fault. But we can't make that same mistake.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Rename to "Commonwealth English"/"English (Commonwealth)"

  1. Yoshi18 (Commonwealth) (talk) Per proposal. My primary choice.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I mean, I already write it as this.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Rykitu (Commonwealth) (talk) Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not. Per proposal.
  6. Nelsonic (Commonwealth) (talk) Per all.

Stay with "British English"/"English (United Kingdom)"

  1. SmokedChili (talk) "British English" is fine, even "European English" would be better, because it's Nintendo of Europe who localized differently for the markets the NA versions don't reach. Making this "Commonwealth English" would generalize and obscure this too much because that's the group the different non-American Englishes all fall into, and it's not all about spelling, the vocabularies also differ.
  2. Hewer (talk) Voting for this as a "do nothing" option. I've seen both terms used on the wiki and they're essentially interchangeable. I don't see the need to enforce a strict policy about which one to use when they're both commonly used terms that mean the same thing.
  3. LinkTheLefty (Teatime) (talk) Nintendo uses the terms "U.S. English" and "British English"
  4. Technetium (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per LinkTheLefty.

Commonwealth Comments

Just to be clear: British English is going bye-bye, but Australian English and Canadian English, also listed in the cite template's language codes, remain intact? LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:45, April 30, 2025 (EDT)

Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
Sometimes. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
Yeah, but in terms of games, Canadian English is never used. Mostly the gaming pages (like the game infobox) and pages that state the differences between American and Commonwealth English (like most of Mario Party: Island Tour's minigames) are my main target now. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@SmokedChili I understand your argument, but consider that, as I said; British English isn't only used in the United Kingdom or Europe. Its spelling (which is the thing that matters in games), is also used in Australia (which is the reason PAL used to exist). That the vocabularies differ doesn't really matter, because the Australian versions is just identical to British version. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Australia localize the same, so bringing up Nintendo of America doesn't really seem to be needed. Also, yes that's right. Every country except America and Canada use the Commonwealth spelling, which is the reason it should be changed. It's really not exclusive to only one country. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 06:52, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Nintendo Australia doesn't do translations of its own. Australian versions are identical to EU versions simply because Australia is Nintendo of Europe's territory. Same with Canada to Nintendo of America. And since US English is used over Canadian English in Canada, so should the English translation by NOE be recognised as British/European English. SmokedChili (talk) 17:10, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
But even then, excluding the games, the spelling is still identical and Oceania should be noted. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 06:44, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
Not really, unless Nintendo specifically says they're using Commonwealth English. You keep insisting British and Australian English are identical simply because of their shared spelling while downplaying vocalubaries, and that's not mentioning grammar differences. As I said, Australia is NOE territory and thus gets British/European English text which ignores traits of Australian English like how US English versions ignore the traits of Canadian English. SmokedChili (talk) 13:28, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer I get what your meaning, but as the above, Commonwealth English may have originated in the UK, but is no longer exclusive to it. It's like telling Australians that they're writing in British English; it's just not right. "British English/English (United Kingdom)" is basically an old term now that spelling isn't exclusive to the UK anymore and should be changed. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:00, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I mean, if "English" isn't exclusive to England, why must "British English" be exclusive to Britain? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:56, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
That's true, but you can't really compare them because, England is just a province (that is named after the language), while Britain (aka the UK) is a whole country, which isn't named after anything. The more-used term for Commonwealth English comes from there, unlike with England, where the name of the province itself comes from the language. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:10, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
If "British English" is the more common term for Commonwealth English, why should the origins of the term matter? Would you avoid using the term "American football" because the sport is also played outside America? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
The term matters because it was just simply "English" + the name of the country, even though it's not the only country it's spoken in. "English (United Kingdom/Europe)" is an even better example, the spelling is not exclusive to either of those. What's Oceania then? Nothing? Just see it like (Normal) Dutch and Flemish Dutch. Hollandic Dutch is mostly just called Dutch, because of the fact it's not only spoken in The Netherlands. While Flemish Dutch (or simply Flemish) is called like that, because it's only Flanders (Belgium). Also yes, I mostly say "rugby", because it shares many similarities. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:32, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Plenty of languages are spoken outside of the countries they are named after or originate from. I don't think "British English" implies that it's only spoken in Britain, just that it's a version originating from Britain, much like how Spanish isn't only spoken in Spain, French isn't only spoken in France, Italian isn't only spoken in Italy, etc. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:58, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
But you know what the thing is here, we actually do distinguish Spanish and French, and say they're only spoken in either America or Europe, because we know whole Europe speaks/writes it the way they do in the French of France and whole America speaks/writes it the way they do in the French of Canada (it's the same case for Spanish, but with Europe and Latin America). I don't know if Italian has any differences between countries though. I have never seen them in our game infoboxes at least. Plus, French and Spanish have a whole sentence structure difference compared to their American counterparts, unlike Commonwealth English, which just has some spelling differences, like an extra "u" in words like "colour". Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 06:44, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
That still doesn't refute my point that names of languages (or language variations) don't have to perfectly describe every place in the world where the language is spoken. Italian is still called "Italian" even when it's spoken in Switzerland, and it wouldn't be incorrect to describe Latin American Spanish as just "Spanish", despite it not being spoken in Spain. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:00, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
True, but this is actually my point; We call it Latin American Spanish because it's only spoken in Latin America (similar to Flemish Dutch), but European Spanish is mostly referred to as Spanish because other countries using it are (nearly) identical. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 13:53, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
Doesn't your point about lack of differences between countries actually hurt your argument? There aren't many differences between the English used in the UK and other Commonwealth countries (and Nintendo doesn't make different localisations for them). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:45, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
The lack of differences (that they are identical) is the reason why we have to merge British English with Australian English to Commonwealth (or since we never use Australian English, just British English being changed to Commonwealth English). Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:20, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
i don't understand why we SHOULDN'T use the more international alternative, to be honest. this is an inclusive wiki — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 23:41, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
As I said in my vote, I don't have a problem with using the term "Commonwealth English" if we want, I just don't see the need to enforce a strict policy that replaces one perfectly valid term with another. As I've been arguing, I don't think the term "British English" excludes other countries any more than "English" does. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:52, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
To be honest, we don't. We should give users the ability to write it in both ways, instead of just strictly needing to say to British English. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:30, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Wait, is the idea with the new option just that like... "British English" and "Commonwealth English" are used interchangeably, depending on the editor's tastes??? We really, really hope we're missing something here, because if we have that exactly correct, that's... Not great. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 16:56, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

I have taken this what you're saying here into account. And I've decided to just undo everything. Per Evie, this is an inclusive wiki. So this time, who cares what Nintendo does? If they don't wanna be inclusive, it's their own fault. But we can't just blatantly make the same mistake because Nintendo does it. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:11, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
@Camwoodstock: I'm not sure the proposer realised that being able to use either is the current policy. I don't personally see the issue with it, though. Like, would you go around policing whether people type "US English" or "American English"? Would you enforce a policy that requires us to always say "start" instead of "begin"? There are times where multiple different ways of saying the same thing can all be correct.
@Yoshi18: Again, it's not a "mistake" to call English as it's spoken in countries such as Britain "British English" any more than it's a mistake to call Spanish as it's spoken in Mexico "Spanish". Most dictionaries I've seen also denote terms as "British". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:20, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
"US English" and "American English" are the same. "British English" and "Commonwealth English" is not the same. The first one basically covers only one country and the second one is more inclusive and covers others (more famously Australia). And once again, on this wiki, we call the Spanish from Mexico "Latin American Spanish". "British English" is at this point just a less formal term that nobody bothers changing (because maybe we're too scared for change which is fine but it needs to happen one day), since even some dictionaries use it. I'm pretty sure that if I would change it everywhere now, on game articles (like Bowser Jr.'s Pound for Pound), the Languages template, I would get warned (or maybe even a last warning). I need to be the one that finally says something about this, and tells that it's wrong (though people are of course still allowed to have their own taste). And will my announcement be heard? Perhaps? But this needs to change some day and if I have to be the one that calls it out, so be it. But I said what I said and I'm not gonna change my decision. That would just show that I don't really know what I want. But this time I'm 100% sure what I want and that is this. For our inclusive wiki (Per Evie) to be one of the firsts that acknowledges and uses the more inclusive term. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:00, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Uh, I thought your argument for this proposal was based on "British English" and "Commonwealth English" being the same thing? If they're not the same thing, why would we change a more specific phrase to be less specific? Nintendo doesn't make different English localisations for Australia, they just use the same British/European localisations. Much like how most modern games just have a single (American) English localisation that gets used for all English-speaking countries. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:30, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@LinkTheLefty See my comment above. We don't always have to blatantly copy everything Nintendo does. In this case, they are not being inclusive. And it's their own fault if they decide not to be, but we are an inclusive wiki, so we should use the more inclusive term. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:14, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Allow old names to be used for article titles if it avoids confusion

The core target of this proposal is "Koopa Beach 2 no wait its SNES Koopa Beach 2 oh no actually it's SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2-even-though-it-isnt-a-successor-to-Koopa Troopa Beach no wait now it IS Koopa Troopa Beach-even-though-it-isnt-Koopa Troopa Beach-nor-is-it-a-course-that-isnt-asuccessor". Yeah.

This wiki has a policy that I've always believed to be somewhat flawed, where article titles must always use the most recent name for a subject, no matter how unknown or rarely used it is, or how iconic or popular the older name is, with zero exceptions at all. This goes without saying: but that's flawed. Koopa Beach 2 has now proved that for us here.

With the classic prefixes added in Mario Kart DS, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Beach 2", okay that's fair.

In Mario Kart Tour, however, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2" - which immediately is now creating confusion. It's a successor to Koopa Beach 1, not Koopa Troopa Beach, but the name doesn't illustrate that. Combined with the fact that more people are going to know it as "Koopa Beach 2", there's already a significant amount of confusion created by an already flawed policy.

Then Mario Kart World comes in, and renames the course once again. Now it is called "Koopa Troopa Beach". I do not need to explain how much the policy overcomplicates this.

So: Koopa Beach 1 and Koopa Beach 2 are courses from Super Mario Kart while Koopa Troopa Beach is a course from Mario Kart 64. In Mario Kart Tour, Koopa Beach 2 was renamed to SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 while in America in Mario Kart 7, Koopa Troopa Beach is called N64 Koopa Beach, but only in America, while in Tour it's back to N64 Koopa Troopa Beach. In Mario Kart World, SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 is now just "Koopa Troopa Beach". It's bad enough, so much so that it literally caused confusion on this wiki whether it was SNES or N64 or not, and the name of the course is the sole blame. Yet, this wiki doesn't tackle the issue: because the policy MUST be enforced at all times.

So: because of the policy, the pages name now needs to be renamed to "Koopa Troopa Beach". But, here's the issue:

Naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Super Mario Kart)" is a bad idea since there is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach", while naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)" also makes no sense since the course obviously did not debut in Mario Kart World. The easiest option is to leave it as "SNES Koopa Beach 2", the name most people will search for anyways, and specify in the article the name is different in subsequent games (which it already does). Maybe a template at the top of the article can be added to inform readers about the article using an older name. I believe that enforcing a policy, especially one with little benefits like this, and forcing it with zero exceptions is a harmful idea, and it's showing now more than ever before.

We can tell from gameplay, screenshots, and of course the in game world map icon, that the course is just Koopa Beach 2 with little gameplay changes - just a name change.

So the options are simple:

•Keep the name policy as it is: this would rename the article to "Koopa Troopa Beach", which creates confusion and conflict.

or...

•Allow the policy to be changed, so articles can still use old names if it avoids confusion and conflict: this would effect the Koopa Beach 2 article by renaming it back to "SNES Koopa Beach 2" with the article going into detail about the subsequent name changes.

Koopa Beach 2 is just one example: inevitably there will be more in the future, and it's best to get this sorted now before then.

To keep things as simple as possible with as little grey area as possible: let's say the definition of "creating confusion" is if two subjects names are different, but then one is changed so it is now identical to the other, despite them not being so in their original appearance.

Proposer: YoYo (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Allow older names to be used if it prevents confusion

  1. YoYo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Tails777 (talk) I know I'm likely in the minority of this, but the Koopa Beach 2 example just makes sense to me. I understand the mentality and reason for prioritizing the most recent names, but Mario Kart tracks feel like an interesting case. I feel it's imminent that we'll eventually address Mario Kart's use of console prefixes, as the release of Mario Kart World means that several tracks that used their prefixes prior now logically have to be moved back, which creates an inconsistency with not only other tracks that do use prefixes, but other tracks that may be in the same game. Koopa Beach 2 still feels like a perfect example of this; all possible names for this track will be misleading in some sense, especially with the existence of N64 Koopa Troopa Beach (which, might I add, never had its name moved even when it was shortened between the time frame of Mario Kart 7 and Mario Kart Tour) and while that's for sure not up to us to try and fix, I just feel like it's not a terrible idea to allow some leniency in a specific case like this. Key word: "specific", I also feel that the "used if it prevents confusion" part of the title should be priority here.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm with Tails on this one. Quite frankly, the Koopa Beach example reminds me of some of the Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario 64 names, where we keep things consistent either to name sets or for better interchangeability. Some discretion is fine.

Keep the policy as is, with zero exceptions

  1. Hewer (talk) Very strong oppose. It isn't our place to decide that official names are bad or confusing, we should report on them and use them accurately regardless of our opinions. I'd much rather maintain an accurate and consistent naming policy than start arbitrarily ignoring names we don't like. Besides, it's not like any of the games this course appears in are very obscure - a lot of people are gonna play Mario Kart World and may come to know the course as "Koopa Troopa Beach", and it may confuse them to see the wiki using a different name for it. "Koopa Beach 2" (a name that hasn't been used in a game in twenty years) being the name you're personally used to doesn't make it more correct than the newer name.
  2. PopitTart (talk) Per Hewer. The wiki already covers eight (arguably nine) entirely separate courses named Rainbow Road. This is fine.
  3. Salmancer (talk) If Nintendo broke it, we're not allowed to fix it. We report, not embellish. We call Donkey Kong's move where he slaps the ground a "ground pound" in prose, even when this leads to confusion with the Ground Pound. (The only reason the page is named "Hand Slap" is because there wasn't a non-remake Donkey Kong video game for the entirety of the Nintendo Switch's lifespan, leaving Smash Ultimate to reassert Hand Slap.) Maybe on a different wiki, with a different culture, we would consider using older names for clarity. But currently, it is more important on this wiki to be correct than to match fandom expectation.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) this is incredibly subjective, and also not very helpful unless you already know which one is the SNES track and which one is the N64 track? per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Salmancer and Evie; it's more important to us to be accurate to a confusing source, and the far more subjective follow-up question of "what even counts as a 'bad name'?" doesn't appeal to us.
  6. Nelsonic (talk) While I agree that Nintendo's official names can be confusing (there's twenty-ish different things that are all called Super Mario Bros.), I don't think we should use older names. Per all.
  7. Rykitu (talk) Per all, especially PopitTart and Nelsonic.
  8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all, especially Hewer, PopitTart, Salmancer and Evie. They make a very good and strong point.
  9. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  10. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Also, the N64 course's article is already titled N64 Koopa Troopa Beach, so the article about the course from Super Mario Kart and Mario Kart World can just be titled "Koopa Troopa Beach" - case closed. If anything, this makes it less confusing.

Comments

We have something called source priority exception, even though it's not mentioned in the guideline proper. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:37, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Wasn't that not intended to affect in-game names? (I know I opposed that proposal but I might vote differently if it happened again) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:49, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
All the names mentioned in the proposal here are in-game, I think, so there's difference. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:57, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
So source priority exception wouldn't take effect at all then, right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:03, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
I'm just pointing out that leniency is a thing, so this proposal could basically be seen as another extension of that. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:11, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

@PopitTart, I advise you actually read the proposal. Those are all named as such since they debuted, so identifying them different like we do now is perfectly okay. This is not the same. There is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach" therefore identifying it the same way is not applicable. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 05:59, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Iit wasn't called Koopa Troopa Beach in SMK, but it is now. That's just... what Nintendo is choosing to call it now. And it still debuted in SMK, even after getting a name change.--PopitTart (talk) 06:14, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Rename "List of (game) staff" articles to "(game) credits" and include what happens in credits sequences

"Credits" is generally the proper term when listing staff in media. As for the latter part, while we do have an article about ending Parades, I think it couldn't hurt to mention what happens while the credits roll in the article opener. e.g for Super Paper Mario's article: "During the credits, images of scenes throughout the game are shown". Listing the staff itself will remain unchanged.

Proposer: Nightwicked Bowser (talk)
Deadline: May 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Both

  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
  2. Rykitu credits (talk) Per proposal
  3. Yoshi18 (talk) I'm all in for using the more famous term "credits". Per proposal!

Only rename articles

Only include credits sequence information

  1. Mushzoom (talk) Primary choice, per the sequence part of the proposal and Waluigi Time's issue.

Neither

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) My issue here is that this doesn't account for games without credits sequences or instances where staff members are uncredited, and even if it did that would create an inconsistency with page titles. I'm not necessarily opposed to including information about credits sequences but don't really see it as necessary for that page.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  3. Mushzoom (talk) Secondary choice, per Waluigi Time.
  4. Salmancer (talk) per Waluigi Time. Though I'm drawing a blank for where on an article to talk about the credits. Setting sections?
  5. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per all.
  6. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Comments

Would this also apply to games that don't have a credits roll, like Super Mario Bros.? I think it would be misleading to refer to the list of staff as "credits" if so. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 08:06, April 24, 2025 (EDT)

Allow objects to be listed on level articles

So I tried adding level objects to SMB3 level pages and was told I need to do a proposal first. I don't see why it should be an issue; after all, we already list items, enemies, music tracks, timer seconds, and other such things on each of them. If we're going to have exact counts of every coin in a stage, why can't we list a stage as having Brick Blocks or P-Switches or unmoving obstacles or specific types of platforms or recurring ambient/decorative objects? Doesn't make much sense when you get right down to it. The easiest way to find out what levels a gimmick is used, after all, is to click on an image and see what pages it's linked on; not linking them on it makes it exponentially harder to find out where something is used with no benefit gained from not having them, and given they're generally short articles anyway, they're not going to get in the way of anything - objectively!

EDIT: At the insistence of the opposition, I have added an option to only have interactive objects - as much as I personally disagree with that sentiment.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support - Full equality for all objects (includes interactive and decorative objects in the same section)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  • #Yoshi18 (talk) In my opinion, it's absurd the wiki doesn't do this already. Objects are important things in levels. From simple objects, such as Brick Blocks, to objects that are able to change the whole level layout, such as !-Switches. And now I'm basically only talking about the 2D games! The 3D games have much more in store, when talking about objects (mainly dynamic objects). Since the level pages are also short anyway, this is a good way to usefully expand on them more. And as you said, if we literally have the time to count the amount of coins, we surely have the time to count objects.
  • #Arend (talk) ...we don't do this already?!

Support - Separate but equal (includes interactive and decorative objects in separate sections)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Hewer (talk) Sure, no harm in being thorough.

Half-support - Tangibility above all (includes interactive objects alone)

  1. Tails777 (talk) If this focuses more on stuff like palettes for Goombas, blocks, coins and such, I'm personally okay with that. Less so if it's like, every frame for every sprite, but I'm personally more on this option overall.
  2. Hewer (talk) Second choice.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) - This makes far more sense to list off, and to be frank, we're a bit shocked that listing these course gimmick objects isn't done already. Without background objects gumming up the list into borderline Sisyphean heights, it's a lot more helpful to your average reader--and to be frank, a lot better of a workload--to know specific course elements like Note Blocks or Clear Pipes or POW Blocks or what-not are in a stage, rather than. If there's a bush.
  4. Arend (talk) There you go, this is what I initially thought the proposal was for. Once again... we don't do this already?!
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) This option is something that shouldn't need a proposal, and I think the fact that we don't do it already is because nobody's bothered to rather than it being explicitly not allowed. Like I said in my original vote, if this was what was being done I doubt it would be controversial at all, it was the decorative background tiles being included that caused problems.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Covering these kinds of objects is super useful for the wiki.
  7. TheFlameChomp (talk) As I previously mentioned in my opposition, this approach makes a lot of sense to me and I believe listing interactive elements is beneficial.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) i don't like having to amend my vote like this, but i guess this options aligns closer to how i think these oughta be covered. per WT and Camwoodstock
  9. Mario (talk) Seems like the best choice. But I would also support including nongeneric objects that are decorative under here (for instance, if there is a Lakitu Cloud in the background that is purely decorative, i.e. can't be interacted with, it should still be included).
  10. PopitTart (talk) I would prefer something like a bulleted list or table rather than a gallery, but there definitely should be lists of these things in some form. and the inverse as well, telling what levels the objects are in on their articles.
  11. Yoshi18 (talk) I was originally for the support option, but seeing the arguments on the óbjection side made, I began to doubt which side I should choose. This seems like the perfect solution actually. Per all.
  12. Nintendo101 (talk) Sure, paritcularly if it matches the tables we have for enemies and items in level articles. However, I hope folks do not use this an justification to list, say, every colored iteration or design of something like a Semisolid Platform within the level (sans the White Block, which has a function distinct from other Semisolid Platforms). If there is no difference in function, I think only one example of the object should be visually displayed.
  13. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) We don't really need a proposal for this, we've been doing this for years until somehow, purely decorative background fodder became a relevant thing to discuss? Whatever, at least this will have basis solidified in writing than formless editor discretion.
  14. Scrooge200 (talk) Per other votes for this.

Objection - Objects are second-class subjects

  1. Sparks (talk) Per Waluigi Time. Listing every single background subject/things you don't interact with is too much.
  2. PopitTart (talk) Per EvieMaybe and Waluigi Time, this proposal is just far too vague. If you're gonna count the powerup-shaped clouds and distinct colors of semisolid platform, then you ought to also count the fossils and rocks that appear in the terrain of NSMBU levels and each one of the different colors of Hard Block that make up hidden Luigis in NSLU. In addition, why is the goal listed as two separate gallery entries? They're literally one and the same. This proposal kinda just feels like an excuse to justify your (somewhat excessive) SMB3 sprite rips.
  3. Shadow2 (talk) Per all. And we don't need the object listings on the SMB3 world pages either.
  4. Salmancer (talk) If we want to set the mood for a level, we can just add more screenshots. And make the Hill article to store up lists of every location with Hills. I'm voting here and not for the interactive items list so that this resolves as "no changes". I still don't want to curse anyone with the burden of counting beads. Or trying to count every coin the Gold P Switch in Conkdor Canyon causes to fall. Which declaring that all articles are expected to have lists of interactive objects does.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per my comment below. I already thought the inclusion of non-interactive objects/elements was excessive, and I disagree with the proposed approach regarding interactive ones.
  • Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time. The core concept is fine, but we feel like a list of background elements is overkill; it would be incredibly asinine to list Horsetails in every single Mario level they appear in. If there was an option for just things that had tangible gameplay impact, we'd support it in a heartbeat, but for now... Too much, sorry.
  • Arend (talk) I'm all for functional and interactable objects being listed - P-Switches and whatnot - and am baffled we still haven't done this - but after seeing Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, Eviemaybe, and others' concerns, and re-reading through the proposal, I've realized that the proposal also wants (recurring) background objects to be listed - like the dome-shaped hills or the horsetail plants - AND treats them the same as the functional and interactable ones, even though they add nothing but background aesthetic. If only there were an option that just allows the objects that can be interacted with and/or have functions in gameplay. If only such an option that ditches the background fodder was there...
  • Waluigi Time (talk) I agree with this line of thinking, to an extent. Brick Blocks, P Switches, and other objects that the player can interact with should be listed on level articles. If that was the sole issue here, I doubt this would be at all controversial. However, going as far as having a gallery that includes every single bush or cloud background tile in the level, which this proposal advocates for, is overboard. And keep in mind we're only talking about SMB3 here, a relatively simple NES game. Imagine how out of hand it would be if we had a gallery of every single background model in a Galaxy or Odyssey level that the player can't even interact with.
  • TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. I agree with what others have said, in that listing functional objects would be beneficial and I would support adding that kind of thing to articles. However, I believe there is a big difference between functional objects and background objects, and I do not agree with filling object lists with background tiles which exist as decorations.
  • EvieMaybe (talk) Per Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Salmancer's comment. This proposal is concerningly vague about what counts as "an object". Do Super Mario Bros. Wonder's decorative objects[1][2] count as distinct objects? This proposal was sparked by you including stuff like hills or clouds in World 1-2 of Super Mario Bros. 3, and those are just tileset elements, so if those count then these absolutely count. Even if we limit it to "objects" which affect gameplay, what about Super Mario Galaxy's invisible gravity areas?[3] What about Super Mario Bros., which constructs everything in its levels out of "objects"?[4] Limiting it once again to subjects with pages, would this require us to count every coin of every level of every game? As long as this proposal remains so vague and undefined about its goals, I cannot in good conscience vote for it, and even then, properly defining these goals would pretty much require this proposal to be canceled and another to be raised. If you plan on trying again, I recommend including clear criteria for what an "object" is, as well as a draft of how a page would look like if this proposal passed. Until then, I'm opposing this.
  • Mario4Ever (talk) Per EvieMaybe.
  • Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comments below.

Object comments

I really, really don't want to have to count beads in every course, and I'm not sure there is anyone who does want to. Or for a more common example, counting coins in New Super Mario Bros. 2, though at least for them size is not a meaningful property of coins. I'm not sure we want to have stub notices saying we have to count up every last one of these minor dealy-bobs. Salmancer (talk) 17:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not advocating anything be counted, I brought that up as a thing I've already seen done without anyone taking issue with it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time - There's a reason I said "recurring" ambient objects, as in decorations that appear throughout the game. I'm not counting level geometry that's all part of one big cohesive model (as that is one object, technically) or random parallax details (if anything, layered backgrounds could have their own gallery section). Given many of the background objects have pages of their own (like tree and cactus), it makes sense to include them in my point of view. Basically, when an asset can actually be isolated without severe edits to the source, which would take out most of what would be a potential "bloating" issue in games more graphically complex than, for instance, Super Mario World. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

The Models Resource's upload of the Metro Kingdom contains 133 separate model files making up that environment. I could very easily isolate and render each piece without having to make any edits whatsoever. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:12, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Honestly? Views of 3D map files seem like an interesting thing to have, though they'd have their own sections of course. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:24, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
The map as a whole, yes, I agree. It would be nice to have more comprehensive images of 3D environments without having to resort to other means like Noclip, I feel like that's something we're lacking for certain games. I don't think we need to get into the individual bits and bobs that make up those maps, however. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Well much of what I uploaded are combinations anyway, so I think that those combined would still be the same thing in spirit. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
References cited in EvieMaybe's (now-cancelled) vote
  1. ^ Rimea (November 13, 2024). The Secret Purpose of These Rocks. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  2. ^ Rimea (February 3, 2025). The Secret of These Pumpkins. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  3. ^ Jasper (September 29, 2020). How Spherical Planets Bent the Rules in Super Mario Galaxy. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  4. ^ Retro Game Mechanics Explained (November 26, 2022). Super Mario Bros. Glitch Levels Explained. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.

@EvieMaybe - I have stated numerous times that this proposal has nothing to do with counting things. I brought up coin counts as something I have already seen done by other users on SMB3 pages, which no one took issue with. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

i appreciate the clarification, but it does not change my opinion that this proposal is poorly concieved and poorly executed. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:42, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I must ask, what issues arise with having full coverage of this? If I want to know what stages an asset appears in, the best way to find that out is to see where the image is linked to. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:47, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Checking the articles that an image is linked to seems like relatively extreme Wiki-fu. Aside from not being intuitive without understanding how Mediawiki works, it has two weaknesses. One is that the moment a second game reuses assets from another game the results will be covered in false positives. (Good luck differentiating New Super Mario Bros. U courses from New Super Luigi U courses solely on their titles. Example: File:NSMBU Gliding Waddlewing Artwork.png) The second is that the results are sorted alphebetically, which isn't useful from a user perspective. Back when courses/levels/whatever were always "World X-Y", the results would match the order of the game. Ignore the game article in those results and sure, this works. But as of New Mario U courses can have all manner of names, which means the list of articles an image is linked to haphazardly jumps between Worlds and game order with little rhyme or reason. The best way to find what levels have what objects is the simplest: have the Wiki's writers make the list for the reader. Easier said than done the bigger the game involved, yes, but it generally more accessible and it doesn't bloat out a course article with a gallery of clouds and hills. Salmancer (talk) 19:05, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
"Relatively extreme?" It's an extremely obvious and straightforward thing to do, and I am floored to learn that some people don't do that. Also, given most of the level titles are in the format of "World #-#" anyway, they're pretty much sorted in order anyway, so that argument makes no sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:22, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
i'm afraid you might've fallen victim to the good ol' XKCD pitfall. the average user does not have the technical know-how nor the familiarity to think "to find out in which levels this enemy appears, i should check what pages link to this image of it" (hell, i wouldn'tve come up with that on my own, and i literally just used citations on a proposal answer). even then, trying to float it as a solution for flooding level pages with sprite rips of what amounts to every single individual graphic used in a stage is absurd. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:01, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Again, for what reason should we not feature decorative objects? They're important to the stage's visual identity. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:20, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Because the concept of listing every "decorative object" is absolutely Sisyphean. Lets stick with SMB3 as an example. If we're including the various shapes of powerup-like clouds, what about the other shapes of clouds with anywhere from 1 to 3 pairs of eyes? or the hills which come in varying amounts of lumpiness? If we're including the various designs of semisolid, should we include the various designs of ground? Do the large vertical posts in airships get a special mention? Both the aboveground and underground palettes of 1-5? On the topic of underground, are the dark sparkly background tile things an object? How many distinct pipe "objects" are in 7-1? Decor simply isn't rigidly defined at all like things that matter to gameplay.--PopitTart (talk) 20:37, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I'd consider wiki'ing on such an expansive franchise as this an enjoyable sort of Sisyphean endeavor, myself. Anyways, I held myself back from including the "background walls" in my initial uploads, so I wasn't including them; I'd consider different colors of pipes, blocks, and ground to be fair game for "interactive objects," and the posts on the airship levels are just a particular shape of the "ground" there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:49, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@PopitTart - Because they are functionally two different things. Granted, the flashing card probably should be listed as an item (along with the balls Boom Boom drops and the Koopalings' wands), as that is technically what it is, while the "holding box" is a background object. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Sure, as far as the NES is technically concerned, the latter is on the background layer and the former is on the sprite layer, but as far as the wiki is practically concerned, they are The Goal. one thing. Just like a Goal Pole is a pole and flag, and an SMW goalpost is the posts and the ribbon. Conveying them separately to the reader doesn't do anything but tell them the level has a goal (shocking!) over the span of two separate gallery items.--PopitTart (talk) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I worry this proposal is framed around a motte-and-bailey argument. I do not imagine anyone taking issue with the inclusion of interactable objects within a level article like switches and blocks, and if that was the only thing you had done, I doubt anyone would have taken issue with it and may have even appreciated it. What raised eyebrows was the inclusion of noninteractive background elements like clouds. While the background elements are part of the game's visual identity and probably are worth discussing somewhere on the wiki, I imagine most folks would find that their documentation in the level articles, as well as every single color and iteration of each noninteractive background element within a level, is gratuitous and reduces the utility of the level articles. That is the actual issue - not the inclusion of tactile objects like blocks and switches. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I would certainly support a more nuanced proposal to document the actual contents of a level in detail. Pikipedia has lists of enemies, collectables, and reoccurring obstacles for each area, (along with the inverse lists of each area the subjects appear in) which are extraordinarily useful.--PopitTart (talk) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Goomba's walking animation from Super Mario Bros.Cave Goomba from SMBAn animated ? Block from Super Mario Bros. (Overworld palette)An animated ? Block from Super Mario Bros. (Underground palette)A Coin from Super Mario Bros.An animated coin from Super Mario Bros. (Underground palette)The sprite version of the Coin from Super Mario Bros.A horsehair plant from Super Mario Bros.A horsehair plant from Super Mario Bros.Sprite of a Warp Pipe from Super Mario Bros.Warp Pipe sprite from Super Mario Bros.<-If this is OK...
A sprite of a Goomba from Super Mario Bros. 3.A Goomba in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a cave stage.A ? Block.A ? Block on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a cave stageA sprite of a coin from Super Mario Bros. 3A coin on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a dark areaA coin on the sprite layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a land stageA tree on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3A tree on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3Sprite of a Warp Pipe from Super Mario Bros. 3A pipe on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3 as seen in a hills or desert stage.<-Then this is OK.
Note that none of the upper row are my uploads. It's perfectly serviceable to document all possible static palettes. SMB3 just has a lot due to being a big game on small hardware, with the remakes lessening that by a lot due to having more palettes with more values available. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I think there are some misunderstandings going on. I at least welcome hosting those types of assets on the same premise as you. But this proposal is about documenting noninteractive background details on the level articles, and I would not support that for any game because it dilutes those articles.
I also do not think those were the types of assets folks found gratuitous or would have encouraged being cut. Those are illustrative and cute. A better example would be including both the Japanese HUD and the international one with only a pixel being different between. The visual difference is not even distinguishable during gameplay because they are both on black backgrounds, so we are not really earnestly illustrating anything by hosting both of them, in my view. I'm sure similar comments can be made about rubble. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:31, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Much of the time they're not on black backgrounds, but on various shades of blue, orange, or otherwise. Anyways, if y'all insist, I'll alter the proposal to have different options. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Tails777 - Different animations for one subject are for their own galleries, don't worry there. I'd consider separate images for different static frames of the same animation to be redundant once the image itself has been uploaded, and I've spend the past few weeks uploading the game's animations. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:59, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Where would a "yes but only if object has an article on the wiki already" most likely fall under because I'd probably just stick with this? Isn't that the status quo already? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:08, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Why trees but no pyramids? Ashley icon from WarioWare: Move It! Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:17, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Hm yeah good point, if object has an article and(or?) the player can interact with it. The tree article I've tried to limit to ones the player can do things with OR it's a greater setting. That being said, you can point out to the opposition that if a hypothetical decorative-only and nongeneric object, like a background Skewer, is in a level, it will probably be appropriate to be listed in the article. If so, why not hills? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:23, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
A composite of hills on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a hill stage Well I labeled these "hills," but given they're only as tall as Small Mario who's to say what they are? And unlike pyramids, they're not moved to the distant background with parallax scrolling in the remakes, so they're definitely a small, close thing. Not to mention SMB's horsetails, which have lore significance in that game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:36, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I would like to know more about the intended approach regarding interactive objects, especially those that have animations. I would, for example, be opposed to seeing the same object multiple times with the same animation in an effort to merely highlight palette-related differences. Mario4Ever (talk) 14:32, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

What do you mean? I think it is the right thing to do, to, for instance, include a Koopa Troopa's land and cave palettes if both appear in a single level, since the idea is to show what actually appears in the level. So if these two pipes appear in the same level, Sprite of a Warp Pipe from Super Mario Bros. 3A pipe on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3 as seen in a cave stage., then they absolutely should both be accounted for. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:06, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
I think that a single instance of such things is sufficient as a representation of what is in a level, especially if a map is included. For me, the utility in highlighting differences of this sort would be if there were a possibility of confusing the object in question with a similar one based on those differences. Mario4Ever (talk) 15:53, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
I see palette as one of the main things that needs represented when visually documenting NES subjects, simply because of how limited it is. That also avoids the problem of deciding which should have "priority" if there's multiple in one level. Then there's things like green Paratroopas using different animations depending on their behavior, as the flying ones flap faster than the hopping ones. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:20, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, how would we handle these on pages such as World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.) or World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros. Special)? Would those get a table like enemies and items, or would they be a gallery a-la the Mario 3 example? Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 14:34, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Probably a gallery? Personally, I don't see much benefit in having a table for things that are more difficult or even impossible to objectively quantify. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 15:06, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
I personally think a table would be okay if we're talking about the interactive objects: Brick Blocks, Hidden Blocks and the like. I don't see the point of background objects listed in a table, though. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 06:52, May 3, 2025 (EDT)
Yes, but then we get into weird things like spikes. Do we include each spike? Each two-spike tile? Each connected spike bed? It gets confusing at that point. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:56, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Doc if you are serious about including every palette of an object to the level articles, then I am going to rescind my vote. Doing stuff like that is beyond the scope of what makes level articles actually helpful reference material. I would support including different palettes of Warp Pipes on their own personal gallery, but not in the level articles. - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:41, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Oh, sorry, didn't notice your objection on that. In that case, I'm considering nixing the orange and green semisolid blocks to focus on just the blue ones since they're the only ones whose palette actually changes by location. The others, I am having different sections for different parts of the levels and they never have multiple palettes for pipes and such in SMB3. So like, the "main area" list has the green ones and the "secret area" one has the black ones, if that makes sense. If that's too much, I can merge those and just have one, but I have to wonder which would get priority in stages with multiple linear sections? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:53, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
I think I would feel more comfortable with my vote if you could provide a mock-up of how one of these level articles would look, even if a rough one. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:00, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Like this, but remove all but one of the semisolid platform images. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:34, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
I guess that's alright. But could we not have a table that explains what each of these things are to readers, like with enemies and items? I don't assume folks go in with that knowledge. I am also pretty sure we could include colored backgrounds for the sprite columns too. That could look nice. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:45, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
I see no issue with doing so. This proposal is about having them there in the first place, not about how they are laid out. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:50, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
I didn't look very carefully beforehand - we usually don't provide descriptions for enemies and items unless there's an important tidbit, so forget that. And I am not sure knowing how many Cloud Blocks are in the level is as important as how many 1-Up Mushrooms are there, so a gallery is probably fine.
This is tangential, but I did do a small test with colored backgrounds for the sprite columns. I'm not sure I'd support this for games where the background isn't really a solid color (like GameCube or Nintendo DS games, as examples), but I think it looks nice here. What do you all think? - 12:59, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Yeah, the main reason I included it is because it factors into things such as P-Switch flashing for this game specifically. In games with gradient, parallax, and texture backgrounds, there's no way and no point in replicating it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:08, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Glad we are on the same page. I have seen other folks attempt colored backgrounds for things like the New Super Mario Bros. titles and I do not think it looks right. - Nintendo101 (talk) 13:24, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Permit sprite uploads of particle effects

Particle effects are specific visuals in games (and other media) that are used to represent things such as movement, weather, action, and other such things that might fly under the radar for many people but help make the environment and setting that much more lifelike. You can see at least two here.Media:Obtaing the First Power Star SM64.gif Most of them require some amount of interaction to appear, so it's not really a case where we can just have "only interactive ones;" they pretty much all are, as either you affect them, they affect you, or as most often is, both. They include:

They do not include other sorts of visual effects like postprocessing, shaders, distance-based fog, and other more nebulous things that can't really be captured in a truly isolated image.

Unsurprisingly, many of these are generic and in later games, may come from stock libraries of images (which, in my opinion, is its own piece of interest, like how the investigation of Wet-Dry World's background went on for a while). Others, however, feature unique animations that may differ depending on the source; when looking at "puffs of smoke" animations in Super Mario Bros. 3, IMedia:SMB3 Puff title.gif countedMedia:SMB3 Puff normal.gif sevenMedia:SMB3 Puff strong enemy defeat.gif distinctMedia:SMB3 Puff cannon.gif smokeMedia:SMB3 Puff hammer.gif puffMedia:SMB3 Puff laser.gif animationsMedia:SMB3 Puff Bowser.gif, which I found to be interesting as I was unaware there were more than one. And I think it's time that this oft-overlooked immersion tool got some appreciation here. Generally speaking, they'd go on the game's own gallery page, though ones that specifically relate to other defined subjects can go on their galleries as well. EDIT: I have also drafted a page specifically for the subject, so they can be added there as well.

I tried doing this without a proposal, and no-one seemed to mind when I uploaded ones for NES Golf and some other games. However, when I included their animations among my Super Mario Bros. 3 rips, it was specifically brought up by a few users that they didn't see the utility in featuring them, though others defended their presence - namely in the fact that the Super Mario Wiki is "a collaborative encyclopedia dedicated to documenting anything and everything about the Super Mario franchise and related series," meaning this is the place most people would go to if they were specifically looking for something like that. And we can't just rely on TSR; not only is it wrong to lean on another website, but their content never has processed or animated ones, so... where else would they be uploaded, if not here? So anyway, I'd like to set the record straight with the community: are they OK, or should they be nixed? I'm ultimately fine with either, but I want there to be some amount of consistency rather than the nebulous, arbitrary thing we have now.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Particle party (yes particles)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Perticle
  2. Hewer (talk) Sure, it's valid and somewhat interesting information about the games we cover. I can't think of a reason why someone would oppose this beyond "it doesn't interest me personally", which doesn't make it not notable.

Oppose: Hay fever (no particles)

Status quo: Leave it without specific rules in place (maybe particles?)

  1. Nintendo101 (talk) I am not wholly opposed to particle effects and the like. They are often part of the visual identity of the games they come from and are an under-documented element online. However, I do think we should exercise discretion. Maybe not every single colored iteration of the same particle is necessary to have on the wiki. Maybe we should not just host them unceremoniously in a gallery with minimal context: it would be create if we had a article that explained what particle effects are and why I (the reader) should or could care about them substantively, and the assets were uploaded to illustrate that point. We document many things on the site that are part of this franchise's identity, including things I would have never thought about documenting like fonts and memes. That stuff is cool, but we do not host every single instance, for example, of a font being used in a game. Or uploaded every letter/character individually. Discretion and curation is an important skill for making good reference material like our wiki.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per N101. as an aside, i don't appreciate the name of this voting option, as i am not voting for this because i want it "left nebulous and undefined". i notice that a lot of recent proposals tend to name their non-Support options something disdainful, and i do not enjoy it in the slightest.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nintendo101. While it's nice to have a good illustration of things, is such a thing as too much, to the point where it just becomes unhelpful. There's a reason that the Mario Kart course pages pruned all but one variant of their Tour icons awhile back; it isn't particularly "helpful" to see the exact same image but with a different character in the foreground when one variant would do the trick just as well. Likewise, it'd be nice to have various particle effects, but it'd be rather overkill to have every possible variant based entirely on what the palette of the current level is when you could understand it just as well with only one of those. Unless the differences are actually significant enough to be worth noting (so like... honestly, the only example that comes directly to mind is how the Sharp X1 version of Super Mario Bros. Special has two distinct sprites for Buzzy Beetles, one for if they appear on a blue background and one for if they appear on a black background, and it's the only game in the videogame that does a trick like that, but like, that's an enemy and not a particle, and okay you get it), one is really all you need. And, like Evie, we don't exactly appreciate the implication that a policy that, while definitely in need of being made more clear--seriously, our policy pages are in pretty dire need of a rewrite after a ton of proposals that have changed them and introduced edge cases--is "without specific rules in place". They do exist, they just need to be conveyed a lot better.
  4. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. While it's true that we're "a collaborative encyclopedia dedicated to documenting anything and everything about the Super Mario franchise and related series", we're also not an asset dump. If particle effects have illustrative value, users should have the freedom to upload them, but that doesn't mean we need to upload every single one just to have it. Similarly, if the texture for a model, for example, had some illustrative value, I would support it, but I would not support blanket uploading every single texture ever for the sake of valuing consistency for its own sake over editorial discretion and curation. The other options of uploading literally everything or uploading nothing at all are certainly not preferable.
  6. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Absolutely not.

Comments, queries, and other (regarding particles)

can you add an option to just upload them when they're needed for illustrative purposes? i think that's what would align with a wiki's goals the most. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 10:18, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

What is "needed" is itself subjective, unfortunately, as everything that can be done with a sprite rip of them can also be done with a screenshot (and some might argue can be done better through that). And given they're almost entirely based around interaction, there's not really any way to determine what should get more weight than any others. As such, anything that can't be consistently enforced in a way that would have an interpretation that is agreed upon by all users would be option 3. Note that this is based on allowing them to be uploaded, not requiring them to be. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 10:25, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@EvieMaybe - IDK, I didn't think it was harsh (and "nebula" loosely relates to particles) but I guess "disdain" is in the eye of the beholder, but I've renamed it. The purpose of having the options have specific names, in my experience, is so you can tell which proposal is being opposed on the recent changes list. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:33, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@Nintendo101 - I agree that there should be better textual explanations of them here, but before that can really be implemented we need enough visuals uploaded. This is just the first step. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:36, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

Perhaps other folks approach things differently, but I typically start writing things first and upload visual assets after the fact when they feel needed. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:38, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
And that is also how I would typically do that, but when the subject is itself a visual effect, that gives the visual aspect a higher priority in my opinion. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:41, May 4, 2025 (EDT)
Here is a quickly made demo of an article on the subject. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:23, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@Camwoodstock: The difference with the Mario Kart icons situation is that we still have all those images, just not on the course pages themselves. If we're covering every officially used font and hashtag, I don't see why we should draw the line at fully covering visual effects that appear in the games themselves. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:43, May 4, 2025 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time - I don't think textures that are intended to be applied to fully 3D models are a good comparison; that would seem more like uploading palettes (as in, just the four-to-32 squares of color) not applied to anything. And while I agree that we are in the strictest sense "not an asset dump," I do not think that obstructing the uploading of processed assets (as opposed to unprocessed ones) is warranted. If you can tell what something is supposed to be and it is an accurate rendition of how it appears in the medium in question, while not being 100% redundant with another uploaded asset, there should be no problem. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:07, May 5, 2025 (EDT)

No, in terms of 3D models, the closest thing to a palette are vertex colors. A texture is more like an atlas, and textures come in more forms than just albedo/diffuse and depending on the game, compromise of multiple necessary components including ambient occlusion and normal maps, things that you can see as intended in a model but cannot be segregated from one another. BabyLuigiFire.pngXiahou Ba(the Nasty Warrior) 18:12, May 6, 2025 (EDT)
I'd say vertex colors are more akin to the tinting you'd see in some later 2D games, personally. Either way, that's pretty different from the subject here, which are unique standalone graphics. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:14, May 6, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

What is a game? 2: electric boogaloo

Per some of the oppose votes on the previous proposal. I can understand not adding these games to the list of games, though I personally do not think they should remain classified as merchandise, either. Because of this, I think these games should have their own spot somewhere, instead of remaining in a list/gallery that covers a wide range of things. I believe these games should move to a dedicated list of physical games or something along the lines of that. (To note, I do not believe this contradicts the recent previous proposal, since this proposal is asking where physical games go, acting semi-independently of the original proposal, though I will temporarily withdraw it if it does contradict/overturn the previous decision.)

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)
Deadline: May 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Create a dedicated list for only physical games

  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Create a catch all list of games with both video and physical games

  1. Nelsonic (talk) This also works.

Do not move physical games from their current location

The Comment Games 2

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4878375"