MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Advanced mobile edit
 
Line 4: Line 4:


==New features==
==New features==
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
===Create articles for ''Donkey Konga'' series music===
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
{{Early notice|June 9, 2025}}
I understand that us having an article for {{fake link|Losing My Religion}} may come off silly, but I think it's... the ''only'' consistent move given our recently established policies.


I have several pitches for you.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/76#Split_every_song_from_the_.22List_of_.28show.29_songs.22_articles|Recently]], we passed a proposal in favor of creating individual articles for songs that are part of large lists due to the ability to individually note down information regarding that music that couldn't be included in a table.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/76#Allow creation of pages for officially named music tracks|Even more recently]], we just passed a proposal declaring a song having an official name as sufficient grounds for it to possess an article, even if it was a short one. This didn't extend to licensed tracks necessarily, but combined with the others it's a point in Donkey Konga's favor.
*Finally, [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/62#Create_articles_for_Dance_Dance_Revolution:_Mario_Mix_songs|a couple years ago now]], I myself put forward the argument that songs in rhythm games were levels, and therefore under our coverage policy, required articles.


<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
But I don't want to make precedent my entire argument here. I fear I make ''Donkey Konga'' music articles sound like an obligation or loophole or something of that ilk — something we've forced ourselves to create. I don't see it that way. If I ''did'', I wouldn't be proposing this. So let me discuss why I think, on their own merits, ''Donkey Konga'' songs should have articles.
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>


''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''
Fundamentally, as a rhythm game, ''Donkey Konga'' '''is''' its music. That's the reason you get the game; that's what you're going to be spending 95% of your gameplay interacting with. And that's why I don't think it's right to only cover about the available songs in one table like they're only as important as the purchasable bongo sound sets. It's basically not covering the games at all — the navbox for ''Donkey Konga 1'' is threadbare and the navboxes for ''2'' and ''3'' don't have enough to even exist. I don't believe this state of affairs, where only the minigames have their own article, is the proper way to cover a rhythm game on this wiki — I think the music is the equivalent of levels and needs to be covered as such. That was my stance for ''DDR: Mario Mix'', and even though ''Donkey Konga'' lacks an adventure mode or much music made specifically for it, I still mantain that stance applies. I understand the way it being mostly external licenses may change the situation, but in my mind it's similar to our articles on random characters from other IPs seen in ''[[Club Nintendo (German magazine)|Club Nintendo]]'' comics — isn't Whip It having official gameplay relevance to the Mario series interesting information?


<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
Allow me to move onto practical concerns. If this proposal passes, every song from every version of ''[[Donkey Konga]]'', ''[[Donkey Konga 2]]'', and ''[[Donkey Konga 3 JP]]'' will receive its own article. (Songs that already have their own article will instead receive similar information in a similar structure in a ''Donkey Konga'' section.) This article will list the song's name, original artist, whether or not the song is a cover, the show the song is an opening to (for several of the Japanese-exclusive tracks), which versions the song is exclusive to, its three difficulty ratings, the cost of its hard mode, a music sample, anything else that currently has to be a footnote on the song lists on the game article, and its lyrics (simply because this seems to be traditional for song articles on the wiki). Much of this will be accomplished through a "Donkey Konga song infobox" template to hold the information.
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later
Unfortunately, information on ''Donkey Konga'' charts is not as readily available as ''DDR: Mario Mix''{{'}}s information was. Ideally, I would like to get things like BPMs, lengths, notecounts by difficulty, and even "maps" like [[:File:DDRMM Chart AlwaysSmiling VeryHard.png|this one]], but I'm not sure all of that is within my power at the moment. Creating these articles, though, will allow that information to be added later if it ever becomes available to someone with the will to add it.
 
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.
 
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.
 
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
 
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
 
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
 
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
 
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.
 
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': June 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Option Zero====
====Support (Donkey Konga)====
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per proposal. I've been thinking about this ever since the Mario Mix proposal.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nelsonic|Nelsonic Konga}} Per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If Mario Mix can have pages for each of its tracks as levels, and in the wake of our slowly but surely increasing musical coverage, surely Donkey Konga can get in on this too. Let's get it on like Diddy Kong! (Per proposal.)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes total sense for a rhythm game, and the ''Konga'' games definitely need better coverage. Get your game on, go play.
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} Even if they originate from outside of the franchise, as Camwoodstock said, they appear in this game. Per my reason below.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Hewer}} Let's drum up support for this idea.
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Konkey Donga! - Per
#{{User|Altendo|Altendo: Grasslands Beat}} Per proposal and consistency with [[Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix]].
#{{User|RHG1951}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} tentative support, per Waluigi Time's comments.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy|Kaptain Skurvy 3 JP}} Per proposal-a.


====Option One====
====Oppose (Donkey Konga)====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


====Option Two====
====Comments (Donkey Konga)====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
I support doing this, but we are going to make these articles anyway because of [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/76#Allow_creation_of_pages_for_officially_named_music_tracks|this proposal]], which decided that every song in the franchise gets an article if Nintendo gave it an official name. {{User:Rainbow Road Drifter/sig}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.
:''Donkey Konga'' is a bit of an edge-case, as plenty of its tracks are licensed and not technically a part of the ''Mario'' franchise. Other things impacted by this cutoff would be ''[[SSX on Tour]]'' (for all of its music) and ''[[White Knuckle Scorin']]'' (for all of its music, except for its single [[Ignorance is Bliss]]). Of the three, it's definitely got the best argument considering ''DDR Mario Mix''. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 23:05, June 1, 2025 (EDT)
You're right, the songs are from outside of the franchise. If this potentially needs to be handled differently, I think this proposal makes sense. I think the songs should still get articles, because they appear in this game, in the same way the ''Sonic'' and ''Final Fantasy'' characters get articles for their appearances in [[Mario & Sonic (series)|Mario & Sonic]] and Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix. As for White Knuckle Scorin', it is an album themed after Mario, with a Mario comic inside. I think its songs should get articles like Donkey Konga's, even if they are from outside of the franchise. SSX on Tour (and NBA Street V3) should not be included, as it is clearly not a Mario franchise game. Likewise, songs from the Super Smash Bros. series that are not ''Mario'' songs should not get articles, because they are also not Mario franchise games. {{User:Rainbow Road Drifter/sig}}


====Option Three====
What about songs featured in ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie''? Shall we create pages for ''Thunderstruck'' or ''Mr. Blue Sky''? {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 12:11, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
:I'd consider that an entirely separate question. This proposal is largely on the back of Donkey Konga being a rhythm game, so I don't think its ruling would be extensible to anything else that currently exists. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:51, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


====Option Four====
I would be very cautious about including full lyrics for licensed music, I've heard that's something rights holders can be touchy about. Anyway, since it looks like this is going to pass, I do hope it's conditional on the articles being about the Donkey Konga charts first and foremost - I don't really want to see someone make a full article for All Star with "oh yeah and it's in Donkey Konga" as a brief aside, leaving the actually game-relevant info to be covered by someone else later. The last paragraph of this proposal does concern me a little bit on that front. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 12:35, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
 
:That lyrics thing surprises me. If [[List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! songs]] hasn't run afoul of it, though, I think we'll be fine. As for your other concern — I think that's an entirely fair concern to have. There's inherently less to cover than in Mario Mix — Donkey Konga lacks Mush Mode–style gimmicks, a position in an adventure mode, and dedicated backgrounds for each song. (Did you know Donkey Konga selects which backdrop to display randomly? Song choice doesn't even factor into it. I was really disappointed when I figured that out.) That only leaves the technical stuff, though I think I may be able to get BPMs and lengths after all. That said, I don't have any intention of extensively covering a song's history outside of ''Mario'' beyond... a sentence in the opening paragraph, at most. Being honest, I only recognize like ten of the songs in this series, so I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 13:51, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
====Comments====
<s>We could make ''List of songs in Donkey Konga'', which would only mention the game-relevant information. (The chart, the length, the BPM, etc.) Each entry would be fairly short, so this article wouldn't be too big, and the article is big enough that there wouldn't need to be coverage on the song's history outside of the franchise to extend it. {{@|Ahemtoday}}, I recommend you add a "Create a list article" option to this proposal, because the Donkey Konga songs don't have as many distinct qualities as the Mario Mix ones. {{User:Rainbow Road Drifter/sig}}</s>
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:We just passed a proposal to split the "List of songs" articles we have now, and those ones don't have gameplay built around them. I don't think a list article would be a suitable way to solve this — it's not sortable like a table so all three of a game's versions would be shuffled together in a difficult-to-parse way, and the format doesn't mix nicely with songs that appear elsewhere in the series (which are actually quite a few, some even appearing in multiple Donkey Konga games). [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 16:40, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
 
I am okay with them being individual articles if it makes them easier to read. I was looking for a solution to your concern of there not being a lot to cover, but if the article is more difficult to read, we shouldn't make it. {{User:Rainbow Road Drifter/sig}} 16:55, June 2, 2025 (EDT)
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)
 
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


==Removals==
==Removals==
Line 79: Line 56:


==Changes==
==Changes==
===Include italics for category page titles for media that normally uses it===
===Renaming "References" to "Citations"===
Shouldn't category pages for media that uses italics (such as games, shows, movies, etc.) use italics for their category pages? I did start adding it to some pages already, but I thought it was worth proposing about it, possibly to make it policy. I feel like italics should be used though, as it is used everywhere else. For example, the page titled [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64]] should be [[:Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']].
"References" should be rename to "citations", as there are "references in other games", and "citations" are simply more accurate, as it can clarify that they are sources.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Kaptain Skurvy}}<br>'''Deadline''': <s>February 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to February 27, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to March 6, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to March 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
'''Proposer''': {{User|Wariowarefan100}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Rename "references" to "citations": rename all "references"(sources) to "citations"====
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Wariowarefan100}} I agree with this option.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Wait, this isn't already policy??? We think this lack of parity speaks a lot to how neglected categories can be in some regards. While yes, the category description isn't really meant to be the main point, we don't think ''slightly slanted text'' is distracting from the actual list of articles in the category, and just because categories are more utility than text doesn't excuse the text that ''is'' there looking below the standard of a usual article for being "lesser".
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Nothing wrong with having more consistency around the wiki.
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per all.
#{{User|Salmancer}} It is easier to figure out what the standards are from context alone when the standards are applied in every instance.
#{{User|Hewer}} The proposer has confirmed on their talk page that the goal of the proposal is just to put [[Template:Italic title]] on category pages, so concerns about formatting the category links on articles are moot (and I'm not sure applying it there would even be possible anyway). With that cleared up, per all, I don't see the harm in some more consistency.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Hewer
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} sure, for consistencies sake
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Hewer, then.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Makes it way easier to tell what's part of the game title and what's part of the category descriptor or not at a glance.


====Oppose====
====Don't rename "references" to "citations": don't rename all "references"(sources) to "citations"====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Categories are supposed to provide simple, direct, and utilitarian functions, not something to be read or presented to readers. I don't think italicizing them is necessary and would detract from their simplicity.
#{{User|Altendo}} I don't see why this should be done. Yes, this might be a bit confusing for early editors, but this section is usually placed much further down the page than the "References to/in other media" ones. Plus, the actual code for these are <nowiki><ref>, </ref>, and <references/></nowiki>, just to name a few. I think keeping the current name would be consistent with how the coding is done.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Nintendo101. It doesn't feel necessary.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} If we type <nowiki><ref></nowiki> to make them, we don't see why we shouldn't name the section they go into "References". Renaming them to "citations" feels a lot like change-for-change's-sake. The only real use-case we can think of would be if people were struggling to tell the difference between "References" (as in, reference material) and the "References to/in other media" sections (as in, the game itself making references to/being referenced from other things), but suffice it to say, we don't think this is a common enough issue; especially not one worth upending such a bare-bones basic term in MediaWiki itself.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} What is this supposed to change, exactly? Yes, it's in line with how pages about games are to have the subject italicized, but the change feels unneeded and especially arduous to implement for pretty much no reason. Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per Altendo.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per all.
#{{User|Rainbow Road Drifter}} These terms aren't interchangeable, they mean different things. This site defines the terms: https://researchdeep.com/citations-vs-references-how-to-master-them-both/#citations-vs-references-understanding-the-core-functions<br>Citations: Typically, appear in parentheses, footnotes, or endnotes, depending on the chosen citation style.<br>References: A comprehensive list at the end of your document that provides detailed information about all the sources you cited within the text. This list allows readers to locate and consult the full source material for further study or verification<br>Also, the "to/in other media" in these sections make clear that they are referring to references the work makes to past media, and references later media make to the work, so there isn't potential confusion in the current names.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101
#{{User|Mushroom Head}} Per all
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Technetium}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Pertendo101.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{user|wildgoosespeeder}} Totally unnecessary maintenance. Also, I don't think that it even works. I just tested it without the colon <nowiki>[[Category:Donkey Kong 64|Category:''Donkey Kong 64'']]</nowiki>, unless you mean to use <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE:Category:''Donkey Kong 64''}}</nowiki>, which does work on the category page.
#{{user|Fun With Despair}} Not only does this seem like a massive pain in the ass for astoundingly little gain on either the user or backend side, but honestly it looks pretty ugly.
#{{User|Arend}} I am aware that the proposer only meant to have the italics show up on a category itself with <nowiki>{{DISPLAYTITLE}}</nowiki>, but honestly, I think that would make things a bit too confusing or cumbersome. As wildgoodespeeder said, one is unable to force a category name to be displayed in italics when put on other pages (or displayed in other categories), so if you're unable or unwilling to have that match, then what's the point? Not only that, but pages in categories are already forced  by the system to be displayed in italics when they're ''redirects'' (remember when we still had those Pokémon redirects in categories, and they were ''all'' displayed in italics?). I would honestly think that is going to confuse readers even further than if we just leave the game titles in categories without italics.
====Comments====
@Nintendo101: In that case, why do we italicise game titles in category descriptions? (Genuine question, I'm undecided on this proposal.) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 08:58, February 7, 2025 (EST)
:Because that is a proper sentence. It is not the tool itself. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:15, February 7, 2025 (EST)
::We mean... Wiki policy is to italicize game titles on their articles' names using <nowiki>{{Italic title}}</nowiki>, too, and those aren't proper sentences. They're article names. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:00, February 8, 2025 (EST)
:::That's not the same situation in my eyes because the articles are what the site is for. That is what we are writing and presenting to the public. Of course we would italicize those. The categories are a tool, chiefly for site editors, not readers. We do not really gain anything from italicizing their titles. If anything, I worry this would lead to a lot of work to implement, either burdening site editors, porplemontage, or both. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:05, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::So category names are just tools not meant for readers, but category descriptions aren't? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:08, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::The descriptions are just sentences, and I feel inclined to render those they way we would a sentence anywhere else on the site, be it on articles or in the description for image files. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
::::We disagree with the notion categories are more for editors and not readers; while yes, all of the categories on the front page are maintenance categories from the to-do list, the sheer quantity of proposals for categories wouldn't make sense if they were moreso for editors, rather than your average reader; moves such as the reforms for the Look-alikes categories or the Thieves category wouldn't make sense if these weren't meant to be public-facing. And of course, there are the various categories that exist for users, but do ''not'' serve a utility purpose, such as the [[:Category:User es|various "users that know a given language" categories]].<br>As for difficulty implementing, considering the recent success stories with images without descriptions and categories without descriptions having gone from 4000+ and ≈100, to 0 and 0 respectively, we have it in good faith that this wouldn't be ''that'' hard to implement. Monotonous? Yes. But difficult? It's nothing a bit of caffeine and music can't solve. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:22, February 9, 2025 (EST)
:::::Not only for editors, but chiefly for them. I don't exclude the idea of more curious readers utilizing them, but I suspect they are exceptions. I maintain that their ease of implementation is more important to the site than the formatting inconsistency. Like, are we to be expected to format category ourselves as "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots|Category:''Super Mario World'' screenshots]]</nowiki>" instead of just "<nowiki>[[Category:Super Mario World screenshots]]</nowiki>" going forward? Would we do this for the articles that are in dozens of categories? Why? I would not want to do that, and I don't find the inconsistency a good enough reason to roll something like that out, and only brings downsides. It makes the tool where one types "<nowiki>[[Category:</nowiki>" almost entirely moot because we would still need to write out the whole name just to format it this way. Others are welcomed to think differently, but I personally think the way we format these names now in categories is perfectly fine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:49, February 9, 2025 (EST)
even if this proposal doesn't pass, i think we should use [[Template:Italic title]] in the category pages. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 10:16, February 12, 2025 (EST)
:I thought that was the whole proposal. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 03:32, February 13, 2025 (EST)
::@Kaptain Skurvy: Could you please clarify whether the proposal's goal is simply to add italic title to categories, or to also do something else as well? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:14, February 17, 2025 (EST)
:The proposer has clarified on their talk page that adding the italic title template to categories is all the proposal would do if it passed. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 15:21, February 23, 2025 (EST)
===Introducing the crossover article===
The passing of this proposal would accomplish seven things:
#'''See the publication of the drafted ''Zelda'' article''' discussed in this proposal, titled "{{Fake link|crossovers with ''The Legend of Zelda''}}." (The draft can be viewed [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|here]].)
#'''Funnel redirects and disambiguation pages pertaining to ''Zelda'' on the wiki to the published ''Zelda'' article''' (i.e., searches for The Legend of Zelda, Octoroks, etc. Fully covered crossover subjects like [[Link]] would keep their articles, and this would not preclude a crossover subject from receiving an article of their own in the future if warranted, such as the inclusion of Princess Zelda in a future ''Mario Tennis'' or something like that).
#'''Move details pertaining to ''Zelda'' from list articles on the site to this one''' (i.e. all information pertaining to Sheik on the [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee|list of fighters debuting in ''Super Smash Bros. Melee'']] article would be cleared, and searching for "Sheik" on the site would bring you to this article. ''Zelda'' info on the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] article would similarly be cleared. Visitors to that article would be directed towards the published ''Zelda'' one when they reach that section of the list article).
#'''Establish a navbox for crossover articles''' (either a wholly dedicated one, an incorporation into "Template:Culture," or a retooling of "Template:Crossover characters").
#'''Establish the precedent where this can be done for other IPs with which the ''Super Mario'' franchise has crossed-over.'''
#'''Establish a 'Crossover article" section to the [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style]]''' that explains the framework for crossover articles described below. This is to be the standard structure for how other articles are to be structured.
#'''Note that this framework exists on the the [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Crossovers|crossover section of our coverage policy]]''', and provide a link directing readers to it.
The ''Super Mario'' franchise is very much the IP tentpole for Nintendo Co., Ltd. and at least one of the ones for the Japanese video game industry as a whole. Consequently, ''Super Mario'' as a franchise and brand has crossed-over with many other franchises, brands, and series over its nearly fifty years of existence - not only sister series developed by Nintendo EAD and R&D, and their successor EPD (i.e. ''Duck Hunt'', ''Punch-Out!!'', ''Exictebike'', ''Metroid'', ''F-ZERO'', ''Animal Crossing'', ''Pikmin'', ''Splatoon'', etc.) and those of their external creative partners (i.e. Ape Inc.'s ''EarthBound'', HAL Laboratory's ''Kirby'', Game Freak's ''Pokémon'', etc.), but also fellow ones from other studios like Square Enix, Sega, Bandai Namco, Koei Tecmo, Chunsoft, Ubisoft, Konami, and Hudson Soft. This is not groundbreaking news: Most folks interested in gaming history already know this, especially the curators of the Super Mario Wiki. However, I do not feel like we handle this information particularly well on the site.
A lot of coverage of ''Super Mario'' references, homages, allusions, and cameos are nestled within various list articles, inexplicitly at the end of [[Super Mario Bros.#Notes|dedicated game articles]], or in ''Super Smash Bros.'' articles with which there seemed to have been effort to bury on the site and [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros.#Captain Falcon|are not wholly about ''Super Smash Bros.'' anyways]]. This coverage, exasperated by recent efforts to reduce coverage on the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series: (1.) obfuscates the fact that ''Super Mario'' has made references and ''is'' referenced in many other franchises outside of ''Smash Bros.'' contexts, often in very meaningful ways that are interesting and fun to read about; (2.) mitigates how ''Mario'' has been an influence behind some of these other franchises; and (3.) makes finding some bits of information just very difficult. If I, as a visitor of the site, wanted to understand scenarios where ''Splatoon'' and ''Mario'' have crossed-over, I would not have an easy way to find that all in one place, and I think that is a shame.
[[File:LA Wart.gif|right|200px|frog man!]]
[[File:SM3DW WS-1 2nd Green Star.jpg|right|200px|green lad!]]
To better cover and consolidate crossover info on the site, and I have been drafting what I would like to call a "<u>crossover article</u>" using [[User:Nintendo101/community garden|''The Legend of Zelda'' franchise as an example]] (with contributions from Salmancer, DryBonesBandit, Memelord2020, RHG1951, LeftyGreenMario, and LadySophie17, and feedback from Super Mario RPG, Doc von Schmeltwick, and Koopa con Carne). This is a long article, and it is not wholly completed yet, but I think it is serviceable example of what I would like us to do going forward. Crossover articles take inspiration from the {{iw|smashwiki|Mario (universe)|universe articles}} from our affiliate Smash Wiki and, as apparent in the ''Zelda'' draft, consist of the following sections:
*'''Overview''' : A brief description of what the crossover franchise/series is for those not well versed in the subject and would like to know a little more about it without visiting another site, and how this relates to ''Mario''. It is the create a foundation so the reader is not confused by descriptions or terminology in the other areas of the article. For ''Zelda'', this section may be a bit lengthier than it would be for others because ''Mario'' had a lot of direct influence on ''Zelda'' as a series.
*'''Recurring crossover subjects''': for subjects like characters, enemies, bosses, or items that make substantial appearances in or alongside ''Mario''-related media, such as subjects that used to have their own articles on the site. Each subject would be briefly explained so readers understand who they are when mentioned in other parts of the article, have explicit conceptual or design connections with ''Mario'' highlighted, and summarize areas where they specifically crossover with ''Mario''.
*'''History in the ''Super Mario'' franchise''': a history section for where the crossover subject is referenced in the ''Super Mario'' franchise itself.
*'''History in the subject series/franchise''': a history section for the inverse, where ''Super Mario'' is referenced in the franchise subject of the article. In this case, it is ''Zelda''.
*'''Shared history''' (if applicable): a history section for mutual space where both subjects appear, such as the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, ''Tetris'' series, ''NES Remix'' series, or other media.
''Zelda'' is uniquely related to ''Mario'' and nearly as old, but crossover articles can be written for smaller franchises/series as well. The only requirement for a series/franchise to receive an article of its own is for it to directly crossover with ''Super Mario'' within an officially licensed capacity. Articles of this nature should not be written for series/franchise that simply make homages to ''Super Mario'' or have elements inspired by it, such as ''Celeste'', ''Gears of War'', or ''Astro Bot''.
I offer three options:
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles and want to see them implemented as described.'''
#'''Support: I like the idea of crossover articles, but list articles for the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series should be left alone.'''
#'''Oppose: I do not like the idea of the crossover article and do not want to see them implemented.'''
I know this was a long one, folks. Sorry about that, but the ideas behind this idea are multifaceted. Please let me know if you need additional clarity on anything or if you have any recommended amendments. (Also, if you would like, I welcome you to contribute to the drafted ''Zelda'' article! It is in my "<u>community</u> garden" sandbox for a reason.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
====Support: let's implement crossover articles!====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} [[File:Link pose SMM.png]]
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} Per proposer.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal with absolutely no second thought. Aside from the obvious value such articles would bring, this practice may incidentally just be the silver bullet for the community's differences on how to cover Smash Bros. content. Nintendo101, even with your inspiration from SmashWiki, I'd say you still managed to think out of the box here.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} been waiting a long time for this one. per proposal!
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Secondary choice, I suppose. Better than no article.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option; we'd rather these articles exist, even if the Smash coverage is confusing, than these articles not exist at all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} It has always felt absurd to me that [[Captain Olimar]]'s presence on the wiki is entirely an entry in [[List of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Brawl]], despite being directly based on Mario himself and having appearances in ''Luigi's Mansion'', ''WarioWare: D.I.Y.'', ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', ''Mario Kart 8'', and ''WarioWare Move It!''
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Crossover articles are a great idea, and if it can also declutter ''Smash Bros.'' list articles, it's even better.
#{{User|Arend}} As long as the content from the list pages are preserved in SOME way or another, I am perfectly fine with this. I think this is a great idea, and the well-detailed draft really sold me on this.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Makes perfect sense.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Sounds good to me.
#{{User|Shy Guy on Wheels}} Per all. death to the smash bros lists
#{{User|Mario}} Those list pages are a spaghetti of sadness, mama mia. I love the idea of these crossover pages, wonderful idea (similar to those decade splits for the gallery pages), and they're going to be a massive step up from that mess we currently have. I don't want to keep those lists at all. Their tolerated existence makes our wiki look bad, although absolutely delicious, if you ask me.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} The list pages are an abhorrent sight and I'd much rather have Smash information contained in these respective crossover articles - if that proves too large for the size of the existing article, then the next logical step would be a subpage for Smash Bros. information, would it not? Per all.
====Support: let's implement crossover articles, but leave ''Smash Bros.'' lists alone====
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per proposal. I believe the articles would be better focused on the relationship between their respective series and Mario. Detailing all their character's Smash histories (which could get quite lengthy with something like Pokémon) would be better left in the List articles they currently are in.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Sophie.
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Per Soph
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Primary option; per Sophie, we worry about the length of some Smash sections, and we feel the organization is fine enough as it is right now for Smash-related subjects.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per Sophie. I fully agree with making crossover articles to cover the relations another franchise has with Mario, but Smash in of itself is also a crossover and covering the details of these characters in a place that relates to Smash feels better.
#{{User|Arend}} Second option. I'm personally not a huge fan of loss of content, and this option allows this to be fully preserved by leaving it be. While I have been assured that the history sections will be preserved in a form better suited for the article and other details such as Classic Mode routes and stickers/trophies/spirits might be reimplemented, I'm still keeping this as a secondary option to be safe.
#{{User|Okapii}} Per Sophie.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Second opinion.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} This proposal is pretty close to how I imagined covering ''Zelda'' subjects had ''[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/58#Determine The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening and its reissues as a guest appearance and create an article covering all three versions and/or its Mario-related subjects|Link's Awakening]]'' failed!
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
====Oppose: let's not implement crossover articles====
====Crossover comments====
I also happened to start a [[User:PopitTart/Sandbox#Pikmin (franchise)|draft for a Pikmin series article]] the other day, inspired by Nintendo101's Zelda draft. It's in a much... '''much''' rougher state, but I hope it gives an idea what these crossover articles can provide.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:31, March 3, 2025 (EST)
{{@|Koopa con Carne}} thank you for the kind words! - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:30, March 3, 2025 (EST)
:[[File:LinkCN.jpg|50px]] {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:32, March 4, 2025 (EST)
Question: One of the proposed points is to "''Move'' details pertaining to Zelda from list articles on the site to this one", but the i.e. states that "all information pertaining to Sheik on the list of fighters debuting in Super Smash Bros. Melee article would be ''cleared''". Characters on these fighter lists have extensive history sections; will these be moved to the crossover pages as well, or will these be nixed altogether?<br>Also, what about franchises which currently only have a connection with Mario through ''Smash Bros.'', such as ARMS? Will these get a crossover article as well or not? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:10, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I don't know. Perhaps we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Ultimately, very few of the franchises within ''Smash Bros.'' have only crossed-over with ''Mario'' within ''Smash Bros.'', and that was at the front of my mind for this proposal. ''ARMS'' is one of the few exceptions. I should probably make some sort of list to parse what other series and franchises are within that boat. But what would you want to see, {{@|Arend}}? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I don't know... I'd understand not giving those an article given how they only crossover in ''Smash'', but it would be strange to do with ''ARMS'' considering it's probably the only franchise with such a distinction that is directly from Nintendo. I can see us making an exception and allowing a crossover article for ''ARMS'' regardless, considering how most of the ''ARMS'' development team is basically ''Mario Kart 8'' alumni anyway, but that same excuse probably wouldn't work with ''Kingdom Hearts''. Then again, maybe so few franchises would be left that we might as well make crossover pages for those anyway.<br>Anyway {{@|Nintendo101}}, you didn't answer my first question regarding the fighters' history sections on the fighter lists, so I ask again: would they be moved to the crossover pages as well, or be deleted altogether and not being covered at all? Knowing precisely what's going to happen to those (as the proposal hasn't really elaborated well on what will happen to those) is pivotal for me to pick which option to choose for, you see. That's kind of why I haven't voted yet. {{User:Arend/sig}} 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I personally envisioned the history sections for each fighter being disseminated within history sections as described in this proposal (one section for ''Mario'', one section for the other franchise, and one section for mutual space where both franchises crossover together). Individual characters would not have the full history sections as present in those list articles, but the individual info would largely be preserved. (I did not think it was important to reiterate granular ''Smash Bros.'' info about Stickers, Trophies, Classic Mode routes, etc. because that seemed more about ''Zelda'' in ''Smash Bros.'' and less about ''Zelda'' with ''Mario'' in ''Smash Bros.'', but Hewer had reservations on that info being discarded, so maybe that can be reincorporated. But everything else, especially info outside of ''Smash Bros.'', would be retained.) For example, in my ''Zelda'' draft, [[User:Nintendo101/community garden#Ganon|Ganon]] is described under the "recurring crossover subject" section, and Ganondorf is mentioned in the relevant sections below where he shows up, like ''Super Mario Maker'', ''Mario Artist: Paint Studio'', ''Yoshi's Woolly World'', and the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series. That info is just being presented alongside other relevant ''Zelda'' info in those games and others, and I suspect that is the type of info someone searching for "Ganondorf" on the Super Mario Wiki would be interested in. How does that sound? What do you think of the draft? - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 21:16, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::I suppose that works. So long as the content on the original pages is preserved (one way or another), I'm perfectly fine with this. Also, I think the draft looks amazing so far. There are a couple things missing of course (it is a draft, after all), but what is there is very well-detailed. {{User:Arend/sig}} 06:16, March 5, 2025 (EST)
So is the ultimate plan for these to effectively be a replacement for the Smash list pages? I imagine the lists would start looking a bit barren if things on them get moved to crossover franchise articles. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:I am admittedly not a fan of the fighter list articles on the wiki and I think the information on them would be better served in articles more directly focused on the ''Super Mario'' franchise, both for readers and editors. However, I respect the will of those who would rather we keep those articles around. I am not sure if you looked at my ''Zelda'' draft, but it does omit more granular information specific to the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series, like stickers, trophies, Classic Mode routes, special moves, or NIOLs for individual characters. I would rather this article emphasize how ''Zelda'' engages with ''Mario'' in other contexts. If folks would rather Super Mario Wiki continue to hold onto the more granular ''Smash Bros.'' info on the fighter list articles, they could be retained for those purposes, I imagine. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 16:47, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::Well, there are two voting options for people who want both. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 16:52, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::I find Classic Mode routes in particular a bit odd to remove since they often involve Mario characters/stages/etc. (and I guess a similar argument could possibly be made for stickers), but I understand for the stuff with no particular Mario relevance.<br>Another thing I just thought of: we already have [[Pushmo (series)]] and [[Just Dance (series)]] as guest appearances, and [[Talk:List of references in Nintendo video games#Split Animal Crossing|this proposal]] passed to make a page for the Animal Crossing series (technically the proposal was just to make a page on the game, but every single voter agreed to do a series page instead). Would this proposal affect these pages? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:44, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::I had touched base with some of the users involved in those proposals. I do personally think it would make sense for all of these articles to have similar structure to one another - I think that uniformity would make them easier for readers to jump between them and find what they are looking for. However, maybe {{@|Kaptain Skurvy}}, {{@|Nelsonic}}, and {{@|Mushzoom}} can provide their two cents. Would you want the ''Pushmo'', ''Just Dance'', and ''Animal Crossing'' articles be grandfathered into this proposal? It would just provide some structural guidelines and inform how redirects and disambiguation pages relevant to these series would be handled on the wiki. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::::Yeah, it would make sense to apply this to those articles for consistency (and Pushmo technically crosses over in Smash as well, as a spirit). So a list of franchises to split could look something like:<br>Major non-Smash crossovers ("major" meaning "would take more than a couple of sentences to fully explain"): The Legend of Zelda, Animal Crossing, Splatoon, Sonic the Hedgehog, F-Zero, Dragon Quest, Final Fantasy, Pikmin, Punch-Out!!, {{iw|rhythmheaven|WarioWare (series)|Rhythm Heaven}}, Kirby, Metroid, Excitebike, Pushmo, Just Dance, EarthBound, Kid Icarus, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Banjo-Kazooie, maybe Star Fox, maybe Duck Hunt, maybe [[Balloon Fighter|Balloon Fight]], maybe [[Bubbles (Clu Clu Land)|Clu Clu Land]], maybe Fire Emblem, maybe Street Fighter, maybe Ice Climber, maybe Bayonetta?, not sure if "Game & Watch" really counts as a franchise, Minecraft technically counts but would [[Minecraft|probably be redundant to split]]<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers and/or appearances only as amiibo costumes: Pokémon, Wii Fit, Xenoblade Chronicles<br>Minor non-Smash crossovers: Metal Gear, Castlevania, Tekken<br>No non-Smash crossovers: Persona, Fatal Fury, ARMS, Kingdom Hearts<br>I probably missed something. I'm assuming that franchises whose only crossover is non-fighter representation in Smash (like a stage or Assist Trophy or something) don't count. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:29, March 5, 2025 (EST)
::::Forgot about [[Starfy|The Legendary Starfy]], that would qualify. There's also [[I Choose You!]] from Mario Maker, which might barely push Pokémon up to "major". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 07:13, March 5, 2025 (EST)
:{{@|Nintendo101}} Yes. This makes perfect sense, and the grandfathering approach would allow these series to get more mainstream attention, which is never a bad thing. New series with a significant amount of ''Super Mario'' content would also likely be considered for a crossover article as opposed to being relegated to the [[list of references in Nintendo video games]] or the [[list of references in third-party video games]]. Being placed on said lists works for games with small amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. ''{{wp|Drill Dozer}}'' or ''{{wp|Borderlands 2}}''), but doesn't for games with larger amounts of ''Super Mario'' content (i.e. [[Punch-Out!! (Wii)|''Punch-Out!!'']] or ''[[Mobile Golf]]'').  [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 11:31, March 5, 2025 (EST)
This is probably a separate proposal, but should the ''Link's Awakening'' article be outright merged with the new crossover one? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 07:14, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Not an invalid idea, but I agree that is better the focus of a future proposal. This one does not address non-list articles. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:35, March 7, 2025 (EST)
===Color-code game, series and franchise infoboxes to match their navigation template colors===
{{early notice|March 10, 2025}}
The color coding used in navigation templates could be used for more cases outside navigation templates. Since the wiki covers all the distinct branches of the ''Mario'' franchise (which are numerous), using those theme colors more often to sectionalize and identify them may make things easier to navigate through in some cases. While I don't think there are cases where this would have a high impact right now, we could apply them to the game, series and franchise infoboxes, where they are fitting.
As it currently stands, the light red color of the game infobox specifically implies "Mario" to me at least, while the purple color of the series and franchise templates I suppose is arbitrary. This change would make it possibly more intuitive from a glance at the top of the article to which ''Mario'' branch the article belongs. It would also establish a common element to the introduction of articles belonging to the same set, while also establishing a color consistency between the very top and the very bottom of the article.
As for the colors themselves, I imagine something like:
*'''infobox background:''' the navigation template's lighter background (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=#FFF5EE|#FFF5EE}} for ''Mario'');
*'''darker cell background:''' the navigation template's darker background color (e.g. {{color|#000|bg=bisque|bisque}} for ''Mario'');
*'''header:''' the navigation template's header color (e.g. {{color|#fff|bg=#CC0000|#CC0000}} for miscellaneous ''Mario'', {{color|#fff|bg=#FF2400|#FF2400}} for ''Super Mario'');
*'''border:''' {{color|#000|bg=#aac|#aac}}, {{color|#000|bg=#aca|#aca}}, {{color|#000|bg=#acc|#acc}}, {{color|#000|bg=#caa|#caa}}, {{color|#000|bg=#cac|#cac}} or {{color|#000|bg=#cca|#cca}}, depending on the most closely matching color.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
====Support: implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}}: Per my proposal
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}}: Per proposer.
====Oppose: do not implement color coding for game, series and franchise infoboxes====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I honestly prefer keeping infoboxes color coordinated to what type of the subject the article is about. It is intuitive and helpful. I feel like allowing too many colors for this infobox would only dilute that structure across the board. I would support some sort of quick way to jump between entries in the same series at the bottom of the infobox, similar to our level and world infoboxes, but I'd rather all game articles share the same colored infobox.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Nintendo101
#{{User|Technetium}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per, and I also already find the navbox colours for most series to be quite random and arbitrary.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Nintendo101 and Hewer.
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Nintendo101. Btw, the salmon pink color of the game infobox does not scream "Mario" to me.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per all.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Nintendo101; we prefer color-coding on subject, rather than series.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Discussion====
I'm gonna be completely honest...I don't understand what this proposal is asking for. [[User:Shadow2|Shadow2]] ([[User talk:Shadow2|talk]]) 19:08, March 6, 2025 (EST)
:Changing the colors of {{tem|Game infobox}}, {{tem|Series infobox}}, and {{tem|Franchise infobox}} depending on the game series, so that they match the [[MarioWiki:Navigation templates#Chart|color schemes]] currently in use for navigation templates. {{User:Jdtendo/sig}} 10:53, March 7, 2025 (EST)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

Latest revision as of 12:06, June 4, 2025

Image used as a banner for the proposals page
Current time:
Friday, June 6th, 03:16 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. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  22. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  23. 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

Deletions

Moves

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.
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 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 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)
Create a separate list for physical games (Draft page), Nelsonic (ended May 20, 2025)
Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 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)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Split the Animal Crossing series (now Crossovers with Animal Crossing), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red) (Draft page), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article (Draft page), EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025)
Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 2025)
Split the Story Mode chapters from Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 13, 2025)
Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)
Expand Ring Shot to cover other Mario Tennis games as well as Superstars, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 28, 2025)
Split text changes in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (Draft page), Technetium (ended May 29, 2025)
Split Baron von Zeppelin from Item Balloon, Sorbetti (ended June 4, 2025)
Split Crazy Kong II from Crazy Kong, Kaptain Skurvy (ended June 5, 2025)
Clean out the Hard Block gallery, Boo Buddy Blocked (ended June 5, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Create articles for Donkey Konga series music

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on June 9, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

I understand that us having an article for Losing My Religion may come off silly, but I think it's... the only consistent move given our recently established policies.

  • Recently, we passed a proposal in favor of creating individual articles for songs that are part of large lists due to the ability to individually note down information regarding that music that couldn't be included in a table.
  • Even more recently, we just passed a proposal declaring a song having an official name as sufficient grounds for it to possess an article, even if it was a short one. This didn't extend to licensed tracks necessarily, but combined with the others it's a point in Donkey Konga's favor.
  • Finally, a couple years ago now, I myself put forward the argument that songs in rhythm games were levels, and therefore under our coverage policy, required articles.

But I don't want to make precedent my entire argument here. I fear I make Donkey Konga music articles sound like an obligation or loophole or something of that ilk — something we've forced ourselves to create. I don't see it that way. If I did, I wouldn't be proposing this. So let me discuss why I think, on their own merits, Donkey Konga songs should have articles.

Fundamentally, as a rhythm game, Donkey Konga is its music. That's the reason you get the game; that's what you're going to be spending 95% of your gameplay interacting with. And that's why I don't think it's right to only cover about the available songs in one table like they're only as important as the purchasable bongo sound sets. It's basically not covering the games at all — the navbox for Donkey Konga 1 is threadbare and the navboxes for 2 and 3 don't have enough to even exist. I don't believe this state of affairs, where only the minigames have their own article, is the proper way to cover a rhythm game on this wiki — I think the music is the equivalent of levels and needs to be covered as such. That was my stance for DDR: Mario Mix, and even though Donkey Konga lacks an adventure mode or much music made specifically for it, I still mantain that stance applies. I understand the way it being mostly external licenses may change the situation, but in my mind it's similar to our articles on random characters from other IPs seen in Club Nintendo comics — isn't Whip It having official gameplay relevance to the Mario series interesting information?

Allow me to move onto practical concerns. If this proposal passes, every song from every version of Donkey Konga, Donkey Konga 2, and Donkey Konga 3 JP will receive its own article. (Songs that already have their own article will instead receive similar information in a similar structure in a Donkey Konga section.) This article will list the song's name, original artist, whether or not the song is a cover, the show the song is an opening to (for several of the Japanese-exclusive tracks), which versions the song is exclusive to, its three difficulty ratings, the cost of its hard mode, a music sample, anything else that currently has to be a footnote on the song lists on the game article, and its lyrics (simply because this seems to be traditional for song articles on the wiki). Much of this will be accomplished through a "Donkey Konga song infobox" template to hold the information.

Unfortunately, information on Donkey Konga charts is not as readily available as DDR: Mario Mix's information was. Ideally, I would like to get things like BPMs, lengths, notecounts by difficulty, and even "maps" like this one, but I'm not sure all of that is within my power at the moment. Creating these articles, though, will allow that information to be added later if it ever becomes available to someone with the will to add it.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: June 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (Donkey Konga)

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal. I've been thinking about this ever since the Mario Mix proposal.
  2. Nelsonic Konga (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) If Mario Mix can have pages for each of its tracks as levels, and in the wake of our slowly but surely increasing musical coverage, surely Donkey Konga can get in on this too. Let's get it on like Diddy Kong! (Per proposal.)
  4. Scrooge200 (talk) Makes total sense for a rhythm game, and the Konga games definitely need better coverage. Get your game on, go play.
  5. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) Even if they originate from outside of the franchise, as Camwoodstock said, they appear in this game. Per my reason below.
  6. Hewer (talk) Let's drum up support for this idea.
  7. FanOfYoshi (talk) Konkey Donga! - Per
  8. Altendo: Grasslands Beat (talk) Per proposal and consistency with Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix.
  9. RHG1951 (talk) Per all.
  10. EvieMaybe (talk) tentative support, per Waluigi Time's comments.
  11. Kaptain Skurvy 3 JP (talk) Per proposal-a.

Oppose (Donkey Konga)

Comments (Donkey Konga)

I support doing this, but we are going to make these articles anyway because of this proposal, which decided that every song in the franchise gets an article if Nintendo gave it an official name. Rainbow Road Drifter - TalkBadge

Donkey Konga is a bit of an edge-case, as plenty of its tracks are licensed and not technically a part of the Mario franchise. Other things impacted by this cutoff would be SSX on Tour (for all of its music) and White Knuckle Scorin' (for all of its music, except for its single Ignorance is Bliss). Of the three, it's definitely got the best argument considering DDR Mario Mix. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 23:05, June 1, 2025 (EDT)

You're right, the songs are from outside of the franchise. If this potentially needs to be handled differently, I think this proposal makes sense. I think the songs should still get articles, because they appear in this game, in the same way the Sonic and Final Fantasy characters get articles for their appearances in Mario & Sonic and Mario Hoops 3-on-3 and Mario Sports Mix. As for White Knuckle Scorin', it is an album themed after Mario, with a Mario comic inside. I think its songs should get articles like Donkey Konga's, even if they are from outside of the franchise. SSX on Tour (and NBA Street V3) should not be included, as it is clearly not a Mario franchise game. Likewise, songs from the Super Smash Bros. series that are not Mario songs should not get articles, because they are also not Mario franchise games. Rainbow Road Drifter - TalkBadge

What about songs featured in The Super Mario Bros. Movie? Shall we create pages for Thunderstruck or Mr. Blue Sky? Jdtendo(T|C) 12:11, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

I'd consider that an entirely separate question. This proposal is largely on the back of Donkey Konga being a rhythm game, so I don't think its ruling would be extensible to anything else that currently exists. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:51, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

I would be very cautious about including full lyrics for licensed music, I've heard that's something rights holders can be touchy about. Anyway, since it looks like this is going to pass, I do hope it's conditional on the articles being about the Donkey Konga charts first and foremost - I don't really want to see someone make a full article for All Star with "oh yeah and it's in Donkey Konga" as a brief aside, leaving the actually game-relevant info to be covered by someone else later. The last paragraph of this proposal does concern me a little bit on that front. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 12:35, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

That lyrics thing surprises me. If List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! songs hasn't run afoul of it, though, I think we'll be fine. As for your other concern — I think that's an entirely fair concern to have. There's inherently less to cover than in Mario Mix — Donkey Konga lacks Mush Mode–style gimmicks, a position in an adventure mode, and dedicated backgrounds for each song. (Did you know Donkey Konga selects which backdrop to display randomly? Song choice doesn't even factor into it. I was really disappointed when I figured that out.) That only leaves the technical stuff, though I think I may be able to get BPMs and lengths after all. That said, I don't have any intention of extensively covering a song's history outside of Mario beyond... a sentence in the opening paragraph, at most. Being honest, I only recognize like ten of the songs in this series, so I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. Ahemtoday (talk) 13:51, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

We could make List of songs in Donkey Konga, which would only mention the game-relevant information. (The chart, the length, the BPM, etc.) Each entry would be fairly short, so this article wouldn't be too big, and the article is big enough that there wouldn't need to be coverage on the song's history outside of the franchise to extend it. @Ahemtoday, I recommend you add a "Create a list article" option to this proposal, because the Donkey Konga songs don't have as many distinct qualities as the Mario Mix ones. Rainbow Road Drifter - TalkBadge

We just passed a proposal to split the "List of songs" articles we have now, and those ones don't have gameplay built around them. I don't think a list article would be a suitable way to solve this — it's not sortable like a table so all three of a game's versions would be shuffled together in a difficult-to-parse way, and the format doesn't mix nicely with songs that appear elsewhere in the series (which are actually quite a few, some even appearing in multiple Donkey Konga games). Ahemtoday (talk) 16:40, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

I am okay with them being individual articles if it makes them easier to read. I was looking for a solution to your concern of there not being a lot to cover, but if the article is more difficult to read, we shouldn't make it. Rainbow Road Drifter - TalkBadge 16:55, June 2, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Renaming "References" to "Citations"

"References" should be rename to "citations", as there are "references in other games", and "citations" are simply more accurate, as it can clarify that they are sources.

Proposer: Wariowarefan100 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Rename "references" to "citations": rename all "references"(sources) to "citations"

  1. Wariowarefan100 (talk) I agree with this option.

Don't rename "references" to "citations": don't rename all "references"(sources) to "citations"

  1. Altendo (talk) I don't see why this should be done. Yes, this might be a bit confusing for early editors, but this section is usually placed much further down the page than the "References to/in other media" ones. Plus, the actual code for these are <ref>, </ref>, and <references/>, just to name a few. I think keeping the current name would be consistent with how the coding is done.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) If we type <ref> to make them, we don't see why we shouldn't name the section they go into "References". Renaming them to "citations" feels a lot like change-for-change's-sake. The only real use-case we can think of would be if people were struggling to tell the difference between "References" (as in, reference material) and the "References to/in other media" sections (as in, the game itself making references to/being referenced from other things), but suffice it to say, we don't think this is a common enough issue; especially not one worth upending such a bare-bones basic term in MediaWiki itself.
  3. YoYo (talk) Per Altendo.
  4. Rainbow Road Drifter (talk) These terms aren't interchangeable, they mean different things. This site defines the terms: https://researchdeep.com/citations-vs-references-how-to-master-them-both/#citations-vs-references-understanding-the-core-functions
    Citations: Typically, appear in parentheses, footnotes, or endnotes, depending on the chosen citation style.
    References: A comprehensive list at the end of your document that provides detailed information about all the sources you cited within the text. This list allows readers to locate and consult the full source material for further study or verification
    Also, the "to/in other media" in these sections make clear that they are referring to references the work makes to past media, and references later media make to the work, so there isn't potential confusion in the current names.
  5. Technetium (talk) Per all.

Discussion

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4922686"