Revision as of 09:04, May 20, 2024 by Arend(talk | contribs)(btw, can a sysop protect this archive? We're already on a new one since this has reached its limit of 20 proposals)
Decide what to move Super Mario Galaxy 2 worlds to
Template:ProposalOutcome
The worlds in Super Mario Galaxy 2 have names, but each article for the six main worlds is named "World <#> (Super Mario Galaxy 2)" while the article for the special world is called "World S". The good news is I was wondering if there's a possibility to decide what to rename the worlds. There are four options to choose from:
Option 1
Create the {{suffixed title}}, {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} templates (the {{suffixed title}} template works like {{prefixed title}}, with the small text being placed after the first parameter, while the {{SMG2 world}}, {{SMG2 world-link}}, and {{SMG2 world title}} work like {{classic}}, {{classic-link}}, and {{classic title}} respectively, with the skeleton being "World <#>: <small><name></small> and the example being World 1: The Great Space Journey Begins) and move the following pages to the world number and name:
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) These names are only displayed on the save file and are not shown while playing the game itself. Even if you go to a different world and save the game, the name on the save file doesn't change and is still the name of the world you should be on. Then there's the fact that when doing the green stars, the save file name is "the green star challenge is on" and when the game is completed 100% the name is "master of galaxies".
YoYo (talk) the names you've assigned to each world are actually the names for the "chapters" in the game's progression, not the names for the worlds themselves. it would be like naming each kingdom from Super Mario Odyssey's page after their first moon.
Nintendo101 (talk) These are not the names of the worlds. They are subtitles provided to the player for narrative context.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Nightwicked Bowser and Yoyo. These don't seem to be the worlds' actual names, just a status on the save menu. There's definitely a better way to convey this information about the save menu descriptions than to clumsily bake them into the world pages' names!
Comments
Create a {{visible anchor}} template
Template:ProposalOutcome
I've come up with an idea for a sub-template for the {{anchor}} template. A {{visible anchor}} retains its behavior like {{anchor}}, with the only difference being that the first parameter will be visible text on the page. You can go here to read the documentation on Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts that there's a possibility create the {{visible anchor}} template?
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: March 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: March 17, 2024, 01:45 GMT
PnnyCrygr (talk) Redundant and unnecessary for a fan wiki which tries not to be like Wikipedia. If that so-called visible anchored is templated onto any link, that should create any visual mess. Enough said...
Camwoodstock (talk) This is redundant for our purposes. Per PennyCrygr. This is redundant for our purposes.
Hewer (talk) Per all, the proposal makes absolutely no argument as to why we should have this feature and how it would help us beyond "Wikipedia has it".
Comments
Stop referring to Bowser as "King Koopa" in Japanese media
Template:ProposalOutcome
In articles about Japanese Mario media, we typically refer to Bowser as "King Koopa" for some reason.
I think that this naming convention is pointless and we should call Bowser by his actual English name.
One may argue that "King Koopa" is Bowser's Japanese name and therefore he should be named as such.
Actually, Bowser's Japanese name is Kuppa (officially romanized as "Koopa") or Daimaō Kuppa (literally "Great Demon King Koopa"), but he is seldom called "King Koopa" verbatim in Japanese media.
Most importantly, when referring to characters or species in articles about Japanese-only media, we typically use the usual English name instead of the Japanese name: "Goomba" instead of Kuribō, "Koopa Troopa" instead of Nokonoko, "Toad" instead of Kinopio, and so on.
There is no reason why Bowser should be an exception.
One may also argue that the names "Koopa" and "King Koopa" have been used in some English-language Mario media (notably the DIC series).
However, the name "Bowser" is overwhelmingly more widespread and was already attested in the original Super Mario Bros. instruction booklet.
I hope we can agree that The Super Mario Bros. Super Show is not the highest-priority naming source.
Lastly, this "King Koopa" naming convention is not even consistent on the Wiki because many articles about Japanese-only mangas refer to Bowser as "Bowser" rather than "King Koopa".
If this proposal passes, mentions of Bowser as "King Koopa" or simply "Koopa" will be replaced with "Bowser" in articles about Japanese media, including:
OmegaRuby (talk) Consistency is a priority. Per all.
Scrooge200 (talk) Always found this a bit confusing because it just perpetuates an old name nobody uses anymore. Per all.
Oppose
Comments
What about referring to Princess Peach by that name in early Japanese media? If this passes, it would seem more consistent to change those to "Princess Toadstool" since that was her English name at the time. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 09:43, March 20, 2024 (EDT)
We could still refer to Princess Peach by that name considering that it is her usual name in English nowadays. I don't think it is that relevant to be faithful to the English names that were used at the time in the USA considering those names do not appear in the actual Japanese media; and if that is actually relevant, that could always be the subject of a later proposal. Jdtendo(T|C) 10:42, March 20, 2024 (EDT)
Broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template
Template:ProposalOutcome
Like everyone in the Super Mario Wiki said, "We are not Wikipedia." I humbly ask if there's a possibility to broaden the scope of the {{unreferenced}} template.
The template currently reads as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} '''does not [[MarioWiki:Citations|cite any sources]]'''. Please help {{plain link|1=[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} improve this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}]}} by [[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|adding citations from reliable sources]]. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
</div>
However, once the proposal passes, the template will read as follows:
<div class="notice-template maintenance" style="background:#FC5;border:1px solid #f22">
It has been requested that at least one '''[[MarioWiki:Citations#How to add references|citation from a reliable source]]''' be added to this {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}}.<br><small>This {{#if:{{{section|}}}|section|article}} should not cite any unsourced material. See the [[MarioWiki:Citations|citation policy]] for more information.</small>
</div>
It has been requested that at least one citation from a reliable source be added to this article. This article should not cite any unsourced material. See the citation policy for more information.
That way, the {{unreferenced}} template will read differently from Wikipedia's {{unreferenced}} template.
Proposer: GuntherBB (talk) Deadline: April 5, 2024, 23:59 GMT Date withdrawn: March 31, 2024, 03:49 GMT
Camwoodstock (talk) Per KCC--we probably don't need a template that's simultaneously more and less specific when we can simply use ref needed to clearly and concisely convey exactly what needs a citation.
Nintendo101 (talk) I appreciate that you reached out to me specifically, but unless I am missing something, I do not really see why this would be an improvement.
Comments
this might just be one of the most difficult to read proposals i have seen on this site, its a real struggle to look at. is there a chance of tidying it up dramatically - YoYo (Talk) 13:54, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
I cleaned it up, just so you know. Once the proposal passes, I'd recommend removing the <!-- and --> tags. GuntherBayBeee 19:53, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
Never mind. I had to clean the proposal up again by adding the <pre> tags. You should take a look at what the template will look like from above. The preceding unsigned comment was added by GuntherBB (talk). 20:06, March 29, 2024
This is not related to the proposal itself but I see that you sent the same talk page message to so many users at once, including myself about this proposal. I'm not super skilled with template codes and such, so I won't vote in it. I just thought I'd mention the message. Sparks (talk) 21:52, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
A bit of clarification on our vote: Just because we are not Wikipedia doesn't mean we have to do things differently from how Wikipedia does them. While we have our petty, personal beef with Wikipedia (mostly about their comically dated "notability" guidelines), they aren't always wrong, and this is one such case where we feel they nailed the Wiki design on the head; for all intents and purposes, {{ref needed}} is better than any of these templates to us. It's more precise, it's more concise, and most importantly, it's what people--both on this wiki and from other wikis--know best. (This is also why we're not updating our vote, though we do appreciate the proposal being made easier to read.) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 23:28, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
Forbid the use of images without captioning them
Template:ProposalOutcome
This proposal aims to ban the use of images without captions, both in text and galleries. It's for a similar reason as why one should add a reason when adding a maintenance template, and without it, unfamiliar readers may ask themselves, "What's the subject? What does it do? What's it trying to illustrate?"
I looked around for an example, and I'll use the Icicle page. Quite a few sections add sprites without captioning them. While the section heading alone would be enough to suggest that it's a sprite from the game, additional context could be at risk of being left out. Mario Bros. has been re-released many times, so when I see the icicle sprite, I may ask myself, "What version is it from? The arcade? The NES? The Game Boy Advance?" While it's true that sprites can't easily display captions, due to being small images, there could be a way to make it easier to caption them.
This problem also applies to infoboxes. On the Itsunomanika Heihō page, what's going on in the infobox image? There's so many things in it, and it doesn't make clear who Itsunomanika Heihō is, which is the Shy Guy.
On a bit of a side note, too many articles have images that feel added in the text just for the sake of adding images, and captionless images seem among them. Why does the Lubba page have three images in the Super Mario Galaxy 2 section? Are they essential enough to be included or could they just be addendums to a gallery? Two of the images are just Lubba saying a quote, something that's hardly as much of interest as, let's say, Mario's first meeting with Lubba. Should this proposal pass, perhaps a separate proposal, or a precedent, could be set for tightening the use of images in article sections unless they are plot-essential, show a major difference between games, or for historical context, such as when something first appeared.
Tails777 (talk) Forbidding is a strong conclusion if you ask me. Simply adding a caption or moving images to a gallery is enough rather than just outright forbidding a captionless image.
JanMisali (talk) Per Tails777. This would be a pretty big policy change, and it would be better to handle it on a case-by-case basis.
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) It's really not a big deal at all if there are a few images without captions. If you think one is necessary, then there's nothing stopping you from adding one but making this a strict policy is going too far.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all; we really ought to take these on a case-by-case basis, as while some of these instances are not clear like the Mario Bros. Icicle image... Other captionless images on that very same article, like the Mario Clash Icicle are very much clear enough as-is since Clash only ever had one platform it released on. And the Itsunomanika Heihō infobox really just needs a new image outright if you ask us; if the image used cropped out the Bandit and Baby Mario and giant in-game arrow pointing at them, leaving the Shy Guy on Yoshi's back as the focal point, you'd fix the vast majority of the clarity issues. (of course, don't go updating the image itself, as it's used on other articles, instead this'd have to be a new image.)
PnnyCrygr (talk) Best add a caption to the image sans caption, or just move it to a gallery page. Per all.
Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, a blanket ban on uncaptioned images would do more harm than good. It'd be better to just fix the cases that are unclear.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) Abso-huckin'-lutely not. The amount of times I've had to remove a caption from a tiny, tiny image that can't even support a caption I can't even count.
YoYo (talk) oh please. i dont think i need to explain - but the comment below does perfectly.
Hewer (talk) Per all, some images needing captions doesn't mean they all do.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all. Also see the comments; trying to add a caption to a tiny game sprite says it all.
Arend (talk) Yeah no, per all. Some images are just too tiny to add a caption to (tiny images being something this Icicle article that's being brought up is chock full of), but also too essential for a section to be outright removed. Doc perfectly demonstrates that in the comment section.
Mario (talk) The ideal way to proceed with this is either make caption interesting or remove the caption and let the image do the talking.
MegaBowser64 (talk) We should be working on captioning images that need it, not putting an umbrella ban over every image! This idea is more destructive that constructive, images are always good for context, even if they don't have written context themselves.
FanOfYoshi (talk) As Don Lino from Shark Tale said it best... "Are you kidding me, are you outta your MIND?!". Per all.
Nintendo101 (talk) Image captions are generally helpful, but one would find that published textbooks do not even do this consistently, and for good reason. An image can sometimes be confidently contextualized just by the text it is next to. To impose a rule like this can potentially worsen some articles. Additionally, I think a rule like this is too heavy-handed and weakens our editorial discretion.
Mister Wu (talk) As noted by Doc, our current modus operandi with the sprites directly collides with this policy, and redoing all the sprites at double or triple the resolution in every axis just to make the caption readable is time consuming and arguably not even that correct in terms of presenting what the sprite originally looked like.
SeanWheeler (talk) If an image needs a caption, add the caption yourself. Don't remove good images just because they were captionless. Especially not small sprites. Per all.
Comments
In what universe is this even remotely acceptable? You can't even read it!
Please tell me how the image to the left is ideal. Because that's what this proposal's trying for. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:52, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
In my argument in the proposal, I was talking about like a template or something that could use captions in such cases. Multiframe now comes to mind. Super Mario RPG (talk) 18:08, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Which adds a lot of dead space in the image space itself. I'm fine with using that when they'd blend with the default background (see: Spray Fish), but using them for captions is superfluous. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:36, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, padded whitespace makes the page look relatively bigger when actually there is no content. It sucks for an article to have superfluous space created by overly long captions in floated tiny images. When creating an article, an article should look nice. PnnyCrygr 18:39, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
I want to revisit this proposal to ask about the Icicle example... you say that a lack of caption would result in additional context being left out, to which I ask.... what additional context is there to a sprite of an icicle? Adding captions would simply make it extremely repetitive. "An icicle in Super Mario Bros 3" ... "An icicle in Super Mario World" ... "An icicle in..." and so on. - YoYo (Talk) 10:27, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
TBF the game Mario Bros. has a slew of versions across different systems, so in that particular icicle example it'd be beneficial to state which version it comes from. Not even the sprite's file page states the exact source. If it's a small sprite, surely there's some parameter that widens its frame to fit a caption, right? I could be wrong. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:41, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
In that case, alt text would probably be preferable. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:22, March 29, 2024 (EDT)
For the Mario Bros. section in specific, I think it would be beneficial to apply a Multiframe in order to include Icicle sprites across all applicable versions of Mario Bros. (similar to what's done with the Super Mario Maker section). We'd probably have to scour through many spritesheets for that, since this wiki seemingly only has the icicle sprite from the arcade version. As for the other sections that only include a sprite, I agree that including a caption to those might also be too repetitive, on top of the image being too small. rend(talk)(edits) 07:04, March 30, 2024 (EDT)
Trim Super Smash Bros. navigational templates
Template:ProposalOutcome
Over time, this wiki has, with good reason, significantly reduced its coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series. However, as has been the subject of multiple other proposals, there are a lot of vestigial remnants left over from when Smash still received full coverage.
Each of these templates contains links to subjects that no longer have dedicated articles, and take the reader to a subsection of a list article instead. The "move" templates are especially rough, since the majority of Smash Bros. moves are no longer even covered on the articles that these links redirect to. I propose that these navigational templates should be significantly trimmed down, much like the ongoing efforts to clean up the various "series" categories.
Furthermore, without the unnecessary links to subjects that no longer are within this wiki's scope, having moves in a separate template from the main navigational template for those games may no longer be necessary, so it might also make sense to remove the "move" templates entirely, moving the links to Super Mario-related Smash Bros. moves to the main Smash navigational templates.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: April 3, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Remove all redirect links from Super Smash Bros. navigational templates
Super Mario RPG (talk) Please do. The excessive amounts of Super Smash Bros. coverage is a huge pet peeve of mine, since it hinders accessibility for Super Mario content.
SeanWheeler (talk) A navbox full of redirects to the same page would be pointless.
OmegaRuby (talk) Shocked that this hasn't been done yet, thought it would've been done alongside Super Smash Bros. content being trimmed in general. Per all.
Ah, so I did. Yes, those would also be covered by this. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 13:15, March 27, 2024 (EDT)
Preserve April Fools' Proposals in BJAODN
Template:ProposalOutcome
First of all, no, this isn't a delayed April Fool's joke--we are being 100% sincere about this proposal! You know it because we waited until after we had squared away the April Fool's proposals to actually bring this up formally.
Secondly, this has been discussed before, not once but twice, and the consensus at the time was basically "it's pointless and not that funny, so why bother?" ...As you can imagine, we're not a fan of either of these stances, so we have a brief overview of our counter-arguments to these statements.
On pointlessness: Yes, archiving these in BJAODN is pointless! ...But so is the rest of BJAODN, and, paradoxically, that's kind of the point of it--that it's basically useless and for amusement only. The only "practical" thing it has are archives for the big April Fool's pages we create. The one and only time it was ever gearing up to have a "point" was to store Wario's Warehouse back when people still didn't believe it existed--then the author stepped up and said "yep, that's my work", and that entire thing was rendered moot, and BJAODN remains a mere archive for April Fool's things and, well, other deleted nonsense.
On the humor: On the "not that funny once April Fool's is done" thing--we feel like it's kinda weird to dismiss a proposal on something that is inherently, a subjective take. Humor is notoriously fickle between different people; one person's complete snorefest is another person's knee-slapper. Sure, not all April Fool's proposals are these complete gut-busters, but neither is everything else in BJAODN. And heck, even if they aren't that funny, it's kind of in the name; it's not "Deleted Nonsense", it's "Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense".
Especially in the wake of the effective renaissance of April Fool's proposals we had this year (no doubt due in part to a rather-timely proposal about April Fool's proposals, albeit moreso about denoting them as such pre-emptively), we feel it pertinent to possibly figure something out for this sooner, rather than later, while the concept's still fresh in everyone's mind. To this end, we've come up with three ideas:
Give it its own subpage per year: Whenever there's an arbitrary amount of April Fool's proposals for that year (let's say "3" for the time being, if this number needs to be adjusted we can do so later), we create a subpage alongside our main April Fool's archive page for proposals. If there aren't enough, they just go in the standard Proposals subpage for BJAODN--if memory serves, this means that 2021 and 2024 will get a subpage so far, though we may be wrong.
All of them go to the Proposals subpage: Roughly the same as above, but in every case we send them to the standard Proposals subpage with no potential for splits. We do worry about this year in particular clogging the heck out of the page, but whatever works.
Do nothing: We simply don't formally track these whatsoever in BJAODN, simple-as.
Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk) Deadline: April 8, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Support, with additional subpages
Camwoodstock (talk) Our preferred option--keep the silliness alive, and keep it nice and tidy for the future.
Sparks (talk) Having tidiness makes for easier navigation.
Tails777 (talk) It's completely understandable that humor is subjective, but let's remember to look at it from another angle; it's not always about if the joke proposal is funny, it's also about how we as users interact with each other and the jokes that adds to the humor. That was my initial support reason back during back during this proposal (which, I do realize, wasn't exactly the point of the proposal, but let's not worry about that). My main point is, I one hundred percent support archiving our April Fool's joke proposals for the sake of celebrating our fun interactions with each other as people! Per proposal!
Power Flotzo (talk) This is an excellent option and probably why we haven't archived as many of these joke proposals in the past. Per everyone else.
BMfan08 (talk) There's no fooling about this one. Per all.
FanOfYoshi (talk) Yoshi Yoshi! (Per all. Also, i always wanted this to happen)
Arend (talk) We preserve April Fool's Day archives, we preserve funnily bad proposals, why not April Fool's Day proposals? It's a lot better than scouring through countless pages of the Proposal page's revision history (and that's with 500 revisions per page in mind too).
OmegaRuby (talk) We haven't done this already? Per all.
Waddle D33 (talk) I just spent the last half hour or so reading and appreciating the articles in the BJAODN section. Anyway, I agree that BJAODN would be a good home for those types of jokes.
SeanWheeler (talk) Might as well archive these April Fools' proposals for someone who is interested.
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Oh, yes please!! I liked the last ones! Even though it took me a minute to figure out that they were joke proposals, I still like them! (I still want my Super Smash Bros. Ultimate cheeseburger....)
Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option--we do worry about the page growing too long for this, but it'd make sense for the time being.
Do nothing
Comments
Is there any chance that the April Fools' proposals be merged with the April Fools' prank of that year? For example, all of the 2024 April Fools' proposals can be merged with MarioWiki:BJAODN/April Fool's 2024. Sparks (talk) 19:47, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
Okay. That makes sense. Subpages could work for the proposals then. Sparks (talk) 19:55, April 2, 2024 (EDT)
For reference, after looking at page history, the years that had at least three joke proposals were 2018 with exactly three (or four?), 2019 with five, 2020 with nine, 2021 with five (including one that already got archived which we'd have to move), and 2024 with ten, so they'd all get their own subpages, and there was also one April Fools' proposal each in 2010 and 2023 (the former got immediately deleted though). Three of the four pie proposals in the main archive were technically April Fools' as well, unsure whether those should count. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:07, April 3, 2024 (EDT)
You are the unsung hero of this proposal. We'd say if this passes in its current state, the Pie proposals that weren't tied to the aforementioned years should probably remain on the standard BJAODN Proposals section. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
Merge Super Mario Bros. (film) subjects with their game counterparts
Template:ProposalOutcome
Currently, several articles exist for characters from Super Mario Bros. (1993) that share names with and are to some extent based on corresponding characters from the source material. While from a certain perspective this makes sense (these characters are substantially different from the characters they're based on), no other non-game-compliant Mario adaptation is given this treatment. SMW:CANON suggests that all official sources should be treated equally, including in cases when these sources contradict each other. I believe that the 1993 film is a very clear case when this applies, and I propose that some if not all of these articles should be merged with their corresponding game characters.
Now, to this one might suggest: "But the characters from the 1993 film really are canonically not the same in-universe people as their game counterparts! Doesn't that mean they should be covered separately?" The thing is, that's not how this wiki treats different versions of the same character in any other instance. The article Donkey Kong covers the character Donkey Kong, including in games where that character is "canonically" Cranky Kong. Paper Mario (character) is only considered a separate character from Mario in the very specific case where the two characters coexist alongside each other. Two works of media portraying different iterations of the same character is seemingly always treated as being the same character, and the coverage of Super Mario Bros. (1993) is a strange exception to this.
The relevant articles are:
Film characters very directly based on specific characters from the source material:
Mario (talk) Echoing my sentiments in my 2016 proposal[1] a bit (tho I promise to be less grouchy :O}D). Even with the filmmmaker's contrived notion that live action movie Mario is supposed to be a separate entity from Mario from the Mario Kart series, if you work with that logic backward, they're still variants of each other, basically two different takes of the Mario the Super Brother. This can extend for the other characters. That being said, some of the target pages articles are big enough as they are already but I s'pose that's a different problem irrelevant to the logic of these pages.
Super Mario RPG (talk) Keeping the coverage on the same article reflects how they're the same thing. Different entity doesn't necessarily mean different subject. If anything, separate articles on the film characters would set an unwelcome precedent for scattering information of like, let's say, Super Mario-kun or Super Mario Bros. Movie counterparts of Mario into separate articles, which we'd want to avoid.
SolemnStormcloud (talk) I think it's best to not be arbitrary with who gets merged or not based on how different they are from their "main" counterpart. Per all.
Ahemtoday (talk) Maybe I could work with this kind of continuity-based differentiation in a series with, like, any sense of continuity, but I don't really think the Mario series has that.
Camwoodstock (talk) We think this makes the most sense, and in the name of consistency, what we do to one, we should probably do to all. Besides, it's not like the 1993 movie is even the first time that a different entity has used the name of a pre-existing entity--though unlike things like G(al)oombas, the 1993 movie incarnations stand alone, with only things like gags in mangas deciding that the movie incarnations are different from the original characters (such as what happened to Yoshi)--and even in those cases, it's pretty clearly not part of some deep lore for the film itself. We hope this rationale makes sense, anyways? As we write this we're a tad tired, so if you need clarification, just ask politely.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I forgot I hadn't voted. I prefer this option. I'd be fine with the other popular option (for now), aside from questioning why Toad is part of the exclusions.
Merge most of these, but keep Spike and Big Bertha separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Goomba and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Merge most of these, but keep Spike, Big Bertha, Goomba, and Snifit separate from the enemies they're based on
Hewer (talk) I agree with merging the more obviously game-inspired characters like Mario and Luigi where the split feels more like a vestige of the wiki's former obsession with its made-up idea of canon, but merging characters like Iggy and Spike where pretty much the only thing in common is the name with (to my knowledge) little indication they're even based on the game characters doesn't feel right. EDIT: I agree with DrippingYellow's comment about how the King and Mushroom King shouldn't be merged though, since their only similarity is that they're both kings, but that can be dealt with in another proposal.
Arend (talk) I'm most hesitant about merging Daisy. As you know, Daisy is pretty much the movie's equivalent of Princess Toadstool, and in a previous concept, was even named Hildy/Heidi/whichever of the two it was. Had that name not been changed to Daisy, many would obviously argue to merge it with Princess Peach instead. I would also say that it's pretty bizarre to have one of the two bumbling henchmen be based on a Koopaling while the other is based on a random enemy, instead of both being based on a Koopaling (we got seven of those guys; they couldn't have called the other henchman "Larry"?); not to mention that this version of Toad was once called Lemmy (another Koopaling).
Tails777 (talk) Leaning more on this idea. There are the obvious ones, but I think the ones holding me back from an all out merge are Spike and Big Bertha, as they seem way different compared to what they are supposedly based off of (also the Iggy one feels a bit off to merge with the Koopaling).
Archivist Toadette (talk) I think I'd rather go with this option, since those particular subjects have too little overlap with their game "counterparts". Besides, how would a carnivorous freshwater fish share clear commonality with an...uncomfortably attractive humanoid being?
OmegaRuby (talk) Per all, Archivist Toadette especially.
DrippingYellow (talk) Say what you will about trying not to separate variations of characters, even in media with notable differences from the "main canon" (i.e. Super Show and Peach-hime Kyūshutsu Dai Sakusen), these characters still have recognizable attributes. Mario, Luigi, and Yoshi certainly fit the bill of mere variations, but others I'm a little more icky on, with this lining up most easily with my opinions. With the film being designed to be a deliberate departure from other Mario material, it makes sense not to merge film characters unless they have significantly overlapping roles with their game counterparts. (e.g. Goombas are still the front-line weaklings, Yoshi is still held captive by Koopa and has a long tongue...) The only merges I entirely disagree with here are the Snifits (who don't shoot bullets at all, and, if I had to guess, had their name chosen just because they "sniff 'it' (the garbage)"). As well as the King because... umm... he's not the king of the mushroom kingdom, nor Peach's father? I don't even get this connection to be honest. Nevertheless, I'm willing to wait it out to change those if this passes, because something something two-party system...
Jdtendo (talk) Mario and Luigi have some similarities with their video game counterparts, but Toad, Iggy and Spike have nothing in common with their namesake, Big Bertha is way too different to the fish she is based on, and Daisy seems more like "Princess Toadstool but we called her Daisy because "Toadstool" is not a given name".
Biggestman (talk) I agree with all above points, however if there was an option to also keep President Koopa split I would vote for that, he's literally just not the same guy in the movie in any way whatsoever.
Only merge Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, President Koopa/Bowser, and King; keep the rest separate
Merge Goomba and Snifit, but keep the characters separate
Other
LinkTheLefty (talk) Considering all of the "History of X" articles that have been written, why don't we keep the separate articles, but rebrand them as "History of X in Super Mario Bros. (1993)"? Maybe down the road, if Illumination gets enough content, we'll think about if we want to do "History of X in film" or "History of X in cartoons/television" or something. This'll satisfy the proposal's condition while lightening the load. Plus, this'll save the headache of merging the character infoboxes (unless the idea was to keep them intact in film sections).
Do nothing
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) While I completely understand and agree with MarioWiki:Canonicity and the points stated above, I just don't want these to be merged at all. All of the characters mentioned are very different from their game counterparts, and many characters that are non-human in the video games are at least partially human in the movie (like Bowser (video game character) and King Koopa (movie "counterpart"). This is enough for me to not want to merge any of the pages.
SeanWheeler (talk) The 1993 movie was an awful adaptation that changed too much. I would want Bob Hoskins' Mario to remain separate from the the games' Mario. President Koopa is clearly very different from Bowser.
LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm still okay with this, too. I know we don't make canonical judgments, but when creatives do on the rare occasion, that's where I think we should stand. After all, "This Ain't No Game." Per myself in the old proposal.
It's interesting to read through this old discussion, especially how much the focus at the time seems to have been on specifically Daisy. Nobody in this whole proposal or the "Peach/Daisy in Film" proposal before it ever suggests the idea of giving specifically Mario (film character) a separate article! I wonder how that happened. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, April 4, 2024 (EDT)
Did this need to be one huge proposal? The fact that there are seven options as well as an "Other" option (which, how would that even work if it got the most votes?) suggests to me that the Mario Bros. movie live-action subjects have far too much range in how close they are to their OG counterparts for this to be resolved in one seven-day proposal. For instance, I mostly agree with the fifth option, except for the inclusion of the King among the merged characters (considering that unlike the Mushroom King, he is neither the king of the Mushroom Kingdom nor Peach's father (he's Daisy's father)). If we were to add options for every little disagreement with the proposal author's reasoning in this particular instance, it would become a nightmare to try and find an appropriate option to vote on. I'd suggest splitting the proposal based on character roles (e.g. one for main characters, one for minor characters like Yoshi, one for creatures like Goombas, and one for references-in-name-only like Toad, Big Bertha, etc.) DrippingYellow (talk) 13:36, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would argue that range from source material isn't much of a factor in so much as they're variants of a source character and my understanding is that we do sometimes merge whack variants of the same entity, such as Skeeters. I'd go for the straightforward option because I don't see much merit debating within gradience of who gets a separate article or not. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 13:56, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I'd still argue that there's a point where it's not so much a variant as it is an entirely new character that only uses an existing character name as a callback. The film's plot provides a framework for this, considering it is loosely based off of the Mario games' story: Princess Daisy is the damsel-in-distress, Koopa is the antagonist who kidnaps her, Goombas are his lackeys, Yoshi is a dinosaur with a long tongue who is also held captive by Koopa, and Mario and Luigi are the heroes. Those are definitely a variation of standard Mario features. However, then there are characters like Big Bertha who shares no similarities with her namesake other than being... well, big. Not to mention she should probably stay split anyway considering normal Big Bertha is an enemy species, while this Big Bertha is a unique character. Spike at the very least should also be split for similar reasons. Big Bertha's connection to her original inspiration would at least be more plausible if, for example, she was a marine biologist or had a scene where she saved Mario from drowning or something. I'm a little more inclined to merge Toad, since he gives exposition about the fungus (which would line up with the original character's appearance), but then again, he was originally named Lemmy, so the connection there may not have been intentional. And as for the King vs. the Mushroom King, the Mushroom King article is a catch-all for anytime the king of the Mushroom Kingdom. To include a King in that article who exists in a continuity where there is no Mushroom Kingdom seems a little odd. DrippingYellow (talk) 14:43, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
To be fair, we can't think of how else to showcase the granularity of the options than the deluge of choices; short of something like a checkbox-esque "vote for this one if you think it should be split!" proposal, which is entirely unprecedented and we have no real way of handling. Is it clunky? Yes. But it's either this, a bunch of standalone proposals (which could get even more messy), or some entirely new form of proposal gets invented just to handle this. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:57, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I don't really see how the standalone option would make things messier. Is it that hard to keep track of multiple proposals? The choice would be between that or a list of options that is either unreadably long or doesn't have an option that aligns with your opinion due to something like an assumption by the author. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:29, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
By the by, what's this version of Spike called in the Japanese localization of the film? I think that's important to ask because we do in fact have another Spike in this franchise, one who is decidedly NOT called "Gabon" in Japanese, ever. rend(talk)(edits) 15:58, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
On the contrary, the thought has crossed my mind to go in the other direction and have something done with the Paper Mario universe and characters, but it'd probably be controversial. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:21, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I would oppose covering all Paper Mario appearances in the Paper character articles and I would also oppose merging them all with their regular counterparts. Nightwicked Bowser 17:25, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
You see, while the 1993 Mario movie characters are drastically different from their mainline game counterparts (or namesakes), the same cannot be said about the Paper Mario characters, which stay relatively close to the source material in comparison. Sure, the first three games gave most enemies a couple of design quirks that stand out from the mainline games, but they are still recognizable as those enemies. Same deal with the 2023 Mario movie counterparts; they have some differences, but are still clear and recognizable as the same characters. rend(talk)(edits) 17:41, April 5, 2024 (EDT)
I never really nailed down how it would work, but wouldn't be as full splits. Maybe something along the lines of how we now have "History" articles split from their sections. LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:45, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
Regarding Iggy, unused scripts on the SMBMovieArchive website show that originally, there were other Koopaling-named characters (like Morton and Wendy as announcers), showing Iggy was an intentional reference. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 06:31, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
But still, being named after another character doesn't necessarily make them the same character given how otherwise completely different they are, especially considering what's already been brought up about how characters like Toad were originally named differently. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 08:13, April 8, 2024 (EDT)
This needs looked into some more as I can't remember for certain, but I seem to recall the script referring to the generic Dinohattan police officers as Koopa Troopas (a variation of that name was given to Goombas in earlier development). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:59, April 9, 2024 (EDT)
@Doc von Schmeltwick: As Arend mentioned, the character that ended up being "Toad" was originally called Lemmy, which to me feels like evidence that the inspiration doesn't extend beyond the name, and merging based on that alone would be a strange choice. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:45, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
Aside from being an ally. The "good Goomba" character at that point in the script rewrites was a separate character named "Hark," anyway, and there were other associated "freedom fighter"-type characters in addition to the one who is Toad in the final. Also, he was called "Toad" first, with "Lemmy" being used for a single draft in mid-production. In the first "Wizard of Oz"-style draft, he had basically the same role Toad would be given in the more recent movie, but drifted slowly from that as rewrites occured. He is still, therefore, primarily derived from the games' Toad. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:14, April 10, 2024 (EDT)
@LinkTheLefty: Considering the "History of <x character> in <the cartoons they appear in>" articles are still waiting for their cigarette and tinder box before their execution via categorization as much as we deeply, deeply regret that proposal, we don't exactly see a "History of <x character> in Just The 1993 Movie" turning out well, unfortunately. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 10:46, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
“I believe rule 9 calls for an extension if I'm not mistaken.”
Well, before you extended the proposal, there were 19 voting users in total, if I'm not mistaken, and according to rule 9, more than half of the total amount of voters (in this case, more than 9.5 voters) must show up in a single voting option. If I get that right, that means at least 1 voting option must have more than 9.5 votes... and uh, the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section has 10 votes, meaning that must have won. However, you decided to vote too while extending the proposal, meaning that there's now 20 voting users, and the "Merge most of these, but keep Toad, Princess Daisy, Iggy, Spike, and Big Bertha separate" section now requires more than 10 votes... thus, 11. Since you decided to cast in votes alongside extending the proposal, when it should have enough results to not require an extension, I'm honestly not sure if we should end the proposal now and remove subsequent votes and comments from prior the extension, or keep the extension for another week. rend(talk)(edits) 18:00, April 12, 2024 (EDT)
Overhaul titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages
Template:ProposalOutcome
With the recent release of the Nintendo Switch remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong, we have already seen the introduction of two new worlds - Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit, as well as their plus variants. However, while I was documenting levels for the remake, I have noticed an issue - since these worlds also change the numbering for Spooky House, Mystic Forest, and Twilight City's level pages, this causes several concerns for me in regards to naming level articles with generic-named stage numberings in games where worlds are named:
Right now, the level numberings for the various levels in Mario vs. Donkey Kong are correspondent to the GBA version. If I attempt to move those pages to match the Switch numbering (for example: "Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" (Spooky House 4-1) to "Level 5-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" (Spooky House 5-1, Switch version)), this can cause several issues with us cleaning up all the links to other level pages, and is especially the case for links to various Mystic Forest (5-x > 7-x) and Spooky House (4-x > 5-x) pages.
As a reminder: nowhere in any circumstance has the remake been titled "Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch", it is simply titled "Mario vs. Donkey Kong". It could be seen as confusing especially as there are some reissues of games that are officially titled the same way too (like Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS).
I attempted to get around this by initially naming the title of the article as "Level 4-1 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch))", but it caused issues with rendering the title on top of the page.
What I wanted to propose is to overhaul the titles of generic-named level/course/stage pages. Level articles that fall under this description are:
Levels with generic numbering identifiers in worlds that are not named in any circumstance (including in-game and supplementary material like Nintendo Power). Example is World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros..
Given that there are a lot of generic-named level articles that fall under this jurisdiction, this is a very large-scale proposal, and may affect most, if not all "x-x" level articles. This will require help from the wiki's higher staff, especially an administrator who can handle several article renames and moves at large. Due to this, please note that the effects of the proposal may not be always guaranteed to be immediate even if it is already passed, but I hope to get this done with everyone as soon as possible.
After brainstorming for a while, these are the possible formats we're going to aim for when making level pages, see below.
This makes it easier to update a level's numbering designation should any circumstances of adding new worlds in-between happen again (like how Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit were handled in the Switch version of Mario vs. Donkey Kong). It can also make it easier to identify levels from each other easily without having to look up the name of the world first. This will also ensure moving articles if new worlds are added in remakes are made easier as well. Additionally, this will prevent game name confusion from occurring, specifically my issue with the Merry Mini-Land stages using the identifier "Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch".
With this format, this is how it will work:
For levels that use generic numbering (1-x) and are from a named world, they will be named "(World Name) - X-X". For example, in the Switch version of Mario vs. Donkey Kong, we can call Level 5-DK and Level 8-2 as "Spooky House - Level 5-DK" and "Twilight City - Level 8-2".
As a side note - if two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently. For example, in Hotel Mario, levels are named as "Stage #", and Super Mario Wiki refers to their level articles with the title ("Stage # (Hotel Name)"). It can be changed to be something like "Lemmy's High-ate Regency Hotel - Stage 1".
For levels that use generic numbering and are in unnamed worlds (eg. Super Mario Bros.), they will be named "(Game Name) - X-X". For example, take World 1-1 in Super Mario Bros.. This can be named as "Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1" instead. The "world" designator can be renamed to "Level/Area/Stage/Course" depending on how the game calls it.
Some of you might be concerned with it conflicting with a certain job name in Super Mario Maker 2 - "Super Mario Bros. W1-1?". It shouldn't conflict at all - the format of the title is seemingly close but in the end it's fairly different.
Redirects can be made based on the original names of the articles. For example, if "Level 6-3 (Mario vs. Donkey Kong)" is moved to "Twilight City - Level 8-3", the former can be turned into a redirect that leads to the latter new title of the article itself, to make it easier to search for wiki readers who are more used to the old format. Another example is if "World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)" is moved to "Grass Land - World 1-2", where typing in "World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)" still leads to the article with the new name.
Levels with names are already kept as is. If some level names from two or more games conflict due to them being the same, the name of the game should be placed in parenthesis for the associated articles, while the level of the game that is released first chronologically will keep its name as is (no game title in parenthesis after it.)
If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.
This is a variation of the first option which incorporates itself with the old level article naming system to make it more flexible to some situations especially for tackling commonly-searched terms like "World 1-1". This is how it will go:
If two worlds from different games happen to share names, the newer game's level page can have the newer game's title in parenthesis. For example, hypothetically speaking, we get two worlds named "MarioWiki Land" in two games. It can go like this "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2" for Game A, and "MarioWiki Land - Level 2-2 (Game B)" for Game B. To my knowledge, something like this has not occurred in any official games and upcoming content.
Depending on how the game may call the level code, it can be formatted differently, whether it would be "Stage X-X", "Area X-X", or even simply "X-X".
For redirects, the original names of the articles may serve as redirects, however this may be handled differently depending on certain circumstances (shifting of world number for various worlds in the Mario vs. Donkey Kong remake, for example).
Levels that use generic numbering and are from worlds with no names will follow this format: "World X-X ('Game Name')". Examples of such are World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.) and World 18-1. The game name is used to differentiate the level from other games featuring a level with the same name, as per usual.
Levels with names are already kept as is.
If a case of level codes being updated occurs due to addition of new worlds (eg. Merry Mini-Land and Slippery Summit), the reissue's new level numbering should take priority over the old one.
I believe that identifying generically-named levels with numbered coding from each other should be made easier, especially if we need to look up information quickly for a friend struggling to find a level or its information. Right now, the current method of using game titles in parentheses makes it hard for such information to be easily looked up, and it has become more of an issue when we tried to fix up the level number coding and the articles for the new levels when documenting the Switch remake of Mario vs. Donkey Kong. I hope this proposal serves to change this for the foreseeable future.
Proposer: EleCyon (talk) Deadline: April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Super Mario RPG (talk) - This could help solve some level naming discrepancies.
Keep as is
Hewer (talk) I don't really get why the problem of a few worlds in Mario vs. Donkey Kong getting their numbers changed warrants a massive change to how we name levels that forgoes our usual naming and identifier rules for no apparent reason. There was never a level called "Super Mario Bros. - World 1-1", it's just known as "World 1-1". I'd compare this to the case of Mario Kart tracks: for example, we have Wii Rainbow Road, but Rainbow Road (Mario Kart: Double Dash!!). We could rename the latter "GCN Rainbow Road" to be more neat and consistent, but it's never been officially called that, so we don't. I'd rather use that same logic and stick to official naming instead of enforcing our own version. And I don't see why only newer games should get identifiers for their titles - I feel like having both get identifiers, similar to the current system where identifier-less World 1-1 is a disambiguation, makes more sense.
Jdtendo (talk) Per Hewer, changing our entire level naming system just for disambiguating some MVDK worlds is overkill. However, I could see the merits of using the world name as an identifier specifically for disambiguating worlds 4 and more of MVDK (e.g., Level 4-1 (Merry Mini-Land)) and only in that specific case.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. The MvDK (Switch) situation is overwhelmingly the exception, rather than the norm, so accounting for it on the levels for every single game that doesn't have this problem (so... basically every other Mario video game that has level articles) is extremely overkill.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. The proposal as written would be a lot of work for very little benefit, but implementing this for exclusively the relevant Mario vs. Donkey Kong stages would make those titles both less cluttered and more descriptive.
Personally, I fail to see how this makes it any easier. With longer titles especially, the search dropdown's just gonna get cut off and you'll have a bunch of identical copies of the game title without being able to tell which is which (unless the functionality of it has been updated without me realizing). Also, I disagree with prioritizing remake over original with this. I'm not voting right now because I consider myself too tired to do so reliably, but those are my thoughts right now. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
I'll point out that "(Mario vs. Donkey Kong for Nintendo Switch)" as an identifier is supported by MarioWiki:Naming: "If two different games share the same title but appear on different consoles and the identifier needs to distinguish between them, the game name and console are used in this format: ({game name} for {console}). For example, Beach Volleyball (Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games for Wii)." And you can tell the difference from something where it's part of the actual title like Super Mario Maker for Nintendo 3DS thanks to the placement of the italics. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
Given the problem is exclusively present in the MvDK levels, I feel like it makes more sense to simply use a format like Spooky House-5 and Merry Mini-Land-mm for specifically that game and its remake, and leave the other courses and levels alone. This seems at least like an acceptable choice, given that the New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U courses Stone-Eye Zone and Spike's Tumbling Desert are both being alternatively referred to as Layer-Cake Desert-1 in their respective articles; meaning that, if these NSMBU and NSLU courses hadn't gotten exclusive names, the wiki would've most likely went for the Layer-Cake Desert-1 format. rend(talk)(edits) 11:19, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
This seems like the best solution to me. Relying solely on parentheses for this leads to, I believe, everything after world 4 needing them because the numbers desync. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:00, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Jdtendo does make a good point, however. Using the world's name in parenthesis for the Mario vs. Donkey Kong worlds might be a better idea to go than mass renaming all the worlds to match what we're going for in the proposal. I might consider this should the proposal not pass at all, especially as I'm about to start documenting Slippery Summit levels soon. --EleCyon (talk) 21:58, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
Expand Rhythm Heaven series coverage
Template:ProposalOutcome
The WarioWare and Rhythm Heaven series cross over with each other very frequently for various reasons. As such, this wiki currently has some limited coverage of Rhythm Heaven games. I believe that this coverage should be slightly expanded. While our fellow NIWA member Rhythm Heaven Wiki is doing a great job documenting these things and linking to it when relevant works, it would still be nice for the Super Mario Wiki to have all the WarioWare-related Rhythm Heaven content covered within its scope.
To be clear, these articles would only cover these subjects to the extent that they are relevant to the WarioWare series, much like how the Rhythm Heaven Megamix article is written. This is not a proposal to annex the Rhythm Heaven Wiki's coverage into our own.
Proposer: JanMisali (talk) Deadline: April 29, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Create articles for Rhythm Heaven Fever and all Rhythm Games that feature playable WarioWare characters
Hewer (talk) While we do have articles for the Mario minigames in Nintendo Land, these ones are, from what I can tell, less substantial and reskins of un-Mario-related minigames, so I feel like giving articles to every one is a bit overkill and covering them like we currently do on the Rhythm Heaven Megamix page is neater and gives more purpose to those pages. Having a Rhythm Heaven Fever article but covering the main thing connecting it to Mario on a separate page would be like if we split the Super Mario Mash-up from the Minecraft page. That said, giving Rhythm Heaven Fever guest appearance status seems reasonable.
Camwoodstock (talk) This makes the most sense to us. While the Rhythm Game articles are a tad overkill (it'd be like making a Spleef "Tumble" article because of Minecraft's coverage on the wiki), given Rhythm Heaven Fever is retroactively the debut of Cicada, it seems only fair to at least give that game an article as a guest appearance. After all, if Art Style: PiCTOBiTS (our beloved) can have an article as a token guest appearance because you can use Mario items, why can't Rhythm Heaven Fever when it has the debut of a WarioWare character?
JanMisali (talk) Second choice, per Hewer and Camwoodstock.
Scrooge200 (talk) The Voters Say... It's only natural, considering how much the two series cross-reference each other. And a character being named in another series is definitely worth noting. [83] Superb!
Only create articles for the eight Rhythm Games in Megamix that have WarioWare versions
Do nothing
Super Mario RPG (talk) First of all, we have Rhythm Heaven Wiki, which you even mentioned in your proposal. We can still practically find ways to cover all of the Super Mario content in Rhythm Heaven without going overboard, otherwise we may find ourselves with a successor to the Super Smash Bros. coverage issue. Also, when you said in your proposal that you thought it would be "nice," that's vague and based on personal opinion, since one could swap out Rhythm Heaven for anything (Bayonetta, Shin Megami Tensei, Terraria, etc.) Wiki scope should be about practicality, not whether someone thinks something is "nice."
Shadow2 (talk) Both games constitute a minor cameo appearance. We absolutely do not need a FULL page about the ENTIRE game of RHF when Young Cricket only appears in one single small mode.
Comments
@Super Mario RPG: Obviously "nice" was being used to mean "preferable given the described circumstances", not sure what gave you an impression otherwise. One could not swap out Rhythm Heaven for any other franchise as Bayonetta, Shin Megami Tensei, and Terraria have not had frequent crossovers with the WarioWare series. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:18, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer: To be fair, there is precedent for giving Mario reskins of otherwise unrelated minigames dedicated articles, namely the Game & Watch Gallery series. I understand your point though, it might be overkill to have full coverage of all these minigames when they're already handled on the Rhythm Heaven Wiki. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 17:00, April 22, 2024 (EDT)
@Shadow2: We're already doing precisely this for Rhythm Heaven Megamix. And maybe a few others that I don't remember at the moment. BMfan08 (talk) 13:22, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, and I'm opposed to every one of those pages existing too (Except Nintendo Land) because they're cameos. Shadow2 (talk) 23:16, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
@Shadow2: To clarify, Young Cricket's role in Rhythm Heaven Fever is not a "minor cameo appearance". Young Cricket's appearance in Rhythm Heaven Megamix where he briefly shows up in the background in the "Wario... Where?" version of Munchy Monk is a minor cameo. Young Cricket is a playable character in Rhythm Heaven Fever. Rhythm Heaven games are music-themed minigame collections, so a character "only" being playable in a minigame does not mean the same thing that it would in a game that isn't a minigame collection. Furthermore, Kung Fu Ball has had a direct impact on the WarioWare series, to the extent that a plot point in WarioWare: Move It! (the reveal of Cicada) requires the player to be familiar with Young Cricket's role in Rhythm Heaven Fever in order to have the full context. While I understand not wanting to give each of these minigames full coverage individually, I strongly believe that the game Rhythm Heaven Fever itself is unquestionably relevant enough to the WarioWare series (and, by extension, to the Super Mario franchise) to justify giving it a dedicated article. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 13:39, April 27, 2024 (EDT)
@Shadow2: This proposal is not seeking to cover literally everything that Rhythm Heaven Fever has for its potential article; just the stuff that is actually relevant to the Super Mario franchise (or in this case, the WarioWare series). The 2-player Endless Game Kung-Fu Ball is major enough to be covered in a Rhythm Heaven Fever article on this wiki (in a similar fashion to the articles that BMfan and Hewer have listed), given that not only the WarioWare character Young Cricket is playable, but his Player 2 partner, Cicada, eventually made her way into the WarioWare series as well, via the character trailers made for WarioWare Gold, and in-game with WarioWare: Move It! This would essentially make Rhythm Heaven Fever to Cicada what Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic is to Shy Guy and Birdo. rend(talk)(edits) 15:35, April 28, 2024 (EDT)
Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki
Template:ProposalOutcome
The wiki currently houses a sizeable number of transcriptions of information from the 2015 Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, mainly the Japanese edition, in the form of character and enemy profiles. I stated my concern here that this practice may infringe Dark Horse/Nintendo's copyright over the product, since, to my knowledge, the book's entire selling point is to inform you on the stuff you find in Mario games through bitesized blurbs. In incorporating these blurbs within its knowledge base, the Mario Wiki, a free resource, is not just impairing the very purpose of the book, but, given that it's still in print, may negatively impact its sales. In fact, that second point is the reason this proposal concerns this book only and not similar publications like Perfect Edition of the Great Mario Character Encyclopedia, which has long been out of print and has been superseded by the SMB Encyclopedia, making it highly unlikely that some big wig will send Porple a DMCA strike over something like Fire (100m)'s profile. When it comes to the 2015 Encyclopedia, though, that has a reasonable likelihood of happening and it's best the wiki enforces good faith.
On a similar basis, one user who engaged with the topic in the above talk page has also questioned the wiki's need to feature scans of the book's mistakes in its very article. Given the small size of each blurb, the scans are essentially taking away substantial chunks of information in a way that cannot be conceived as demonstrative or transformative under US Fair Use law.
What this proposal aims to do is the following:
remove encyclopedia bios listed on various articles, regardless of their source's language. Here's an example. Here's another.
delete the scans in the "List of English translation errors and typos not from the Super Mario Wiki" section of the encyclopedia's article, as well as any other scans of the book's contents, unless said content has been displayed by Nintendo or one of their official distributors for the purpose of promoting the book. To exemplify: This, this, and this image should be deleted if the proposal passes. This and this one should also be deleted, since the content depicted in these images hasn't been used by Shogakukan, Amazon, or some other official distributor to portray the Japanese edition on their online storefronts. On the other hand, the artwork shown in the article's gallery, such as this one, shouldn't be removed unless they depict textual information that infringes copyright.
A few notes:
Paraphrases of the encyclopedia's information will be allowed under the proposal, so the book's article may continue to describe its mistakes until further notice.
Small quotes of the book will also be permitted (e.g.: "This text is translated from the Japanese instruction booklet.") if they do not violate this proposal's requirements, albeit it's entirely up to editors to decide how small a quote should be and whether it fits US Fair Use.
Subject names unique to the encyclopedia are not concerned by this proposal.
Waluigi Time (talk) Per all. Having scans as "proof" of mistakes is especially odd, just use the book and page number as a source.
MegaBowser64 (talk) Well, we don't want to get sued for 34 thousand dollars in the Federal Court of Malaysia now, do we? And we probably don't want a DMCA from Dark Horse/Nintendo either. Per all of yall (collectively)
Somethingone (talk) Per proposal (as someone who usually likes images like this), and I personally don't agree with the opposition. I saw plenty of DMCAs from scans like this before.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Until we know what the book itself says, I'm opposing. We can't just go, "Oh, here's this thing from 9 years ago, we can't use images of it because copyright blah blah blah." That would set a precedent that should not get set. Super Mario Pia was brought up in this proposal, as was The Art of Super Mario Odyssey in the linked talkpage, but what about others? I don't want any bad precedents being set.
#Pseudo (talk) Per Axis. On second thought, choosing to abstain, at least for the time being.
Comments
@Axis Put it another way: how legal would it be if you cut down a copyrighted movie in 30 second clips and uploaded all of them to your youtube channel? That's exactly what the wiki does, except with a book. -- KOOPACONCARNE 12:03, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
We're going to abstain from this vote (we're moreso concerned about citogenesis than we are copyright, admittedly, and dealing with the former generally implies dealing with the latter by proxy), but uh. We do kind of do exactly that, as policy, for audio. Like, we know that's not what you meant, you meant uploading the whole thing in segments, but like, we do just outright have max-30 second excerpts for audio as a policy where going over that isn't allowed... ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:36, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
There is a pretty big difference, we're not compiling every bit of information into the same page. The information is scattered across the wiki pages, it's just not comparible. By the way, I'm not opposing to removing book scans from the wiki. Maybe the proposal should have more than 2 options? Axis (talk) 15:15, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Whether or not what the wiki is doing is 1:1 comparable to my example is irrelevant, what's relevant is that both practices are illegal and may net the owner of the site / YT channel a DMCA strike. You can theoretically read the entire SMB Encyclopedia just by using the search function on the wiki to look up each enemy's bio, and there's a chance far larger than zero that someone would be choosing to go that route instead of buying the book if the wiki actually had complete coverage of it, which is where we're headed now. -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:07, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
I'm still not convinced, sorry. Axis (talk) 00:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm with Axis here. We're not having 100% coverage, just the bios, mistakes/errors/plagarism, and a gallery. Not a FULL ON EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK IS HERE! thing. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:38, April 24, 2024 (CST)
"We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents" -- KOOPACONCARNE 11:59, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The things actually listed on the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia article itself (to be as exceedingly unambiguous as possible, we are referring to the article we just linked to, the one where a Ctrl+F for "MIPS" currently yields no results) are literally just the errors/instances of plagiarism. We sat down and counted that, if you don't include any of the pages with overlap (e.g. Page 241 having both an error unique to the book and born out of citogenesis), we only discuss 67 of the book's 256 pages, plus or minus 4 that lack a page number and we thusly cannot verify, or roughly ≈27.5% of all pages. Many of these are only single-sentence aspects of the pages, and much of these come from the citogenesis examples--it is not "the entirety of the book's contents" (the fact we can't actually prove the exact quantity alone should be proof of that). And given the majority of these are about the plagiarism anyways, we don't exactly feel like humoring the idea that we should just kind of remove these acknowledgements that the book copied from us just because the book is still being sold--that's how you get things like newbies randomly moving articles back to their conjectural titles because "the book said so", even though the book only said so because it copied our work in the first place. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:08, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal has nothing to do with what you wrote. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:20, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Admittedly, we misread on the whole removing things outright thing, that one's on us, oops. we're so tired after last week y'all, this aside is entirely unrelated to the proposal. However, we do feel like it is worth pointing out that the statement that we cover "the entirety of the book's contents" is inaccurate, which given that statement is directly meant to counter-act Axis' own vote, we think that is reasonably related to the proposal. And, as we mentioned earlier, we're far more concerned with the whole "risk of citogenesis courtesy of the book itself having copied various names that were meant to be conjectural" aspect of that article than we are if we should include images or not, hence why we've abstained from voting. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:26, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
The profiles concerned by this proposal are mainly from the Japanese version of the book, which of course didn't use names from the wiki. This proposal is completely unrelated to the English version having taken names from the wiki (as rare as that is for a discussion about this book). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:31, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
...We may be stupid (as we mentioned, uh, we're a little tired from the Everything. apologies for just kinda barging in and evidently getting tied up in an entirely unrelated article's business... ;P) ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:36, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like our argument is getting semantic. Perhaps I have my large share of blame for framing the issue in absolute terms, but whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full. -- KOOPACONCARNE 13:41, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
I didn't say anything of this sort. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:57, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
""We're not having 100% coverage, just the entirety of the book's contents"". "whether the wiki has 100%, 50%, or 20% of the book's content, the point is that said content is substantial enough as to not make its coverage tenable under copyright or fair use laws, and there are currently no restrictions for users to cover that content here in full." Does that not sound like "no Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:39, April 24, 2024 (CST)
No? "The wiki shouldn't copy so much from the book" is very different from "it should not contain even a single mention of the book". -- KOOPACONCARNE 16:42, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Do you wanna get sued? Including all the bios from that book, which is the entirety of said book's contents, while it is still on the market, is still justifiable grounds for a copyright strike. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:27, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
Entirety? As in "Let's ignore the other stuff in this"? And what does the book itself say? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 17:07, April 24, 2024 (CST)
Literally what "other stuff" in the book? That's all there is. Little pictures (some of the artwork I do want us to have), and bios. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:12, April 24, 2024 (EDT)
What "non-bios" do you speak of? Also I could not understand your question. What does the book say on what? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
Everything that isn't just bios. And I meant what does the book say in terms of copyright? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Yes. But I don't remember anything concerning "-2018"...Maybe it's just me. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:27, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Genuine question: why are we thinking about this nearly a decade later? This is one of the reasons why I always made it a point to keep citations to their earliest instance. However, there are still plenty of things that are unique to the book to our knowledge, like the tidbit of MIPS being Peach's pet. What happens to that info if the proposal passes? Not to mention, Super Mario Pia was released around the same time as Encyclopedia Super Mario Bros. - do those profiles not count because they don't have the same global reach? I think maybe a cutoff date needs to be established. LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:52, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal isn't about how the book is cited. The MIPS tidbit and citation can stay; the quote is supplementary, and if it constitutes the entirety of MIPS' description in the book, it can be handily removed with little impact on the subject's coverage and how its info is sourced. I omitted Super Mario Pia out of sheer oversight, admittedly, though given its anniversary nature I'm not sure if it's even sold anymore, and I believe official availability should be our primary cutoff, rather than the publishing date. I'd have Pia handled in another discussion. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:11, April 23, 2024 (EDT)
Genuine question: why are we thinking about this nearly a decade later? I can't speak for the proposer, but in the past week we've had Nintendo issuing a takedown request toward Valve for hosting copyrighted Nintendo assets on Garry's Mod, after 15+ years of seemingly being fine with the stuff. That alone makes this conversation very relevant. --Glowsquid (talk) 16:20, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
Squiddy that's been proven to be a false-flag perpetrated by trolls. That being said, it's in-character for them. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 16:43, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
To be honest, if push came to shove, we feel like this'd be a rare instance of a proposal being cancelled and immediately coming into effect (that has happened before, after all, usually with "move to <X> name" proposals that ultimately didn't have any backlash whatsoever--though it coming into use for this circumstance would be rather extraordinary)... though if Nintendo was suing a wiki about their work, why they would only target an article about a book is another question we really would rather not think much of the implications on. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 17:05, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
Again, it's not about the book's article, it's about the book's contents being disseminated across "profiles" pages. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:44, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
Now you've done it, Camwoodstock!! Go to the chalkboard and write "this proposal is not about the article on Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia" 100 times!!! -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:58, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
We should've been clearer--we know it's about the sections on the book that are in other articles' profile sections, and NOT strictly just the article on the book and only that article. You really don't need to dogpile us on it at this point. Can we address the thing we actually were trying to talk about in the first place with the whole "our point is asking why Nintendo only sue us over that and not anything else" question? In absolutely zero uncertain terms: We are not comfortable with the repeated teases about our own ambiguous syntax here. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 19:30, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
In that case, it's not ambiguous, you plain and simply said one thing and meant another. Anyways, it's due to it being still in print and the bios in it being the entire point of the book's existence. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:14, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
To play devil's advocate--what about anything else Nintendo's made that's "still in print"? While we know this proposal was only made about removing the mentioned bios and scans, books aren't the only thing that can be "in print". ~Camwoodstock(talk) 23:51, April 25, 2024 (EDT)
Consider that a lot of uploaded exclusive concept artwork from The Art of Super Mario Odyssey was removed for the same reason (notably impacting the Broodals page). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 00:55, April 26, 2024 (EDT)
You know, there may be a flaw with this proposal should it pass......Eh hem. LinkTheLefty (talk) 11:12, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
That's something I've been aware of since before I even drafted the proposal, but I had no idea how to bring attention to it. Maybe Porplemontage has a solution? 👀 -- KOOPACONCARNE 11:21, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Create The Cutting Room Floor link template
Template:ProposalOutcome
"Pre-release and unused content" articles already link to The Cutting Room Floor very often, and since they are established as the to-go wiki for that kind of information, I propose we formalize the linking with a template just like the Wikipedia template.
This is how it could look:
If in a "List of pre-release and unused content" article:
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - It'll also make it easier to source info and graphics from them, especially given many of out own P-R&UC pages are... lacking (especially since the giga-leak in regards to prototype information and graphics).
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) Yes, please! I think we've been in need of this for a while, and TCRF is a high-quality site. (I should know, because I have an account there... :)) Per all.
Superchao (talk) Per all, nothing wrong with another affiliation.
YoYo (talk) lets not put this on the cutting room floor since it's a good idea
Oppose
Comments
Could you change the links on the template from external links to interwiki links, like this one? The Cutting Room Floor is on our interwiki list, after all, and that would look much better on the template than the external link thing. rend(talk)(edits) 05:01, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
Clarify articles about subjects which appear in a certain standalone campaign
Template:ProposalOutcomeNightwicked Bowser informed me that I must make a proposal before I can add - ''[[<campaign>]]'' to an article that has at least one appearance in a standalone campaign, so I had to start over by making a proposal where there's a possibility to clarify the appearances of certain Super Mario elements that appear in a standalone adventure campaign included in a certain game in content (i.e.: infoboxes, sections listing appearances).
FanOfRosalina2007 (talk) This seems unnecessary to me. The first line of Lake Lapcat's page literally says that it is exclusive to the Bowser's Fury campaign, so why restate it? King Bob-omb's page has the exact same thing. It doesn't make sense to repeat what has already been said. If you want to say that a character or place only appears in a certain campaign, why not just mention it where it's necessary?
Sparks (talk) Per FanOfRosalina2007. Where the thing is found is stated early in the article.
JanMisali (talk) I'd understand wanting to do this to shorten these double-barreled titles in some contexts, but the suggested method here does the opposite of that. Per all.
I think a good compromise to this is to have the subject's location be defined in parenthesis, like how I did for articles relating to the DLC of Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. Although this is not DLC, so I'm not sure how others would feel about my suggestion. Sparks (talk) 16:21, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
Repeal the "derived names" having priority over official names in other languages
Template:ProposalOutcome
Recently, a (completely undiscussed) amendment was made to the naming system making it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese). While allowing said "derived names" as conjecture makes sense, it comes with several pitfalls, and my main concern is it is turning into a slippery slope. Much of it is discussed on the talk page for the so-called "Hefty Goombrat," which is a sterling example of why this was not a good idea. I have also been recently seeing cases of people moving to subjects based on objects sharing some adjective with a random obscure object in the same game, as demonstrated here. To be blunt, this was a short-sighted idea (and more than likely, simply a failed experiment) and needs cut back to a reasonable level before it gets out of hand. For the record, I am favor of letting it stay when the only indications in other languages or file names or what-have-you are generic terms rather than clear "names," for instance when the only confirmed name for Shoot was just "jugador de futbol," as well as rewording clunky generic descriptors like "vehicle with surfboard."
Hewer (talk) Per proposal, these names are conjectural and shouldn't be unduly given more weight than their fellow conjectural names.
Koopa con Carne (talk) Might just be me but I'd rather not have a policy that specifically states "if you don't like this official name, just completely ignore it and make up something wacky instead" because that's not what this site is even remotely about
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. While some of these derived names are fine and it's sensible to have this as an option, it shouldn't take priority over an official name when one exists.
Camwoodstock (talk) ...Okay, yeah, KCC makes a good point we didn't think of, so, surprise! We're changing our vote! Conjectural names have their place, but we really shouldn't prioritize them over actual names if they exist.
LinkTheLefty (talk) I'm pretty sure this all started here, and...yeah, in practice, conjectural exceptions bloat the elegant naming policy. Plus, this is practically begging to have more "Fire Nipper Plant"-esque situations.
Super Mario RPG (talk) Official names are official, whether it's English, Japanese, Spanish, and so forth.
DrippingYellow (talk) Actually, my position didn't make much sense. If some enemies are OK to have their Japanese name, then why not all enemies without a proper English name? And KCC brought up a good point about redirects. I wouldn't be opposed to using derived names as just redirects, since redirects show up in the search bar alongside actual articles, basically removing the "searchability" issue.
Archivist Toadette (talk) While I agree that some discussions may need to be made on what counts as derived conjecture and what doesn't, a flat-out repeal is not the way to go about this. Plus, some of these derived conjecture names are completely straightforward (such as "Fire Spike" or "Wonder Hoppycat"), as in we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject.
Waluigi Time (talk) The only problem with this policy is that it's being applied in cases and/or ways that it shouldn't be (I personally think Hefty Goombrat was a step too far). If it's kept to reasonable use like the examples Archivist Toadette gave, it's fine. No need to repeal the entire thing.
Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per Archivist Toadette, really. To me, it does seem greater caution and discussion on these derived names is warranted, but a case-by-case approach seems more useful here than a flat-out repeal. I'd be worried about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here, tossing away something that's generally beneficial to readers in the process of correcting a few cases where this has been misapplied.
#Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, especially Waluigi Time. We really ought to be handling poor names born from this policy on a case-by-case basis, rather than nixing the policy altogether and potentially causing more harm than good. #DrippingYellow (talk) I seriously fail to see how this is a problem. If you have a Japanese noun that has had a direct, consistent translation across multiple pieces of English Mario media (i.e. gabon to Spike, kakibo to Goombrat, deka to "Big" enemies, admittedly kodeka for "Hefty" enemies is pushing it since we really only have Hefty Goombas as an official translation), then the way I see it this replacement of terms is no different than how we've been treating internal names. We already have a rule on not "partially translating" names, so I'd maybe expand on that to prohibit creating translations for words that don't have a consistent translation across games, but I wouldn't get rid of the derived name rule altogether. (i.e. Sensuikan Heihō does not become "Submarine Shy Guy" or even "Sensuikan Shy Guy")
Comments
@Opposition I did say in the last sentence that this isn't removing it completely, just changing its position in the "acceptable naming" hierarchy. The reason I said "repeal" is an incarnation of it existed before for generic-borne titles and I am trying to go back to that as - unlike the current iteration - it isn't just begging to be misused. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
I guess the best way to put it is this: if an official name that is a name exists, period, there is no excuse whatsoever for there to be a "conjecture" template of any sort. That's not hypothesizing, that's ignoring, and to be frank is a grotesque perversion of the policies this site has had for decades that have not caused any harm whatsoever - meanwhile, these have plenty of potential for misleading people. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 02:08, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Then what about the examples I brought up? (T|C) 07:30, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
What about them? They have official names, but the wiki opts to give them explicitly conjectural ones because apparently a couple of sysops thought so. -- KOOPACONCARNE 07:33, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
I still find the idea that these names are "conjectural" to be kind of weird, if that's the big hang-up here. If we can already take some liberties with Japanese titles I don't see why we can't just look at something and say "oh, this is literally Goomba's Japanese name, let's just call it Goomba", especially when the name is partially English already. That's just doing some simple translation, not really making conjectural names? I'm speaking as someone with no background in translation, mind you, so take what I'm saying with a grain of salt. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 12:19, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Conjecture occurs when you're presuming something to be the case in the absence of hard facts. Archive Toadette states in his vote that "we can reasonably assume that Nintendo of America or Nintendo of Europe would pick these names for the respective subject". "Assume". That's the thrust of this policy: assumption. Which is pretty much synonymous with conjecture, and some editors are taking issue with prioritizing that over official names. Regarding the liberties on Japanese names, there's nothing conjectural about adapting something like Sunaipā to "Sniper", because it's literally the word's Japanese transliteration--the romanization reflects how the word sounds when converted to Japanese writing. Note how that policy states that instances of "Kuppa" should be adapted to "Koopa", and not "Bowser", even though that's his Japanese name. "Kuribo" wouldn't be adapted to "Goomba" in article titles because that's not a transliteration, that a compound of actual Japanese morphemes. The basis of the Japanese naming policy isn't the same as that of the conjectural naming policy. -- KOOPACONCARNE 12:43, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
@Hooded Pitohui: Could you be more specific on what is or isn't acceptable? Because I'm kind of struggling to picture any time these conjectural names should have priority over an actual official name, or what would make that case different to others (note that they'd still take priority over filenames per the proposal). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:01, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
I think it may be helpful to start with a disclaimer and an acknowledgement of where I'm coming from in casting a vote. I'm a very infrequent, casual editor on the wiki side of things, so when I do wade into these proposals on the intricacies of the wiki's policies on naming or classification or scope of coverage, I don't often have a large repository of examples to draw upon, and rarely am I able (or attempting to) make any kind of case or argument. Generally, I'm entering these discussions from the perspective of a reader/user of the wiki first, and casual contributor second, and generally my votes are going to be informed by that perspective, so I apologize if this seems a bit broad and dealing in hypotheticals. For me, I'd think anything that's a straight localization of a recurring, official enemy/item/what have you is acceptable, and more adjectival/descriptive parts of a name or a name of something that hasn't really had a localization established is not. To use the cited Hefty Goombrat example, "Hefty" probably shouldn't have been conjecturally localized, but a Goombrat is pretty clearly a Goombrat, so conjecturally localizing that part seems fine to me. If, I don't know, Nintendo introduces a Lakitu that throws fireballs down that become Firesnakes, and it's called "[something] Jugem" officially in Japanese material, again, I think we leave the descriptive part as-is because there's no clear precedent, but we know a "Jugem/Jugemu" is consistently localized as Lakitu, so we might as well localize that because an average reader will recognize "Lakitu" quickly. Meanwhile, if we just got, say, a generic cloud spitting fireballs with the same behavior, I'd say we'd be wise not to do a conjectural localization because there's not clear precedent for what that'd get localized as. Of course, even always following really clear, solid precedent, we might get it wrong occasionally, especially if Nintendo decides to rename a recurring enemy at some point, but it's a wiki, information is constantly getting updated, renamed, and reevaluated anyway. Hope that helps explain my reasoning a bit better! Hooded Pitohui (talk) 13:26, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
Slippiest of slippery slopes. Just use redirects if you expect casual readers to look up for a thing more intuitively than how it's been officially presented. There's no need to compromise encyclopedic integrity to cater to what readers expect to see. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:06, April 29, 2024 (EDT)
For the record, this isn't a talk page proposal, so I think the deadline for this proposal should be May 6. Unless there was a statement of "you can make the proposals two weeks long if you want" that I missed in the rules, which is entirely possible. DrippingYellow (talk) 19:21, May 1, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I didn't notice that in the rules. I guess that makes sense. DrippingYellow (talk) 11:30, May 2, 2024 (EDT)
Uhh, the naming policy does NOT, in fact, support the reasoning in the proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:46, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
That's because the very purpose of this proposal is to alter the naming policy. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:38, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
No, I'm saying the naming policy does not, when I looked at it - I could be wrong,"[make] it so quote-unquote "derived names" - as in, standard conjectural names made by cut-n-pasting descriptors from similar entities - have priority over official names from other languages (particularly the games' language of origin, which for this franchise is usually Japanese)." SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:01, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
The naming policy admittedly isn't very clear about this, but it does say "If there is any reasonable doubt or debate about what a given derived name should be, then the use of a derived name should be abandoned in that case in favor of the non-English or internal name", which implies that it otherwise would take priority over the non-English names. And regardless, we've got examples of where this has been done on the wiki like Fire Spike and Hefty Goombrat, which this proposal intends to change. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:11, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
But the sections above that put derived names at the same level as conjectural names, which is the lowest level, so we would already need to change the names of those article even without a proposal. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:34, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
The point of the derived names bit is to be an exception to usual conjectural name rules by giving the derived names higher priority despite their conjectural nature. If it wasn't, there'd be no point in that derived names clause existing at all, since it would just be a guide to make conjectural names straightforward when there are no official names, and we already try to do that anyway. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:38, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
No, it doesn't. Looking at the policy again, there's actually a bit I missed where it clearly says to use derived names "rather than using the non-English or internal name", so the policy's meaning is not up for debate. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:07, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Non-standardize franchise sub-headings in History sections
Template:ProposalOutcome
This proposal aims to non-standardize -- not outright forbid or penalize -- the use of "franchise" subheadings under History. In other words, should this pass, if someone gets rid of franchise sub-headings in favor of series or standalone game sub-headings, someone is not allowed to revert it and must leave it as-is. Otherwise, users are allowed to add the sections at their discretion. Think of it like the Cite template, which is standardized but not required.
I never understood the need for the franchise subheadings (with three equals signs), since it just adds an unnecessary extra heading in the page text. It's like if we had a "Super Mario franchise" section and began listing various subsections under it. The points I'm making below may digress from the proposal, but could provide insight as to why I think it muddies the waters too much by giving individual franchise sections.
I feel that it shouldn't be this wiki's job to decide which game goes into what franchise. To give some examples, Nintendo has not taken the effort to, let's say, classify Yoshi's Safari as a Yoshi game on par with the Yoshi's Island series, and I haven't seen Wario's Woods being listed among the likes of Wario Land series, not to mention Wario is the main antagonist of Wario's Woods, despite his name in the title (though could similarly be said about DK arcade game). And Mario vs. Donkey Kong could either be a Super Mario game, since it stars Mario, or a Donkey Kong game, but I'm more inclined toward the former, since all the sequels (minus the Switch remake) do not retain any elements from the Game Boy version of Donkey Kong, and Donkey Kong is the consistent antagonist.
So with the examples listed, see how it kind of muddies the waters? And if future proposals or discoveries determine the games to not be part of the franchises, or the franchises themselves outright nil, then that would be numerous pages to clean up on, should the franchise sub-sections be applied to the wiki universally. Even if it may appear disjointed on some articles, the point is still that these are still Super Mario characters starring in their own games, not different than Captain Toad, Princess Peach, and Luigi's Mansion, all of which are explicitly Super Mario games but starring different characters.
In the Smash Bros. series, I am aware that Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong have distinct symbols, but that could reflect their protagonist status, not their own series.
Edit: Another problem from using franchise sub-sections is that would mean game sub-sections could have five equal signs if branching off of a series subheading of a franchise sub-heading. An example of how that would look: ===Yoshi franchise=== ====Yoshi's Island series==== =====Yoshi's Island DS=====
Nintendo101 (talk) I cannot speak for anyone else, but I find it genuinely difficult to find topics when they are not grouped into franchise headers like this, especially for long articles, and it can be frustrating. I can understand not putting Wario Land and WarioWare titles together under a "Wario (franchise)" heading, but Yoshi's Woolly World is a Yoshi's Island game in everything but literal name, and it is unintuitive to not group it with those titles for recurring subjects. Same with Donkey Kong Jungle Beat and the other Donkey Kong platforms. Smash Bros. did not invent the idea of grouping these franchises together. Nothing is lost when these subfranchise headings are maintained - only gains for readers.
JanMisali (talk) Per Nintendo101. It's unclear what benefits this would have.
Arend (talk) Well, I guess I now know the truth about that oddity of this edit on the Icicle page (which is still in use btw). In essence, though, the "unnecessary" extra heading is there for organizing, so it has a purpose, and is not entirely unnecessary. If what you're proposing is exactly what you've done on the Icicle page (which is to say, not only removing the Yoshi franchise header, but also relocating the Yoshi's Crafted World section towards the bottom of the History section), it would only look disorganized (especially since, as Nintendo101 said about Woolly World, Crafted World is already super similar in gameplay to the Yoshi's Island games... as is Yoshi's Story, too, btw). In fact, such a drastic change would only make sense if we treated every game like this and have everything listed in release order regardless of other series like Mario Kart or Smash Bros.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all. This honestly feels even more cumbersome and strange than how we already do things--besides, Ctrl+F (or "Find" on mobile) generally helps if you're lost as-is.
Big Super Mario Fan (talk)I'm against it. There is a Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi Franchise.
@Nintendo101: Except the Yoshi's Woolly World is not a Yoshi's Island game, since those have Baby Mario in it, but reuses concepts from said series. And the "Donkey Kong platforms" already have two series of their own: Donkey Kong Country series and Donkey Kong Land series, and then there's the unassociated games like Donkey Kong 64 (which i used to think was a DKC game) and DK Jungle Beat Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:19, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
I would argue that Yoshi's Woolly World is a Yoshi's Island game because whether or not Baby Mario is present is completely outweighed by the games' mechanical similarities, level designs, enemies, characters, aesthetics, "game feel", and development staff. What they actually named the game doesn't matter. But that is admittedly my subjective interpretation.
What is not subjective is that Woolly World (in addition to Yoshi's Story, Crafted World) has significantly more in common with the traditionally-recognized Yoshi's Island games than they do to the majority of other titles and make more intuitive sense grouped together. Additionally, we have a dedicated Yoshi franchise article and framing on the wiki (i.e. articles on the Yoshi platformers are generally structured similarly and have comparable heading colors). It does not make sense why that classification is okay in one context, but not for the spaces that really matter - articles on recurring subjects that would legitimately benefit from subdivisions. I maintain the same position for Donkey Kong and Wario titles, as I would for Mario Party and Mario Kart. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:32, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
Then there's the Yoshi, Yoshi's Cookie, and Tetris Attack puzzle games, supposedly with the Yoshi branding, though I think the former two are Super Mario games with Yoshi as a mascot. Throwing all of that under a "Yoshi franchise" heading would be an example of muddying the waters, with both platforming and puzzle games mixed together. The "comparable" heading colors could basically apply to the Super Mario franchise, which is associated with the color red, like Mario's shirt and hat.
Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Woolly World, and Yoshi's Crafted World not being part of an explicitly defined Yoshi platforming series isn't a fault on our part, but is rather a reflection on Nintendo. Have Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime! been confirmed to be part of the same series, or are they both "Super Mario" games starring Peach? If such two section are disjointed in an article, like Princess Peach's, because they're not in an officially defined series, that's because it's Nintendo's responsibility to define it, not ours. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:48, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
I appreciate the thoroughness of your response, but it did not address what I was trying to get at. Why can Super Mario Wiki have a Yoshi franchise article, template, and organization structure in their articles and then passively assert no such thing exists in the actual History sections for subjects? What you describe as "muddying the waters" I perceive as helpful clarity and a consistent presentation of information maintained across the wiki. That's inherently helpful for readers. It also really has not been explained to me what is improved for readers in removing subfranchise headings. I know for me personally it would make it more difficult to passively read articles or locate information, and I suspect I am not alone in that feeling. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:31, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
Because the same question could apply to why does Super Mario franchise not have its own subsection and on what grounds. The History section basically passively asserts the Super Mario franchise isn't there for the same reason. And if we're to cover like every Chain Chomp appearance in Zelda, would that get its own franchise section and subheadings? The history section in that instance would be presenting it on the same tier as Yoshi, Wario, and Donkey Kong. Convenience isn't always an accurate reflection of the official way of sorting. One could have Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 come after Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins in the History section, since the former literally takes place after the latter's events, or Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island after Super Mario World (or considering "Super Mario Bros. 5" was a dropped subtitle during development), but that would be negating their respective Wario Land and Yoshi's Island series. I wanted to point out that your opinion on Yoshi's Woolly World being a Yoshi's Island title could be a stretch based on personal viewpoint, but not necessarily official confirmation. Super Mario RPG (talk) 20:43, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
While it is one that I agree with and I believe it can be substantively demonstrated, I do not group Woolly World with Yoshi's Island because of a subjective interpretation. I apologize if that was the impression. It is because we currently consider them part of the Yoshi franchise on the wiki. Grouping them together under the history section is just matching what is already recognized elsewhere, and I believe it is helpful. I feel like to not group them together in the History section calls for a much wider discussion on how we should classify games on the wiki at large, and if we should be recognizing a Yoshi franchise (also a Wario, Donkey Kong, etc.) at all. But that is a departure from how things are currently recognized by the userbase.
Are the Donkey Kong, Yoshi, and Wario franchises themselves not within the Super Mario franchise? I was under the impression that that was the overarching umbrella. Zelda would inherently be outside of that. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:16, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
The three you mentioned are part of the Super Mario franchise, that's true. And Tetris Attack, a puzzle game, is as much of a Yoshi game as Super Mario World 2. Putting every game installment under a single "franchise" heading is the history sections conflating franchises with series, which i deem a problem. Why put Yoshi puzzle game, the Super Scope game Yoshi's Safari, Yoshi's Island, and miscellaneous platforming games under a single heading that makes them all seem strung together somehow? Yoshi's Woolly World is platforming, so it's closer by that merit but Yoshi (the puzzle game) is far from any sort of association to Yoshi's Island, which it predates, and is an entirely different genre. It would be inconsistent if the Super Mario franchise's series gets sub-sections but not like Yoshi's Island or Wario Land, like it's being decided subjectively of how to find information per game series. And a Donkey Kong franchise's 4-equal sign headings could theoretically look like: ====Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest====, ====Donkey Kong Land 2====, ====Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!====, since that's the chronological release order of Donkey Kong platforming games from two separate series. Or what about Wario's: WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!, Wario World, WarioWare: Twisted! This means either way, there will be cases where things will look disjointed for varying reasons. The way History sections are sorted are not a reflection of the wiki scope. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:52, May 7, 2024 (EDT)
The biggest issue with these franchise subheadings is that it can lead to creating a level 5 subheader in some instances and we really need to avoid this because they're increasingly more indistinguishable from text. The current method of doing it avoids this because the entities don't seem to appear in many games, so it doesn't make much sense to bar the use of it, but IMO if using franchise subheadings results in too many subheaders, avoid it. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 19:25, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, this is one of the things I brought up as to why I find the franchise subheadings a problem, because it could result in the creation of the level-5 subheadings, like in an example that I listed above. Another case I'd find the franchise subheadings redundant is if there's only two releases or three releases, none from the same series, and especially if doing without the franchise subheading already shows them in chronological order. For example, Cog (obstacle) has Donkey Kong Jungle Beat and Donkey Kong Country Returns listed under "Donkey Kong franchise, despite the fact that without that extra franchise subheading, they'd already be displayed together in chronological order in the history section. Super Mario RPG (talk) 19:53, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
"Gently encouraging users to avoid/minimize the use of level 5 subheaders because it is difficult to discriminate from normal text", is a world of difference from "imposing an editorial restriction on an organizational arrangement that others feel makes articles easier to read". - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:47, May 8, 2024 (EDT)
Except gears also appear in Mario Kart DS and Mario Kart 8 thanks to DS Tick-Tock Clock, the former being inbetween Jungle Beat and Country Returns (I've already added the info on the cog page). Additionally, a gear plays a prominent role in the WarioWare: Twisted! and WarioWare Gold microgame Scrambled Egg (though it does not serve as a platform there, so I was hesitant about adding that to the page). rend(talk)(edits) 06:42, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Come to think of it though, WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! already features gears in the microgame Gear Head Fred, so if we were to include WarioWare microgames on the cog article, that section would have to come before Jungle Beat anyway. rend(talk)(edits) 07:56, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
On the level 5 subheader thing: ...Can't we just change how those look via CSS shenanigans and the like? While there's definitely more eloquent ways to do it, simply giving them a slightly gray color to distinguish it from a level 4 subheader could probably resolve at least a couple of issues with them. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 16:17, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
I thought the argument was that the level 5 subheader wasn't that it'd look indistinguishable to the level 4 subheader, but to the article's regular text. Not that I disagree with the CSS thing though, we can make changes to it to make the level 5 subheader a tiny bit bigger... same goes for level 6 subheaders btw (yes, level 6 subheaders are a thing, and so are level 1 subheaders, see this sandbox). Not sure if it's entirely necessary to drastically change them, since level 5 subheaders are not only already a bit bigger, but also are displayed bold. It's level 6 subheaders that are displayed in the same size as the regular text, albeit in bold as well, though level 6 subheaders are rarely used, if at all. But, we could maybe change the headers' fonts to distinguish them if that's preferable over size or color changes, as the Timeless mobile skin displays all of these headers in Times New Roman. rend(talk)(edits) 16:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not a CSS buff but if we have to consider editing the CSS to resolve the problem I just think introducing these subheaders is too much trouble for what it's worth. Use franchise subheaders for articles that can use them, but generally stick to just standard chronology otherwise. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:42, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Allow separation of the Super Mario Bros. series and Super Mario series in articles
Template:ProposalOutcome
This proposal aims to allow separating the Super Mario Bros. series of side-scrolling platformers (it's official) from the Super Mario 3D series in history sections. This is based on how Nintendo sometimes treats the Super Mario Bros. series separately from the Super Mario 3D games, like from the screenshot (in-game from Super Mario Run itself), Super Mario Bros. Wonder is said to be the first Super Mario Bros. game in 11 years (referring to 2012, when New Super Mario Bros. 2 and New Super Mario Bros. U were released).
Currently, this proposal would only allow for the series to be separated in sections, not necessarily standardized, as that would depend on how the article is laid out.
The complicated part of 2012 being the cutoff before Super Mario Bros. Wonder is that would mean Super Mario Maker, its sequel, and Super Mario Run would all be disqualified from the Super Mario Bros. series. The Super Mario series is the standard/main series, and Super Mario Maker 2 has been making effort to maintain association with both the 2D and 3D series, since they have a Super Mario 3D World format. Super Mario Run is technically a game of its own, but I think the safer bet would be to keep it in Super Mario series. This proposal is to help the Super Mario BROS. games stand out and their evolution between the different sidescrolling titles.
The Super Mario name is more universal than just outside the platforming games (e.g. Super Mario Strikers, for one), and is the name and trademark of the very brand itself, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of separate series beginning with "Super Mario", even if in this case it's referring to just the 2D and 3D games themselves.
#SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per proposal, but I have concerns about Super Mario Maker 1, 3DS,2 & Super Mario Run.
Oppose
Nintendo101 (talk) I do not support severing the Super Mario Bros. series games from their sister games. In my neck of the woods, the term "clade" is widely used for taxonomic ranks that do not neatly follow the traditional Linnaean terms people learn about in high school (order, family, etc.) and unlike them, they do not denote their rank position at all. A clade can contain multiple other clades, and a clade can be contained in another clade. Unless there is a definition for "series" that I am unfamiliar with, there is no intrinsic reason why a series cannot contain multiple series or be within a series itself. The recognition of a Super Mario Bros. series does not at all indicate that they are separate from the Super Mario series, a category that has been narrowly recognized as the action platformers of the greater Super Mario franchise as recently as 2020. Unless Nintendo explicitly states that they are not siblings of the same series, I think the assertion that Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Maker, and Super Mario Run are not within the same series as the original Super Mario Bros. or New Super Mario Bros. U, and that they should not be recognized together as distinct from the rest of the franchise, is unsubstantiated.
JanMisali (talk) The ambiguity and inconsistency surrounding which specific games are part of the Super Mario Bros. subseries makes this less useful than it otherwise would be.
Jdtendo (talk) Per Nintendo101 and JanMisali. Plus, I see no point in separating proper 2D side-scroller Mario games such as Super Mario Land 1 & 2 from an ill-defined Super Mario Bros. series on the sole basis that those games lack the word "Bros." in their title.
Arend (talk) As one can see in the comments, people have vastly different views of what counts as a Super Mario Bros. game and what doesn't (e.g. Doc believes the Super Mario Land games don't count because Luigi doesn't appear in them, I think that's superficial and that the Land games should still be counted as at least related since the general gameplay is still the same otherwise). While a good idea on paper, it will lead to many arguments and disagreements until we get a definite answer from Nintendo what should count and what shouldn't... and all we get from Nintendo is that they lump every Super Mario game, from Bros to Land to 64 to Sunshine to Maker to Run to Odyssey, as part of the same series.
Hewer (talk) Per all, especially the fact that the Super Mario Bros. series is a subset of the Super Mario series anyway. If we separated SMB as its own thing, wouldn't that be implying the Super Mario series only contains 3D games and miscellanea like Maker? Because that's certainly not the case.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per all, and also the mere fact that jan Misali did in fact make a 40+ minute video on roughly this same subject, juxtaposed with the comments below. This would be an extremely strange thing to try to enforce when there's no fewer than 4 major standards for what even counts as a Super Mario game, and one of them is literally our own.
Scrooge200 (talk) How do we know what's mainline? Everything is senseless 'cause there's no consensus. Opening us up to even more inconsistency would just make it harder to navigate and lead to pointless back-and-forth edits on what goes where.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) While it is a good idea, there's just too many unanswered questions. So sorry, but I have to change to oppose.
@SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA): I addressed some of the concerns about the Mario Maker (which implements 3D World in a sidescrolling format) and Run titles. Should this pass, it could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the Super Mario series. This is just the starting point. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:18, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
True, but only Mario Maker 2 implemented 3D World, and Run, from experience, has all the hallmarks of a NSMB game, whereas the Mario Maker games COULD be seen as related to the NSMB games due to having NSMBU as a game style, although they are a part of the same series as SMB, SMB3, & SMW. Otherwise that helps. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Basically, it's on Nintendo to sort this out, not us. We're just reflecting what the official sources say, in spite of any discrepancies that may occur. "Related" wouldn't mean putting it under the same heading (check here, for instance, has Captain Toad, Super Mario World 2, Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:25, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think it should be "separated" so much as covered in both places. I have a skeleton for the SMB series here and one for the 3D series here. Land and Maker are additional subseries, while Run is its own thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:28, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
The user subpages of those two series only add to the point why I think the section sorting is worth reconsidering, and that some disjointment on Nintendo's part shouldn't be a disqualifier to separating the 2D and 3D series. Super Mario RPG (talk) 14:32, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Look, my WIP Super Mario (franchise) rework does have 2D-3D seperation, but it's WIP, so it's not finished. It only so far has Mario Bros., Super Mario (series), & Wrecking Crew, but the Super Mario (series) bit is basically my main focus. I have Super Mario (series) into 2 sub-series based on the 2D-3D stuff and their shared names (no, the argument that the Super Mario name is the same for the 2D & 3D games doesn't work because the 2D games share the same Super Mario Bros. name, which I use for the 2D sub-series), while also splitting 2 sub-sub-series, Super Mario Land (because of the old ambiguity, the fact of a different shared name, Wario Land series, etc.) & NSMB (Different style from other games yet consistent within itself, objects from DS existing in Wii, DS & Wii objects existing in U, etc.). I could go on, but I don't want to bore anyone more than I probably already have. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:49, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Super Mario Land can't be a sub-series of Bros. because there's no "bros" in it, it's just Mario. (Granted, the same can be said about Special, but it's a blatant retool of SMB assets so it gets a pass.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Uhh, I listed it as a sub-series of Bros because it was listed with the Bros. games in the 30th anniversary celebration and onward. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:54, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Except that list wasn't referred to as "Super Mario Bros. games," that list was labeled "some 2D games Mario has appeared in." (It also missed a few, like NSMB2.) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
So? It shows that the Maker games & Run are part of the same series as SMB, SMW & NSMB. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 19:53, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
So this is not an example of an official source classifying the games in the same way this proposal suggests. The fact that this list includes Super Mario Land does not demonstrate that Super Mario Land is part of a specific subset of Super Mario games that includes Super Mario Bros. and excludes Super Mario 64. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 19:58, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
It proves that Super Mario Land is a mainline game, but that wasn't under question. The thing that was asked was why your list of Super Mario Bros. games, as a separate subseries, includes the Super Mario Land games as a sub-subseries. This source could also justify classifying the 3D games as a sub-subseries of the Super Mario Bros. subseries for exactly the same reason. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:05, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Ok. 1. this lists the Super Mario (Bros.) series. 2. The Super Mario sub-series (3D games) ARE listed here, but are separate due to recent official stuff. 3. The Super Mario Land games are listed as a sub-series to the Super Mario Bros. series (2D games) because, despite the different shared names, which are a reason of them being a sub-sub-series, ARE Super Mario Bros. games. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 20:14, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
The Super Mario Run notification is very specific in how it phrases its statement. Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first "side-scrolling entry" in the Super Mario Bros. series in 11 years. That specificity means that there could be entries in the Super Mario Bros. series which are not side-scrolling games, because otherwise there'd by no reason to specifically say "last side-scrolling entry". I believe these sources taken together could imply that at least some of the 3D games are Super Mario Bros. games, and that using "Super Mario Bros. subseries" to refer to the 2D platformers is not helpful. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 20:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
They are not "Super Mario Bros." games, Luigi isn't in them. Hard to be "Bros." without the Bros. (Though again, Special is the exception due to its watered-down nature). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:21, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Luigi is only in the (early) Super Mario Bros. games because of the 2-player mode. If Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2 had the possibility of a 2-player mode, then Luigi would obviously be added in those games (we know that Nintendo tried adding Luigi in Super Mario 64 but scrapped it due to difficulties with adding multiplayer). If we had to hard-gatekeep the Mario Land games out of the Super Mario Bros. subseries (even as a spinoff to it like Super Mario Maker and Super Mario Run, then logically, we should do the same with New Super Luigi U, which features no Mario at all (and since New Super Luigi U has been released at one point as a standalone game, and we've been counting campaigns like Bowser's Fury as official entries, I think that should count). To me, I think we should view the Land games, the Maker games, and Run at least as related games to the Bros. titles, since they feature basically the exact same kind of gameplay as any other Super Mario Bros. title. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 2, the USA version, is more different than Land 1 in terms of gameplay, yet we're counting it as an official entry. I don't think the Land games should be exempt purely because of something as superficial as "there's no Luigi in it". rend(talk)(edits) 06:14, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I mean, by virtue of all those games being Super Mario games, they (along with the 3D games) should be "related" to the Super Mario Bros. series by default, right? To distinguish "related" beyond that, deciding if a game is "related" to a subseries that it shares a larger series with anyway, feels a bit hair-splitting. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
The notification does also specifically say that Super Mario Bros. is a "series of side-scrolling action games", so to then say afterwards that Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first side-scrolling game in 11 years... I feel like their intent is pretty obvious here. I was an SMB series doubter for the longest time, but first with that quote in one of the interviews leading up to Wonder, and now with this notification in-game in Super Mario Run, it's definitely giving the impression that Nintendo considers Super Mario Bros. a sub-series. DrippingYellow (talk) 21:26, May 9, 2024 (EDT)
Well, it said "side-scrolling" games, & Maker is a game-maker game, while Run is like one of those auto levels but you have some control, so at that point we'll need at least one extra layer. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:25, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Maker and Run both have cameras that scroll to the side. That's the literal definition of "side-scrolling game". -- KOOPACONCARNE 09:51, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
(facepalm) It said "side-scrolling action games", which, yes, Maker & Run fit in, but both Maker & Run also fit under other categories, whilst this notification only specifies side-scrolling action games, NOT other categories of games OR games that mix categories (like Maker & Run). SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
But you admit that Run and Maker also fit the definition of "side-scrolling action games". Your idea that the classification excludes "games that mix categories" is not supported at all by the text of the notification. By that logic, would the minigames included in New Super Mario Bros. somehow disqualify it from the series too? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:35, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
No, because NSMB's minigames are not the main game. Maker being a game-maker game AND a side-scrolling game, or Run being an "automatic movement with some control" game, ARE the main game. The text of the notification ONLY says "side scrolling action game", but not anything else in terms of type of game. And I never said anything about games being disqualified, because of other official sources including games like NSMB, Maker, etc. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Indeed, the notification only says "side-scrolling action games", not "side-scrolling action games except those that also feature other elements". Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Has anyone considered that the reason they stated that "Super Mario Bros. Wonder is the first side-scrolling entry in the Super Mario Bros. series in 11 years", because they may consider Super Mario Run and the Super Mario Maker games as spinoffs to the Super Mario Bros. series? I mean, for comparison, Mario Party: The Top 100 and Mario Party Superstars only includes information from Mario Party 1-10, leaving out Mario Party Advance, Mario Party DS, Mario Party: Island Tour, Mario Party: Star Rush, and in Superstars's case, Super Mario Party; but these are all undoubtedly Mario Party games as well, with DS and Super in particular featuring the same basic gameplay as the first eight Mario Party titles. rend(talk)(edits) 10:07, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Well, Super Mario Bros. for NES is the first game in both the Super Mario Bros. series and the broader Super Mario series, so anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:16, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer That's one of the things I used for my Super Mario (series) sub-series split. Also, I don't think that this will affect Maker and Run's mainline status. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
You brought up this (which the second part of my reply was directed to), & as for the 1st part, I don't really remember what that was supposed to be directed to. Seems to be directed to one of the various things you said here, but it could've been for someone else. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
For the second part, I'm aware this proposal won't directly affect Maker and Run's mainline status, but Super Mario RPG said that this "could be a step toward a different proposal reconsidering their respective association to the Super Mario series", which is why I brought up that past proposal that tried to do exactly that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:04, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
"Anything only in the latter would be a "spinoff" of the former anyway, right?" By that logic, with the Mario Bros. beginning both the Mario Bros. series and the greater Mario franchise, shouldn't the entire mainline Mario series, being a "spinoff" of Mario Bros., all be merged under one "Mario (mainline series)" header? Not only is that an organizational mess, but Nintendo has never treated it as being such. While you could argue it was ambiguous before, I feel now that Nintendo has given us a very clear delineation of a separate "Super Mario Bros. series of side-scrolling action games" that excludes the Maker games and Super Mario Run (which were released in the 11 years between Wonder and "the last side-scrolling entry"). Let me emphasize: A series of side-scrolling action games, and this is a side-scrolling entry in the series of side-scrolling action games. It seems like a stretch of logic to infer from this that there could be non-side scrolling and/or non-action games in a side-scrolling action series. DrippingYellow (talk) 12:10, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Under the logic of the 1st 2 setences, we should merge all 4 franchises and all the series into 1 article! Also, for the last sentence, what about games that are both side-scrolling action games AND non-side-scrolling action games (like game-making or "automatic movement with some control" games)? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:24, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
If a game is a side-scrolling action game, it can't also be a non-side-scrolling action game, this isn't Schrödinger's game genre. Being able to make levels in the Maker games doesn't mean their side-scrolling action elements somehow don't exist. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I agree with you about the classification of the Super Mario Bros. series as part of the Super Mario series, my point was more that "spinoff" is a bit of a useless classification when we're dealing with sub-sub-series and what have you. However, I don't think we need to have a Super Mario Bros. series article separate from the main Super Mario series article, if that's what you're suggesting. I feel like the Mario Bros. example isn't really comparable because of how obviously untenable merging most of the franchise's distinct series into a single page would be. In my opinion, series contained within series shouldn't get articles, but series contained within franchises should. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
It could be considered a sub-series of DKC, due to its numerous similarities (& especially DKC2/DKL2 and DKC3/DKL3), and thus wouldn't deserve an article. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:34, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
A sub-series is a series contained within another series, not a related yet separate series, which is what DKL is. Compare Mario Tennis and Mario Golf - they're similar, related series of sports games developed by Camelot, but are separate as neither can be said to contain the other. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:39, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
And yet Mario Golf & Golf are part of the same overall series, which has to do with golf, and all the sports games are all part of the same overall sports series. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 12:41, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Good point, but I still think it's a stretch to call them part of the same series, and that doesn't seem to be the wiki's current interpretation, with the Mario Golf (series) article referring to the "previous Golf series", and much like with DKC and DKL, "leading to" doesn't necessarily mean "containing" (though admittedly some kind of re-evaluation of the golf games might be in order since Nintendo seems to consider Japan Course and US Course as Mario Golf games). Anyway, to return to the topic of the Super Mario series, I still don't think there's any sub-series that need splits here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:19, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I never said that DKC LEAD TO DKL, but DKC2 is almost the same as DKL2, and same with DKC3 & DKL3. Also, what do other people think concerning "there's any sub-series that need splits here"? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 13:23, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Uh, I thought we were in agreement that DKC led to DKL, that much at least seems inarguable (Donkey Kong Land (series) article tells us "The series is based on the Donkey Kong Country series"). I just don't think that makes DKL a "sub-series" of DKC, but rather a related series, since neither series contains the other. But I digress. Anyway, this quite recent proposal dealt with splitting sub-series, and it failed by quite a margin. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I never said DKC led to DKL. All I was saying was that DKC2/3 are basically the same as DKL2/3. As for that linked proposal, see my comments on that proposal. Also there are other contributions I made that are still "current", so anyone (including you) needs to reply so that they can keep going. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Ah, wait, I think I misunderstood the proposal at first. Is this basically an extension of the proposal to get rid of "franchise" headings, to be able to separate the SMB games and other Super Mario games into different places in the History section? DrippingYellow (talk) 14:45, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
The comments have strayed off-topic a bit but yeah, I think so. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:23, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think that would work since the Super Mario Bros. series would be regarded as a part of the Super Mario mainline series. Meaning that the Super Mario Bros. series would be listed under a subheader of the Super Mario series alongside Super Mario 64, Super Mario 3D World and the like. I had thought that this was what Super Mario RPG was aiming for, instead of putting the 3D game headers in different places like you seem to be suggesting what he's talking about, since, well, the Super Mario 3D games are also mainline games, but not the same as the sidescrollers. What I was thinking would allow the Bros. games to be listed together and still be listed among the 3D titles at the same time. But if what you're suggesting is what Super Mario RPG actually wanted... well that's probably just as bad, if not worse, than removing the franchise headers, as it effs up the organizing even further (because, again, the 3D Super Mario titles are just as mainline as the sidescroller ones). rend(talk)(edits) 12:39, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Move Super Mario Odyssey kingdom infobox brochure info to Brochure details section and use the generic course infobox for Odyssey kingdom articles
Template:ProposalOutcome
It is strange that, while infoboxes for courses in Super Mario 64 or Galaxy feature useful data for players (like missions and comets for galaxy articles), we don't have any of that type of info in the Odyssey Kingdom infobox (such as number of Power Moons, number of regional coins and bosses). The infobox template for Odyssey kingdoms include just the brochure data, like population and industry, but, since that is fictional and irrelevant data, we should move it to the kingdom article's brochure details section, as it is just brochure data.
I propose:
Moving the current kindom infobox (centered on brochure info: kingdom and location taglines, population, size, locals, currency, industry and temperature) to the Brochure details section. The kingdom tagline could be displayed as the quote at the top of the article as well.
Use the course infobox instead for the opening of the article, as that is already used for the 3D games' courses and galaxies without distinction.
Adding info for the number of Power Moons and number of regional coins into the course infobox template.
In order to maintain the layout of the Brochure details sections intact, we could make the kingdom infobox into a horizontal box like so:
Horizontal box idea
Cap Kingdom "Home of Tradition, Propriety, and Hats"
Bonneton "A land of haberdashed dreams."
Population
Middling
Size
Smallish
Locals
Bonneters
Currency
Hat-shaped
Industry
Hats, Airships
Temperature
Average 71°F (22°C)
Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk) Deadline: May 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT
LadySophie17 (talk) I like the infobox as it is. It's charming and harmless. If necessary, we could just add the relevant info like number of Power Moons, Regional Coins and following/preceding kingdoms to the template itself.
Comments
Actually, given that the brochure infobox's info is already displayed in a similar table in the brochures in-game, wouldn't it be a good idea to simply just move the kingdom infobox to the article's brochure details section, instead of removing the infobox altogether? That would be the simplest way to move all the info to that section and keep both the kingdom tagline and area tagline neatly in the brochure where it already belongs in-game, instead of separating it to the top of the page. The course infobox can still take the kingdom infobox's initial placement on the article, it's not like we haven't had articles with multiple infoboxes before. rend(talk)(edits) 20:27, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I think I'd prefer that too. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:38, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I guess, but that would mess up the layout used in the brochure details sections, which I personally think looks pretty nice and clean the way it is, which is why I didn't consider it (unless we made the box horizontal). You think it is worth it? Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 21:00, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
You've got a point there. Maybe we could try to revamp the infobox to be horizontal so it wouldn't have to mess up the layout. rend(talk)(edits) 22:59, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
I updated it and kept the box as you suggested. If you have any ideas on how to improve it, please let me know. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 23:32, May 10, 2024 (EDT)
Looks great! I'd probably set the colspan for the Kingdom name/area name/taglines to 4 instead of 2 so it would look nice in 4:3 screens (i.e. iPad), and I'd probably try to keep the styles that the infobox had as much as possible (e.g. with the dark khaki border and area tagline), but it's perfectly serviceable regardless. rend(talk)(edits) 07:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
All right. I'm not sure about coloring the area tagline though. I was the one who edited the original kingdom box to give it its current colors, and I regret coloring the text. I did it only because that's how it looks in the in-game brochure. For a wiki article, that looks kinda tacky and pointless, in my opinion. But I don't know, we can see that later, and I'd rather not keep editing the box here. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 19:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I should probably note though, that all Super Mario Sunshine courses (e.g. Sirena Beach, Pinna Park) appear to use the location infobox instead of the course infobox. Would that also have to be changed (or at least determined via another proposal)? rend(talk)(edits) 17:50, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
I'd change them as well, but, since I hadn't realized that until making this proposal, I guess this doesn't cover them. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 19:39, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Trim Mario Kart course galleries of excess Tour stuff
Template:ProposalOutcome
Take a look at the gallery section of any Mario Kart race course that has been featured in Mario Kart Tour, and you will find the majority of the gallery is filled with a ton of mostly-identical images of the course "icons" with various playable characters superimposed on them. Why? Why is this necessary, what positive purpose does this provide to the reader? Take Wii Mushroom Gorge for example. The gallery contains seventeen duplicates of the same three screenshots of the course, each with a different stock artwork of a character on top of it. SNES Mario Circuit 1 has thirty of them. Tour New York Minute has forty-five, which probably contributed to the page lagging as it loaded for me. This is really excessive and they don't need to be there. Nothing is gained by the reader from seeing the same screenshot with a different stock artwork over them. I propose we remove these and only leave ONE version of each icon. (IE for Mushroom Gorge, only three four icons would remain)
Proposer: Shadow2 (talk) Deadline: May 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
Ahemtoday (talk) Unpopular, but I'm backing this. I really don't see what these images accomplish that, say, a textual list of characters that have been pictured on the course icon couldn't. And when I say that out loud, it sounds like unusefully nitpicky information to include, so I'm really not sure why we're dedicating swathes of the gallery to it. To be honest, if we can get the course icons with no character on them whatsoever, I'd rather put those on the pages than just picking one of the character course icons.
Glowsquid (talk) After seeing the Kanaami Road page that was pointed out in the comments - yeah. If, for whatever reason, someone wants to read which Mario characters had their mug featured on a given Mario Kart Tour course, a textual list does not actually lose information.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per Glowsquid. It is not "encyclopedic" to uncritically amass assets. I feel like it even degrades the quality of one's reference material.
Mario (talk) Appears that proposal does try to accommodate for reservations we have so I think we're good to go. The example provided by Ahemtoday did push me to support this.
Hooded Pitohui (talk) Per proposal and per Glowsquid in particular. I'm a preservationist at heart, and I do like the idea of having all of these assets somewhere, but Glowsquid has a point that a textual list doesn't lose relevant information here.
Ray Trace (talk) I'd argue that even with a beefy processor that will magically just load the entire gallery section without issues, having a seemingly endless amount of 256x256 images that are practically all the same except there is a different stock artwork of a character on the front is a ginormous chore to sift through and arguably not even important information that is worth it at all for the effort to scroll through, overall hindering wiki usability (this is not something we should gatekeep for lower-end users).. I understand "interesting" is a subjective term, but pray tell me, is it really worth it extending pages and causing performance issues on our browsers for our readers? Is this something our readers come to our wiki for? What illustrative purpose is it for Mario Circuit 1 to have an extensive gallery comprising of exact same pictures, except there is stock art of Peach here instead of Mario? In fact, I think in general, our galleries are a bit overextensive to begin with (I don't think we need to document literally everything but the kitchen sink in our game articles), superceding the entire purpose of our image categories. As for being "buried in the wiki" (which is a far stretch, none of those course icons are orphaned pages and have extensive coverage) I really fail to see how keeping, say this course icon for DK Pass R separate from being compiled into an all-in-one gallery and used where the context is actually appropriate (for example, it's used in the Baby Luigi Cup, Frost Tour, Holiday Tour (2019), and Snow Tour articles, a far cry from being "buried in the depths of the wiki) is an issue in the first place.
Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal--these icons are already on the tour articles where they're relevant, so having all of these variations on the courses' galleries is a bit overkill. It'd be one thing if they were in a gallery subpage, but just on the articles itself...? ADDITION FROM THE FUTURE: Per Glowsquid and especially Ray Trace; these images are already on other articles where they are far more relevant, and we shouldn't be prohibiting people stuck with 6GB of RAM or Chromebooks from accessing the wiki in favor of "the same image but instead of Captain Toad in the bottom right with a white outline, there's Yellow Yoshi (Kangaroo) in the bottom right with a white outline" repeated ad-infinitum. Just because you can load it just fine doesn't mean that it's fine for others, and a wiki shouldn't have a recommended system requirements that's larger than a web browser's.
ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons (I'm mentioning this in the support reasoning to bring attention to it). The wiki can keep its absurdly large Spriters Resource-esque collection of course icons without looking like a blemish on text-based articles.
Hewer (talk) What? It's relevant information that has every reason to be there, it not being that interesting to most is a very bad reason to single it out and remove it at the expense of the wiki's comprehensiveness, and I have no idea what the problem is with galleries having all the relevant images. Removing stuff just because you aren't interested in it feels short-sighted and way too slippery a slope.
Koopa con Carne (talk) They're relevant to their pages. I don't think it's the fan encyclopedia that should take the blame for their excessiveness.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. If there's too many images in the gallery, that's what making a gallery subpage is for.
Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't see any reason why the images shouldn't stay.
Arend (talk) A gallery is the best place for preserving images like these. That Nintendo made an excessive amount of course icon variants that each feature a different (compatible) character, is not our fault.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I don't particularly like them, but outright across-the-board deletion of actual sprite-based game assets is an absolute no-no.
YoYo (talk) If this was to pass, then I can raise the argument of other galleries with similar images needing the same treatment. When does it become "too much"? when is a gallery of images that are already about the same thing suddenly become obnoxious? its entirely subjective, and a definite definition would muddle a lot of pages up. All i see here is "I want to remove them because I don't like them." - zero convenience is made here, but a lot of inconvenience is. Per all.
Comments
Changing our vote to an abstain, and figure we should ask--would it be too much to ask for a move to make gallery subpages/split these off to those over a full removal from the galleries? We don't think these should be anywhere near the main article, but we do think that a gallery subpage is a perfect fit. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 15:58, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
What's wrong with them being on the main page, exactly? I feel like separate gallery pages for them would probably be a bit too small to be tenable, and I'm unsure what harm they're doing being treated like all the other images. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:44, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
Mainly performance, as the original proposal briefly mentioned--Tour New York Minute's excessive number of these icons caused our Firefox to genuinely lag upon loading that article. When it gets to the point where an article starts to have a noticeable pause in loading in because of the size of the gallery, we think it's only fair to at least consider moving the bulk of the images to a gallery subpage. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 19:59, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
Fair enough, but it ought to still be on a case-by-case basis. New York Minute could be argued to have a problem, but that's probably more because of how many variants it's got (between 1, 2, 3, 4, and the R, T, and R/T versions of each, plus B), and other courses seem to have more reasonable numbers, like GBA Peach Circuit's eight. So I don't think they all need to get their galleries split necessarily (not sure what the cutoff point would be though). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:21, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, some articles definitely don't have it as bad when it comes to these icons causing loading problems. Still, we should probably be less afraid to split off track galleries if they get quite that large in the future--though, that statement is bordering on being unrelated to this proposal entirely, so... Make of that what you will, we suppose? ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 21:02, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
"(IE for Mushroom Gorge, only three icons would remain)" Why only three? Doesn't Mushroom Gorge have four versions (normal, R, T, and R/T), like (almost) every other course in Mario Kart Tour? And I wouldn't know which one you want to leave out: we've got to keep at least one version of the normal variant, R versions and T versions are somewhat on the same level, and not only is R/T the most different out of all of them, but there's only one icon for that one too. rend(talk)(edits) 18:01, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
As Arend (talk) said, I am inclined to agree with the proposal if it is changed so that we keep one icon for each version of a course. Additionally, I'd like some clarification on where the cut images would go, as I don't want them to just be lost in the depths of the Wiki. — Lady Sophie(T|C) 20:49, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
Even if they were to be removed from course articles, they'd still be used on tour articles, such as New York Tour, to act as visual aids in their course listings. -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Oh, I may have made a mistake there. But yes, the point would be for one icon for each course. Shadow2 (talk) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer @Koopa con Carne , what exactly is the "relevant information" being presented to the reader? "This image has Mario on it, this one is the exact same but it has Luigi on it." Okay? What's the point? To me, this is on a similar level to uploading every individual sprite in Mario's walk cycle. They're different, they're from the game, but they're not important enough on their own to convey any useful information to the reader, compared to actual screenshots which DO present useful information. Shadow2 (talk) 21:30, May 11, 2024 (EDT)
That's still information, and as I said in my vote, "I don't like this information and find it boring so let's just remove it" is an extremely slippery slope and goes against the point of the site as being a comprehensive encyclopedia about the franchise. Who are we to decide what's "useful information to the reader"? Someone might well be curious to know what characters were used for Yoshi Circuit's icons, I don't think it's that unreasonable. For the Mario walking sprite thing, we've got GIFs to accomplish that. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I find I'm getting tired of people just stating that I want something removed "because I don't like it", when I provide reasoning for why it shouldn't be there in the first place (Excessive, does not provide information). That kind of argument only serves to devalue my own argument, and I do not appreciate it. Furthermore, I would like to ask again what "information" is being presented with these? I have never played Mario Kart Tour, so I don't know WHAT these icons denote. There is no information about them. All I see as a reader is an excessive amount of repeated images with different characters on them. What does that MEAN? As you quoted below "a picture is worth a thousand words", but not in this case because these images do not provide information on their own. The caption says "The course icon with Daisy (Farmer)" ...Okay? What does this mean? Shadow2 (talk) 15:53, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
What I'm trying to get at is that there is nothing objectively wrong about the inclusion of these images, since they constitute valid, relevant information, so the only arguments for their removal are that they're subjectively excessive and repetitive (i.e. boring), and I don't agree that that's a good enough reason to remove stuff. There being "too much" information to cover shouldn't be a factor in whether we cover it, we're trying to be comprehensive. What's uninteresting to you, or even to most, might not be uninteresting to everyone. As for what information they provide, you pretty much already identified it: what the icons look like, and what characters are shown on the icons for each course. Perhaps not very exciting, but valid, relevant information nonetheless. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I would like to request that you stop assuming my intentions in a manner that attempts to belittle my side of the argument. I am not suggesting we remove these just because "I don't like them", I have provided reasoning for why multiple times. I am not suggesting we remove information "because I find it boring". There is plenty of "boring" information on this site that I do not care about, but my argument is that there is no information in these images. A screenshot of a Mario Kart course provides at least some insight as to what parts of the course look like. While this can be accomplished by leaving one MKT icon per course variant, there is no additional information to be provided because this picture has Luigi instead of Mario. WHY does it have Luigi instead of Mario? Likewise, the List of Daily Challenges you presented absolutely has information, but there is none here. I have asked multiple times for you to explain what information these images present, but you have not done so. Rather, instead of denying my arguments, I would like to hear a specific reason why you think they should stay, then maybe we can get somewhere... Shadow2 (talk) 18:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Looks heated a bit. Proceed with the discussion but let's keep cool and assume good faith, okey dokey? Not directed at either Shadow or Hewer, just making a general statement. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:20, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
What are you talking about? I ended my last comment by telling you the information there is here: what the icons look like, and what characters are shown on the icons for each course. Perhaps not very exciting, but valid, relevant information nonetheless. If your argument is that there is no information, then it's simply a wrong argument. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:42, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"This image has Mario", "This image has Luigi" is not information, those are descriptors. I have asked at least four or five times across this proposal for someone to explain to me what these images mean, and why they have different characters on them. Nobody has answered this question. Does nobody actually know? Or, even worse, is there no actual meaning behind the images at all? That is the "information" I am talking about. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Been wanting to let someone on the other side answer this, but if nobody's biting, I'm familiar enough with Mario Kart Tour's mechanics to do so. It is as you fear — the characters on the course icons have no direct relevance themselves. There are correlations to mechanically-relevant factors (each character on an icon for a course is one with it as a "favorite course", and one of the tracks in a character-themed cup will depict that character; with both favorite courses and character cups having gameplay effects), but the icons are never a determinant of anything — those mechanics apply regardless of the character depicted. Ahemtoday (talk) 01:15, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't remember anyone arguing anything about how the characters shown are determined, so that's quite the strawman. I don't see how it really changes anything either way in this debate. And @Shadow2, which characters are on the icons objectively is information, no idea why you're refusing to accept that fact. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:11, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I didn't really mean to bring up how the characters are determined as any kind of rebuttal — I only really brought it up for the sake of completeness, since it is a little more gameplay-relevant than just being completely random. You're right that it doesn't really matter, though. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Fine then, what useful information do they provide? The number of stitches visible in Mario's overalls in Super Smash Bros. Melee would be classified by your definition as "information", but we don't include it because it's not useful. And as @Ahemtoday has just explained above, there is no useful information in these extra icons. The only useful information is the one single view of each course. A duplicate of the same image with Luigi instead of Mario provides no further useful information and thus should not take up space uselessly. Shadow2 (talk) 19:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I feel like "useless information" and similar arguments have been countered countless times at this point, but basically whether it's "useful" is subjective and isn't up to us to decide, what's important is that it's valid information and we should be presenting it in the best way possible in case a reader is interested. Anyone who wants to know the number of stitches on Mario's overalls can go and count, just as anyone who wants to know what characters were used to represent the courses in Mario Kart Tour can look at the images to find out. You don't decide what is and isn't "useful" for readers, you don't know what they're looking for and they may be interested in what you aren't. And the images don't really "take up space" in any sense (before you say "loading times" or similar, again, we can just split the galleries like we always do). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:24, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
The Mushroom Gorge icons are relevant to the Mushroom Gorge article because they are Mushroom Gorge icons. 🧐 -- KOOPACONCARNE 05:37, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
In the past we've removed uploads for being excessive, character information for being esoteric or off-puttingly detailled, trivia sections for posting blunt statement of facts that are overly specific or don't have any greater point. Our own good writing guidelines page warn about going overboad on details and while it's specifically about page writing, the same philosophy could be extended to uploads and when "comprehensive" becomes too much. I'm not saying not necessarily that's the case for these icons here (though I would likely vote in favour if the ammendments Sophie suggested above were made) but we've in fact cut information before for being uninteresting/useless/irrelevant. --Glowsquid (talk) 12:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I feel those good writing guidelines are more about condensing information, moving details to more appropriate places, and not reading between the lines about characters' personalities and the like to pad articles with, than they are about completely throwing out relevant information like this. If they actually are meant to be saying "feel free to not cover stuff and completely remove relevant information if you think it's boring", then I disagree with that. I'd rather cover the whole franchise (which is the point of the encyclopedia) than only covering most of it and removed what we subjectively deem to be excessive. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:27, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
"One icon for each version of the course" was what I intended with this proposal, but I may have worded it poorly. (And I miscounted how many versions of Mushroom Gorge there were) Shadow2 (talk) 15:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Food for thought, but am not going to engage in extensive argument: Following similar line of reasoning we removed these sprites from Mario's gallery page[2] and the overall idea of what content to show and what content to omit on the wiki: I don't believe these points address the criticism being made. If information is available, it doesn't mean we must document it; this is why we try to limit quotes on our pages, cut down on the face sprites for favored tour courses, remove these thumbnails of Mario from the Mario page and we don't place every screenshot of Mario we have in Mario's gallery or upload every single sprite animation Luigi has in Dream Team. Following opposition's logic we would have to readd/keep these images on Mario's gallery[3]; it's an extreme example but IMO it illustrates the questionable necessity of these images. Game developers create these thumbnails to illustrate a game's interface, so they probably have to vary it by imposing stock art of characters over backgrounds. By no means we as a wiki should follow suit and try to serve as an asset dump for this information especially when these assets are repetitive (unlike, say, the swath of sprites from Miracle Book, though one could question from a copyright angle the necessity of all these assets but that's another topic all together) and serve to interfere with the usability of this wiki through loading times. Every Tour page I've came across (such as Cat Tour (2022) as only one example among many) is severely bogged down by all these images that are placed in table to replicate the game UI, which is not appropriate use of table in my opinion. I do support the spirit of this proposal but we need to keep probably just one example of a thumbnail each rather than throw it all out, and from the discussion I linked early in my comment, some thumbnails may contain useful hints. I do think we should be deleting the images too after they're removed from the pages, and information relevant to the image (like if Builder Toadette on a T variant of Ghost Valley thumbnail is a required or favorited character) should just be already shown in a table. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 12:28, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think those are very good examples, in those cases we weren't completely erasing the images, just removing them from places they were less relevant (and in the case of the face sprites thing, those weren't even galleries and the sprites were just replaced with text for better load times, whereas the purpose of a gallery section/page is to show relevant images). Deleting the images and then putting information about them in tables also seems pointless, a picture is worth a thousand words. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
>"let's use conjectural titles instead of official ones because readers or something" >"let's remove icons from historical records because readability or too utilitarian or something" Yeeeaaaah, I don't like where this is going. There's this recent sentiment that users should be able to mould official material and information to create a more preferable image for the wiki at the expense of its encyclopedic mission. -- KOOPACONCARNE 17:33, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
To play a bit of devil's advocate, we feel like if you wanted to really point to concurrent proposals signifying an odd pattern in proposals about not covering things as written in favor of what people want, we feel like the proposal about treating the Paper versions of characters as though they're entirely separate from their non-Paper equivalents in some 2007-esque "Extended Marioverse" nonsense is probably far more important on that end than "should we remove 27 roughly-identical icons on the Mushroom Gorge article, or move those to like, a side-gallery or something." ;P ~Camwoodstock(talk) 17:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Personally, I think the pattern of "Let's remove and non-standardize franchise headers in the History section" (e.g. separate and spread the Yoshi game, DK games and Wario games away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's separate the Super Mario Bros. sidescroller games from the Super Mario 3D games" (aka separate and spread the 3D Super Mario titles away from each other in the History sections) to "Let's treat The Super Mario Bros. Movie as an installment of the Super Mario game series" is a relatedly worrisome weird pattern in proposals, one that could throw organization of History sections in disarray in the hypothetical of them all passing. Granted, these are all from the same person, so it might not mean that much... rend(talk)(edits) 18:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@Camwoodstock @Arend My criticism wasn't aimed at particular proposals or their authors, but the prevailing sentiment among a number of editors here that just happened to surface in proposal-adjacent discussions. I'd like if we didn't backhandedly single out one or two people on the basis of how popular or unpopular their perspective is. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:19, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Oh okay, sorry. I was just pointing out an observation I had, based on what Camwoodstock was saying, it wasn't meant as a personal attack to Super Mario RPG. In the end, it was kinda irrelevant to your worries. rend(talk)(edits) 18:43, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
@Arend While my response is a bit of a digression from this proposal, I wanted to say that I am accepting the fact that the three proposals are failing (one of mine I even ended opposing, the Super Mario movie. I was suggested that if one doesn't think a strong enough case for a proposal, then talk page discussion, in the case of the films.) When you listed the Icicle article on the franchise proposal, I reinstated the organization by franchise on that article (for Yoshi, though I can do Donkey Kong too, just had reserves over Diddy Kong Racing being an actual Donkey Kong game, due to Diddy being used in it as a licensed character), and some other pages that I'm finding along the way. Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:53, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
"let's remove from historical records [...] encyclopedic mission." I find it curious to invoke a notion of "being encyclopedic" as an argument for keeping anything and everything because that's the opposite of real encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are curated. Encyclopedias are condensed. Encyclopedias shorten quotes, obmit events and historical figures. They are selective in what they write about and what they include. You're never going to see a real encyclopedia advertise itself as listing the name of literally every single person known to be involved in World War II or including every photos know to have been taken in relation to the Nuremberg Trials. Knowing what to leave out is as important to any encyclopedia as defining what to include. Digital hoarding is not necessarily "encyclopedic". --Glowsquid (talk) 19:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I feel as though people are considering this a video game history archive, which is not this site's purpose. If people are concerned about preserving these course icons now that the game is shut down, it doesn't need to be here on this site. (@Arend) Shadow2 (talk) 22:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
The wiki does, in fact, double as an archive and this proposal is contrary to that. -- KOOPACONCARNE 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
This proposal is about either removing these from the galleries of the course articles or simply splitting the galleries off so they don't bloat the track articles--not deleting the images outright (since those will still be on the articles for the corresponding tours as-is). The only thing that'd be "deleted" (by some definition of the word) are the various gallery entries in the most extreme scenario. Call this "pedantic" if you so desire. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 02:19, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I have no reason to call you pedantic. Don't know why people got so offended by my use of that word. -- KOOPACONCARNE 02:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Please inform me where my proposal says we will be deleting images off of the wiki entirely. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
It doesn't, but it does hinder the wiki's presentation of them (and also some supporters seem to want a total deletion to happen). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Glowsquid A pedantic response with a dishonest premise. If this was a real honest-to-god curated encyclopedia sold in stores, there wouldn't be a page on the history of Mario detailing every single one of his roles throughout his franchise; there wouldn't be entire gameplay sections on game articles detailing every single one of their mechanics and quirks; and there certainly wouldn't be entire repositories of images pertaining to only one character. Tell me how any of that looks curated to you or how keeping a bunch of similar course icons on an article is somehow contrary to the spirit I had just described. Until now I have barely, if ever, seen an instance where this site omitted valid information (or material), no matter how inessential, for the purposes of condensing itself. Relocating said info/material, yes; removing off-putting fancruft, that's reasonable; but never in my entire experience has someone gone "you know what, Mario has too many appearances in games, we should delete the Mario Tennis sections because encyclopedias are meant to be condensed or something"--although the way things are going I can see this happen at some point. -- KOOPACONCARNE 01:09, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I am being "pedantic and dishonest" because that's the framing you choose to use. The wiki is not subject to the exact same limitation as print encyclopedia but it still curates and condenses for reasons of legally, because server space isn't cheap or unlimited, and because on some level, people do want curation on some level even if they disagree on the specifics. Otherwise nobody would be using the stuffy and highly curated Wikipedia in favour of Everything Wiki and its lack of notability requirement for page creation.
When we have pages on Rhythm Heaven Megamix and Rhythm Heaven Fever but only really talk about those games in how they related to the WarioWare games, we are being selective. Someone could argue that the WarioWare and Rhythm Heaven fictional universes are joined at the hip and that we are failing in the wiki's mission to chronicle everything about the Mario (and related IPs) games by not giving Rhythm Heaven full coverage. Are we?
When we decide to not talk about fan games, remixes, cosplay et cetera detail, one could argue this stuff is equally as vital to illustrating Mario's breadth and influence as a cultural property and that sticking to only the officially-endorsed stuff is regretable. Indeed, people have passionately argued that in and outside the site! We still ultimately decide to curate and set limits on what kind of Mario stuff the website talks about.
When we deleted our individual, long-standing pages about Smash Bros characters, items, game mechanics etc and condensed them into list or removed those, we decided to exert curation. Some could argue having separate pages on all that stuff served an encyclopedic and archival purpose. Many people did.
Point is the wiki is plenty selective and "incomplete" in what it chooses to cover and how it present its information. That is not a new development on an overeach, Framing the opposing stance on this issue as a lamebrained "Well we shouldn't because uhhhhhhhhhhh encyclopedia are meant to be short" is making a strawman. There are legitimate arguments against hosting all those images as we are - that the content is objectively repetitive (the same PNG overlaid with different low-res PNGs that are already included in their complete form elsewhere on the wiki) and only one instance is needed to illustate the information, that it drops the signal-to-noise ratio of those page's galleries by clumping unique images that illustrate different aspects of its subject with what is effectively the same picture repeated 60+ times. That it legitimately impairs the browsing experience (load time and data caps). You may disagree those considerations are worth considering but I reject any attempt to liken that to "Well we shouldn't remove the section about Mario Party 7 because encyclopedias are short lul".
I also disagree with the idea the wiki is meant to be an archive instead of a ressource and that being selective in what we host is a overeach. Certainly we are very comprehensive in hosting models and artwork, but if someone were to upload every individual texture, sound effects and UV maps for Super Mario 64 (and Sunshine, and Odyssey), would deleting that stuff both because of the legality of it and because on some level, too much is to much, be failing that mission? --Glowsquid (talk) 08:59, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Don't really know where Rhythm Heaven, Smash Bros, and fan games (????) come into play, seems like you're building a strawman of your own. Those very clearly have less relevance to the wiki than an official Mario game and are being tackled appropriately at present. On the other hand, the Mario Kart Tour icons come from a(n official, not fan-made) Mario-branded game and they feature Mario characters and courses in them--and deserve to be documented on an individual basis because they're discrete assets in an official title, as opposed to frames in a sprite. The "server space" argument is also kinda blown out because each icon takes, on average, less than 100KB, and if each is rounded up to that size, they'd amount to 2350x100=235000KB=235MB. All of these icons occupy 5 times less than 1 GB! Yes, I'm gonna liken the opposition's arguments to "let's cut down on information because of some arbitrary reason" because that's exactly what it is. The sheer volume of uploads and information relevant to the Mario franchise are a result of the size of its success and size--take your woes to Nintendo, not the ones who document it. -- KOOPACONCARNE 09:43, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
What's your stance on the current state of Kanaami Road? It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 10:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I honestly think that the article is fine, it just needs its gallery split due to the amount of images. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 10:53, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think it's terribly useful to show the subject from so many different angles and in so many settings, so the Kanaami Road page could use some trimming. But my point in support of these icons' usefulness isn't that they're different enough from each other to show new information individually, it's that they deserve to be grouped somewhere specific rather than just scattered across tour pages, and since they're designated to specific courses (e.g. in-game, the Mario Circuit icon is coupled with the "Mario Circuit" label on the course selection), the most readily available place for that purpose are course pages. I just don't see the harm in doing so and I think the situation is way overblown especially seeing as these icons, even collectively, occupy an almost insignificant amount of space on the server. If loading times become an issue and one gets extremely impatient waiting 5 seconds for the New York Minute page to load, just split the whole gallery into its own page like it's been done with hundreds of articles. -- KOOPACONCARNE 11:25, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Worth noting that Category:Mario Kart Tour track icons has all of these grouped and organized alphabetically by course, so it would still be somewhere on-site if someone really wants to see that, at least. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 11:49, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
"they're different enough from each other to show new information individually". What information do they provide? As a casual reader, I look at these and do not understand what these images are, and why Mario is on one while Luigi is on another. Shadow2 (talk) 00:58, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
You may want to read that whole sentence again. -- KOOPACONCARNE 02:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Right you are, I accept fault in that question lmao... Shadow2 (talk) 19:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Koopa con Carne I say this respectfully and in good faith, and I am not signaling you out, as it seems that a few active users share the same sentiment. However, the "spirit" behind that comment bothers me. If readability does not matter, what is the point of having a wiki? What is our purpose? Who is this for?
I was a nerdy child. I grew up reading encyclopedias and there are quite a few behind me as I type this. All of these books were curated. They were made to be read. It is not inherently unencyclopedic to make curatorial choices on Super Mario Wiki, and if anything it is an inherent component of the craft.
It also feels disingenuous to how things actually function on Super Mario Wiki. If folks were not making curatorial decisions and just amassing assets for a depository, we would have no need for writing guidelines, policies, proposals, etc. - Nintendo101 (talk) 21:35, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
See my response to Glowsquid. -- KOOPACONCARNE 01:21, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I did. To be honest, I am a bit taken aback by how unkind it was, especially to another active user.
The only reason why Glowsquid, myself, or anyone else would touch upon encyclopedias is because that is the language you yourself have invoked here and in the past, so I am not sure how it is "dishonest". Proper reference material like encyclopedias are products of discrimination, curation, and interpretation, regardless of topic. To employ the same framework here on Super Mario Wiki is not inherently "unencyclopedic" or at the "expense of an encyclopedic mission".
I think well of your efforts on the wiki. I would appreciate it if you engaged with these comments with similar care. - Nintendo101 (talk) 02:18, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
There wasn't anything unkind in my message. I did not insult his person, I merely addressed his argument. It's pedantic because it tries to lecture a proper definition of encyclopedias whilst being dishonest for ignoring all the other inherent aspects of this wiki that do not fulfill that definition. Actual encyclopedias are expressly defined as summations of many kinds of information, sure, but Mario Wiki (being an online encyclopedia) hasn't got all the strictures and trappings of one, and has proven to afford going into much more detail and use that power to document and archive virtually all official aspects of the Mario franchise. To argue that it should be distorted to fit the mould of real encyclopedias is plainly arbitrary and I'm concerned it will be further used as an excuse to trim detailed information that is otherwise observant to the wiki's current guidelines. -- KOOPACONCARNE 02:29, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
As a clarification, I don't support placing information or material anywhere with reckless abandon and having no concern as to where it's actually relevant. To me, that ought to be subject to curation--I'm a stickler for organization and endeavor to make content read and display well, so I understand where you're coming from. I'm just arguing that said material should still exist somewhere on the site rather than being outright removed. -- KOOPACONCARNE 02:39, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I'd like to point out that the Kanaami Road article has only one of these images per course. If we're really not drawing a line anywhere, then that article has to go up from an already massive 248 course icons to — and yes, I counted — eight hundred and ninety-three. I would not consider it a failure of the wiki's coverage to not have every course icon on the articles in the same way I do not consider it a failure that the Kanaami Road article does not have 893 images on it. (It isn't lost on me that the only reason I could get that number is because the course icons were on this wiki, though, so I am in favor of having them somewhere.) Ahemtoday (talk) 19:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
If we may go exceedingly not-formal for a moment... HOW IN THE HECK HAS THAT NOT AT THE VERY LEAST BEEN SPLIT OFF INTO ITS OWN GALLERY.~Camwoodstock(talk) 20:54, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, regardless of my stance comcerning the course galleries, the chainlink road gallery's got enough images to get its own gallery page, whether it's nearly 250 icons or nearly 900. rend(talk)(edits) 21:40, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
The Mario gallery doesn't have every single screenshot on the wiki that happens to feature Mario in it, just enough to illustrate him in different media. By that standard, it seems reasonable to trim the Kanaami Road gallery down by a lot. --Too Bad!WaluigiTime! 22:32, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I am baffled as to why the Kanaami Road article is suddenly being used as some kind of deciding factor in favour of this proposal when it's not even affected by it. This proposal is specifically about cutting down on these icons in course galleries, so not Kanaami Road. The images won't be deleted since they're still used on the wiki elsewhere to represent the courses, so the only thing that comes out of us doing this is that we lose the complete, organised galleries in favour of forcing readers to hunt down the images scattered throughout the wiki themselves. The loading times, which are the only shred of harm caused by these (and really aren't even that bad, at least not for me), aren't a good enough reason to completely axe content. At most they're a reason to split these into their own gallery pages per MarioWiki:Article size. Kanaami Road's article perhaps having an excessive gallery feels like a bit of a strawman argument since it has no real bearing on the galleries this proposal is about. We can trim that gallery if we want, like what was done with the Mario gallery as mentioned above, but in no way is that a justification to completely remove the galleries of these images on the course pages where they couldn't be more relevant. If we were allowed to just throw out perfectly fine content because we thought it was somehow "too much" information, the wiki would be in trouble. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:51, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Then why do we even have galleries at all, when categories can do the same job? Why don't we trash all our galleries and leave the readers to go looking for a category if they want to see the images? Answer: because galleries get to be more neatly organised and easier to navigate. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:36, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I love galleries, but the ones for some (definitely not all) of these Tour courses are so large and similar to one another that they do not even feel like galleries. They are just as hard to navigate as categories. It feels like I am looking at a wall of assets - not a thoughtfully curated gallery. Regardless of the outcome here, if the Tour images were to be retained on the main article pages for courses, it would at least be nice to have some sort of subsection-based reorganization for these galleries. - Nintendo101 (talk) 14:29, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah, good point of organization, but that can be easily fixed. Plus, if we delete tons of pictures from pages, then what happens to the files themselves? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 14:33, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
We already do subsection-based sorting, I don't see how or why that would be subsection'd further. If it still looks like a wall of assets to you, well, that's pretty much what a gallery is, so why shouldn't it? As has already been argued, it's not our fault that Nintendo decided to make so many similar course icons, we report on the information as it is and don't exclude things just because we don't like them. If people think (some of) the galleries need to be split into their own page(s), then fine I can settle for that, I just really think removing these entirely is a mistake. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:47, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Well, @Hewer, you are an odd fellow, but I must say, you make a great point. *insert Steamed Hams memes here* SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 15:01, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer I think we have different perspectives on what a gallery should be. To me, a "wall of assets" is what a category looks like. It is large, messy, disorganized, and not easy to navigate because it feels like an unsorted aggregation of files. My eyes actively have trouble keeping focused on certain subjects in a category. A gallery is a thoughtfully-organized display of visual pieces that are sorted with purpose, digestible, and passively informative. The sheer volume of these Mario Kart Tour icons, exasperated by the fact that they nearly look identical to each other and are the same proportions, evoke the same burdens that come from viewing a category page. - Nintendo101 (talk) 01:53, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
So the solution, of course, is to delete the galleries for these icons and have anyone interested use a category instead? I really don't understand how you're having such trouble looking at the pretty neatly organised galleries of these we currently have - if it's really just because you don't like seeing lots of similar images for some reason, that doesn't feel like the wiki's problem anymore. Again, we're presenting the information as it is in official material, you not liking official material is not the wiki's fault and not much of a reason for us to hinder our coverage of it (which happens to be the very same principle behind long-observed policies like MarioWiki:Canonicity). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:18, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Moreover, the claim that they’re disorganized is, if I may, kinda dishonest. They’re placed under a “Course icons” heading, separate from “Screenshots”. If they weren’t thoughtfully organized they’d all just share the same section, much like a category handles things. -- KOOPACONCARNE 03:54, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Hewer please do not put words in my mouth or project intent. I was highlighting that there seems to be competing editorial philosophies at play on galleries, and gently suggesting that if the icons were ultimately to stay where they are, it would be beneficial for them to be subdivided further into more digestible gallery headings. At present they are difficult to navigate. This is also what I was trying to get at, @Koopa con Carne. I know the icons were objectively organized in some manor because another human being put them there with intent. However, their near-identical appearances and volume make them "feel" disorganized, just like a category. I would be surprised if I was in the minority. - Nintendo101 (talk) 08:14, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not sure what part of my comment you thought was putting words in your mouth, I certainly had no intention to do so. I've already addressed your arguments about them being "disorganized", but to do so again: they're not. Not just in a technical sense like you seem to be implying I mean - as KCC explained, and as I pointed out before that, we already do organise them neatly into subsections. If you think it still "feels" disorganized, then that's no longer the wiki's problem, as they're about as organised as they possibly can be. I have no idea what you actually would want done to improve the organisation further than at present - if anything, adding too many more superfluous subsections than we already have could harm the organisation. The similarity of the images is not our fault or our responsibility to "fix" on Nintendo's behalf, nor does it really make them "disorganized" in any way. If an organised gallery having many similar images makes it disorganized, I'm really not sure how you're defining the word "disorganized" here. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:27, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Something like New York Minute looks organized well to me. I think the in-game icons section of the Mario Kart Tour course icon gallery is significantly more difficult to navigate, burdens my computer, and all without substantive cause. Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. We did that. We are the only reason this exists at all. We should not be using them as an excuse to not disseminate information in an intuitive and healthy manner. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:09, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I usually don't have problems with loading things on this site and yeah, even I struggled on that gallery, so I suppose you're right there. However, it's a moot point either way since that's not the gallery being affected by this proposal. The galleries on the course pages, such as that of New York Minute, are what this proposal is about, and are what I've been describing. And my point with the "Nintendo's fault" thing was more that we generally strive to include as much coverage on the franchise as we can, and icons are a very usual thing for us to include a complete set of in galleries (even just regarding sprites in Mario Kart, I'm pretty sure we have every single course icon from all the other Mario Kart games, not to mention emblems, sponsors, etc.). I don't think the repetitiveness of Mario Kart Tour's icons (which is Nintendo's fault) is a good reason for us to not do the same as we usually do with this game. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:36, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
”Nintendo did not put this together. They did not create these icons with the intent of them being lumped together in a gallery anywhere. We did that.” Then again, Nintendo also didn’t evolve Mario into an expansive franchise with the intent of having it documented by fans on MarioWiki. We are the architects of that endeavor. What Nintendo’s intent was with any given part of this franchise shouldn’t be germane to this site’s purposes. -- KOOPACONCARNE 06:49, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Had an idea. What are y'all — on both sides here — y'all's thoughts on making an article List of course icons in Mario Kart Tour, or maybe Gallery:Mario Kart Tour/Course icons or something, which could have subheaders for all the courses, maybe even the different variants of the courses. Then, we can easily stick a "see also" template into those gallery sections, linked to the section on that course in that article, and can trim down the images to put less of a strain on bandwidth. Ahemtoday (talk) 15:17, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
So just a split gallery for the Mario Kart Tour course icons? I'd settle for that as much better than removing them entirely, if people really can't bear the few extra seconds of loading time on some of the course articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:22, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I think it's not a bad idea in itself, so long as it has sections for each course. Although, if I were interested in seeing which course has which icons, I'd rather look up that course's page than go to a big repository. Additionally, if people are already having trouble loading the New York Minute page, which comprises only a fraction of MKT course icons, imagine having to load a page full of 2000+ of these things--though I've a hunch that the current attitude is that these icons are some kind of "tumor" that need containment anyway, as in, they need a place where they can just be dumped and forgotten about for the Greater Good of Our Editorship. To me, it seems much more beneficial than harmful to have them distributed among course articles in addition to being in a dedicated gallery, like virtually any piece of artwork or sprite is. -- KOOPACONCARNE 15:45, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I don't think these icons are salvageable. There is no way to include these without including either one representative sample or include the rest of it. There is little benefit for having a dedicated page to just these icons which will be insurmountably huge and consist of practically a NFT-style matrices of images. Keep a representative sample of one image per course/course variant, redesign the tables to not heavily rely on these images (they are seriously not needed for the tables to work) and bog down the pages so severely, throw out all the rest. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 21:10, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
I'm using a powerful computer and I have zero issues loading these galleries, however that doesn't mean browsing the wiki smoothly *should* require an IntelCore i9 CPU or a nondata-capped, fiber optic internet. A "few seconds" in loading page time for wikis is actually very heavy and that is absolutely something we should take into consideration, it's the reason we tore apart Mario's article after all. I need to know if anyone else has issues loading these pages, I don't count because my PC is high end. Ray Trace(T|C) 21:16, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
Again though, at absolute most that means we should split the galleries, per MarioWiki:Article size. We did tear apart Mario's article, but didn't completely throw out bits of it we thought were boring. There's a difference. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:22, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I'm not actually for removal of the icons altogether. As I said in my support, they're fine in the articles they are used in, kept in tables where there is appropriate context to illustrate the cup's tracks. I just don't think they belong in an all-in-one gallery to illustrate a course. Ray Trace(T|C) 09:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Ok, Support, do you want the images themselves deleted, or not? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 11:42, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Nothing in the proposal said anything about deleting the images. In fact, if a delete tag is put anywhere if this proposal passes, it's a sign someone has implemented it wrong. These images are still going to exist on the tour articles and the cup articles. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 11:46, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Camwoodstock: When a gallery is too large for a page to load quickly, the solution has always been to simply split it into its own page, per MarioWiki:Article size. So what exactly makes this case different to every other gallery split on the entire wiki, besides subjective arguments along the lines of "because no one cares about these images"? I'd argue that removing a ton of perfectly fine content (which afaik has never and certainly should never be the solution to long loading times) is more harmful for readers than some extra loading time that can easily be resolved anyway by just splitting the galleries is. There's been plenty of times in the past when we've had tons of repetitive, loading-time-worsening Mario Kart Tour content, and the solution has always been to split it so that whoever's interested can still see the information (how else would we have ended up with such pages as List of favored and favorite Piranha Plant Cove courses in Mario Kart Tour). So what makes this case different? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Even if we split the garlleries up, the majority of these would still just be identical images with only the character in the corner being different. Sure, you help the performance aspect a little, but these are still fundamentally just the same 3-to-4 images with way too many characters slapped into the bottom right with a white outline. Once you've seen each angle once, you've seen them all; there is no reason to keep going beyond that point, because it doesn't illustrate the point any more--it just kinda bludgeons you over the head with it. The bottom line is, it's excessive, and we shouldn't be treating our readers like utter fools who need to see 20 images of the same Mario Kart track icon with different characters over them, when they presumably only really "need" 4 of them at most. And if they really wanted to see the unique combinations, they could just head over to the corresponding cup/tour articles or the category we have for icons such as these. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 12:17, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Who are we to make judgement calls and decide that it's "too many" to be useful? And how is presenting the most complete repository of images possible "treating our readers like utter fools"? Who are we to decide what they "need to see"? I get why it could be seen as excessive, but I don't think it's so completely unreasonable that someone could want to see these, and I don't see how you (or even most people) not finding it interesting is reason to cut it altogether. And why should we force them to go hunting through articles or a category instead of galleries, the usual and best way to present a bunch of images? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
To group them together in a gallery in the first place is just as much of a judgement call as trimming them from one. Unless there is a policy I'm unfamiliar with, aggregation is not the default on Super Mario Wiki. It's a choice, and one that should not be imposed on other users. - Nintendo101 (talk) 12:35, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
It's not about usefulness, it's about completeness. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:47, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
This wiki would be about 500 times larger than it already is if we were focused on "completeness" for everything. "Completeness" would suggest uploading all assets from a single game, including all sprites, textures, and text dump, to make coverage of a game "complete". That's not what we do. The images we upload and display on the pages all serve some sort of use for the reader. Even if you have a gallery with a TON of screenshots, each one is still useful because it shows off different aspects of the game or subject. These course images are all the same, but with a random character art slapped on top of it that doesn't actually mean anything useful to the reader. Shadow2 (talk) 19:19, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
@Nintendo101: By that logic, to include information in the wiki at all and present it in a logical form is a subjective judgement call. Including information is the default on Super Mario Wiki, as is presenting it well, and when it comes to images, galleries are a long-established way to do so. @Camwoodstock: What the icons for a course look like (i.e. the very images used in the game to represent them) are absolutely relevant to that course. There's nothing they're more relevant to. The information it tells you is what characters they chose to use to represent the course. You finding that information boring doesn't reduce its validity as information. And I've already repeatedly argued the "lower-end computer" point, but ok I'll say it again: just split the gallery like we always do. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:50, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
We're not saying "remove the icons entirely", we're saying that we shouldn't be excessive about them. All your average reader is going to want or need is exactly one variant--one for the base version, one for the R version, one for the T version, and one for the R/T version. We don't need 6 icons of the base version, 6 icons of the R version, 4 icons of the T version, and then 7 icons of the R/T version, where the only thing different between those copies is how much King Boo (Gold) they happen to include along the way. You could trim down the SNES Rainbow Road gallery to just the 3 versions with base Rosalina and the 1 version with Baby Rosalina, and you would properly showcase all four icons just as well as you do by including all 23 of them. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 13:01, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
The proposal is ultimately too vague in what it intends to do to support it IMO. Especially after that Smash redirect thing. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:08, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
...I don't quite understand. What "Smash redirect thing"? Ahemtoday (talk) 13:51, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
...We don't exactly appreciate the implication that it's on us that somebody else didn't ask us what the proposal was about before they started slapping delete templates everywhere. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 14:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yeah that's not what I meant in the slightest. I was just trying to provide context for what the thing was that Doc was referring to. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 14:28, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Please stay on course, peeps. -- KOOPACONCARNE 14:30, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I know the proposal won't delete the icons (though some supporters clearly do want that, while others don't seem to), but what it will do is have the wiki go out of its way to hinder its presentation of these icons for no good reason. I see no reason to define "your average reader" and pander to this non-existent person's supposed needs - that just feels like a more complex way of saying what you personally want to happen. "Your average reader" probably isn't interested in many, many, many things on this wiki, but that doesn't make their inclusion invalid, because another reader might go seeking those things. If the reader doesn't find something interesting, they're free to ignore it, that's not our problem. Our goal as a wiki isn't to only include the stuff we subjectively deem interesting, but to provide complete coverage on the whole franchise so any reader can find the information they seek about the franchise, whatever it may be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:21, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
The current state of Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons is a hindrance to the presentation of this wiki, if not an outright disaster. I've removed just the course icons as a test[4], which entails in subtracting −142,842 bytes of content and it's not text-based. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:20, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don't understand what the "presentation of this wiki" entails here. Not only is the gallery not displayed up-front when you access mariowiki.com, it is relatively obscure--you'd normally have to dig your way through a couple of pages first to get there, unless you directly type its title in the search bar, which implies knowing of its existence beforehand. Furthermore, there's a point to be made that the gallery could further be split into "landscape icons" (the ones you see in in-game profile windows) and "course icons" (the ones you tap on when you're browsing the cups). Coin rush and bonus challenge icons can be removed from that gallery and kept on specialized articles (Coin Rush (Mario Kart Tour), Ring Race etc.) I really don't like how slow that page is either, but let's not immediately jump to such drastic solutions. There are ways to make this work. -- KOOPACONCARNE 18:34, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
...Maybe split Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons even further based on which game they originated from (e.g. Gallery:Mario Kart Tour icons for Mario Kart Wii courses)? rend(talk)(edits) 18:46, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
Yes? Do you have a point bringing that up? -- KOOPACONCARNE 19:38, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I genuinely wasn't aware "asset dump" is an actual term that defines a slightly more specialized thing than the one I was describing. I used it in a very literal sense: that gallery, whether or not it's worth keeping around, is a dumping ground of in-game assets. I can't argue with that. Then again, most galleries on this site fulfil a similar purpose, so I don't really see the outrage surrounding its existence. -- KOOPACONCARNE 20:00, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
That's okay. I responded with surprise because, in my experience at least, asset dumps have negative connotations for curatorial projects like wikis, encyclopedias, etc. They are not tied to comprehensiveness or to provide information. They are aggregations for aggregations' sake. If that is something you feel should be supported on the wiki, that's fair, but I don't think that is the active standard. Users have removed sound files, quotes, Mario Party minigame textures, etc. without this kind of pushback. The only place where that could be be appropriate are dedicated depositories like the Spriters-Resource, and I wouldn't even call them asset dumps. They are beautifully organized and easy to navigate.
Super Mario Wiki is not the only site I help edit and curate. In my experience, trimming is just part of the process, and it really bothers me that it is being treated as an objective wrong. Wanting to keep the Tour galleries is one thing. Asserting that removing any of these images compromises the "completeness" of the site is just not true. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:26, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that trimming content into something neater is objectively wrong. Some are simply saying that putting these dedicated course icons into course pages is the intuitive thing to do, but that’s repeating the same talking point over and over. What I fundamentally disagree with is the notion that this site cannot have designated spaces for the aggregation of content, like images or quotes, with some users going as far as to advocate removing these icons altogether for reasons that range from subjective (“I don’t like them because they’re too repetitive”) to arbitrary and plainly wrong (“they occupy too much space on the server”-they all make up less than 300mb spread among thousands of thumbnails measuring kilobytes, a tiny amount in a sea of upwards to 80,000MB worth of media files) -- KOOPACONCARNE 06:40, May 16, 2024 (EDT)
Just to be completely clear in case there's any doubt, Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons will not be affected by this proposal. Only the galleries on course pages will. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:58, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Ok, I knew that, I just didn't like that people thought that it would. The gallery's not the problem, and neither is the Kanaami Road page. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 08:28, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I've seen The Spriters Resource be brought up in these comments, and it was the first thing I thought of when I saw Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons, but on the Mario Kart Tour Spriters Resource page, I don't think there's actually a place for course icons, not even in a ZIP file. That would make the wiki's gallery page the most easily accessible repository for those sprites on the Internet, to my knowledge; whether or not that's a good thing is up to interpretation. Also, this is off-topic, but Gallery:Mario Kart Tour course icons and Category:Mario Kart Tour track icons have different names, and it's driving me crazy!! ThePowerPlayer 21:47, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Wary of delving further into tangential topics, but given "course" is the official terminology, the category is the one that has to change. Unfortunately, since that's way more difficult to change on all of 'em. Might have to get a bot on that... Ahemtoday (talk) 00:03, May 17, 2024 (EDT)
Is "the majority of the gallery is filled with a ton of mostly-identical images of the course" not the point in a gallery in the first place? - YoYo (Talk) 09:52, May 18, 2024 (EDT)
No, and it shouldn't be. I view these icons in the same manner as I view screenshots: we literally don't need every single tour icon present in an article about DK Summit save for a select few, just as we don't have every single screenshot of Donkey Kong ever appearing in the wiki in Donkey Kong's gallery page (Daisy's gallery is one of the worst offenders, it contains screenshots where she is a tiny spec in the background). I even think our game article galleries are excessive, especially Mario Kart Wii, which had to be trimmed. Ray Trace(T|C) 09:56, May 18, 2024 (EDT)
Create {{DLC infobox}} template
Template:ProposalOutcome
The Super Mario DLC articles are missing a {{DLC infobox}} template. I was just wondering if there's a possibility to create the {{DLC infobox}} template. The following parameters are as follows:
name - The name of the DLC (italics are optional).
image - Image(s) of the topic.
game - The game(s) the DLC applies to.
release - The release date of DLC in all regions (use the {{release}} template).
languages - The languages the DLC is playable in (use the {{languages}} template).
cost - The cost date of DLC in all regions (use the {{release}} template).
platforms - The platforms that the DLC has been released on.
content - A brief summary of the content in the DLC.
Scrooge200 (talk) I've always found it strange that these don't already have an infobox. Considering DLC for Mario games is getting more common lately, it definitely has a use.
Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we're surprised this hasn't been created sooner with the absolute deluge of DLC Mario Kart 8 has received across literally multiple consoles, running the gambit from the Mercedes-Benz crossover to the Booster Course Pack. And if that wasn't enough, the Rabbids games' DLC campaigns show this isn't even just a Mario Kart 8-only thing. (We have a bit more to say, but we'll leave that to comments.)
Nightwicked Bowser (talk) This was something I thought of a while back as well. Just not sure how "related" would work.
Depending on how you choose to define "DLC", we think you could even throw in a few other things as well. Admittedly, the DLC category is a little muddied at the moment with... mumble grumble... smash redirects, so we couldn't get the best look at this hour, but from what we saw, you could even throw in those Coin Rush packs pretty easily. We think the only real exception is New Super Luigi U, since that one technically did see a standalone release without the game it's DLC for, meaning we already use the game infobox for that one. ~Camwoodstock(talk) 01:58, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Then do you have any better ideas than create the {{DLC infobox}}? GuntherBayBeee 11:52, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
...I don't think they were implying that a DLC infobox is a bad idea... at all. All they were saying (aside from complaining about the Smash FLC redirects) was that the Coin Rush DLC packs could implement a DLC infobox as well (which I'm unsure about, given that {{NSMB2 pack infobox}} already exists), and that only New Super Luigi U doesn't need it since it's got a standalone physical release. rend(talk)(edits) 12:03, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
How about we use {{game infobox}} instead of {{DLC infobox}}? Would that be a better idea? GuntherBayBeee 22:44, May 14, 2024 (EDT)
You still misunderstand, no one in these comments is against the DLC infobox idea. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 03:04, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
I'm starting to feel that GuntherBayBee is posing these questions purely to drum up more engagement in his proposals. It's not exactly the same as stating to think about voting for an option they already voted for from the beginning or literally asking people that engaged in the comments what option they're voting for, but in all cases, it was preceded by a lack of engagement in his proposal (although, in this case, it's more because this proposal is sandwiched inbetween several proposals with way more engagement than one could wish for). I would otherwise have no idea why he's trying to bargain different ideas when people are literally unanimously agreeing with his DLC infobox idea (with not a single opposing vote so far), unless he's really bad at reading. rend(talk)(edits) 10:38, May 15, 2024 (EDT)
Split the Super Mario universe and the Paper Mario universe
Template:ProposalOutcome
I think the articles about the Super Mario universe (characters, levels, worlds, etc.) should be split between the Super Mario uiverse and the Paper Mario universe. As those are 2 different universes. This is confirmed in Mario & Luigi Paper Jam for Nintendo 3DS. Also in Super Paper Mario, there is a wedding scence with Mario, Bowser & Peach in the Paper Mario universe. In the Super Mario universe there's a wedding scene in Super Mario Odyssey. Kamek and Bowser Jr. appear for the first time in the Paper Mario verse in Paper Mario: Sticker Star. In the Super Mario universe they appear earlier. Bowser Jr. in Super Mario Sunshine and Kamek in Yoshi's Island. For example there would be an article about Mario and a seperate article about Paper Mario from the Paper Mario series. This would be a pretty big, important change for this wiki, to be even better, more accurate. And I think that's what matters. To make the Super Mario wiki more organiced and easier to use for Mario Fans. Thanks!
Mariuigi Khed (talk) I'm honestly pro, beside the fact we even arrived to the point of distinct the live action movie characters. Why? We don't have different pages for the other media? It's because they are different enough? Well, these characters are flat and have a unique design in the "first generation" of Paper Marios (even tho in the main universe the games were already establishing final designs), I also see quite a difference in characterization: in the main universe Luigi is quite non-talkative (especially in recent years) and is 100% a scaredy-cat, while in the Paper universe he's very talkative and very much a disastrous goofball ready to do something and has one singular instance of cowardice on-screen, and mostly caused by confusion. And there are some similar example here and there. Still, I see why you would think this might get messier: like, do we really need to split the Star Spirits in two pages? Not really, I'll give you that. But... on the Wikia we decided to go like this: in the subject has two appearance in both the main and paper universe, they can be split, otherwise they share the page (example: Koopatrol is in three Paper Marios and 1 non-paper game: no split; Petey Piranha is in 2 Paper Marios + MLPJ and in many non--paper games: split). Again, I would see why this won't pass, but... welp. Still got my vote.
Hewer (talk) Paper Jam does not confirm that the Paper Mario games happened in a different universe, it merely confirms that there is another universe with paper versions of the characters based on those from Paper Mario. To extrapolate from that that Paper Mario and everything else are set in different universes is a forbidden speculative reading between the lines, as described in MarioWiki:Canonicity and MarioWiki:Chronology. And speaking of the latter, you can't also deem things as occurring earlier or later in a timeline, because there isn't one, and games in the franchise are allowed to contradict each other's stories as much as they please without requiring us to reshuffle everything and speculate about how they connect (doesn't Mario meet the Lumas for the first time in both of the Galaxy games?). This would very much not make the wiki "more organiced and easier to use", but rather be perhaps the biggest organisational disaster to ever befall the wiki.
Pseudo (talk) Per Hewer. The fact is, prior to Paper Jam, the Paper Mario series is not treated as any kind of separate world and this seems to hold even in the later Paper Mario games. This would be a huge mess and wouldn’t help anyone navigate anything on the wiki.
Camwoodstock (talk) This is a reading that literally only makes sense in the context of Paper Jam and no other video games--both ones before it and after it. There's a reason Paperfolk was deleted on-the-spot, without proposal; treating the Paper versions of characters as being different from their not-Paper versions outside of the context of the one video game where they basically had to do that out of necessity is a complete and utter nightmare.
Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Yeah no. And if it weren't for Paper Mario and Luigi acting so different from the normal Mario and Luigi, I'd prefer we merged these characters outright since the counterparts are almost always seen together and have the same personalities (ie with the Peaches, the Kameks, the Bowsers, and the Juniors)
Mario (talk) Not a good idea. Per Nightwicked Bowser.
SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Well, it's either this, merge the Paper Mario characters into their OG versions like the 1990's Live-Action Mario Movie counterparts, re-split said counterparts, or keep as-is, and that's not even factoring in ALL THE OTHER COUNTERPARTS!
The scene mentioning the paper Koopalings seems like it's foreshadowing Color Splash, but other than that, there's little hard evidence. If we can compile quotes from interviews and other promotional materials, there might be something to work with, but I've more or less given up on this one. LinkTheLefty (talk) 10:00, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
The games didn't really start acting like the Paper Mario games had their own continuity until Sticker Star, but even then it was just some throwaway lines and a multitude of dialogue-based paper jokes (as opposed to the solely visual gag-based ones from before). Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 11:41, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Paper Mario (character) has as much right to be his own article as Rabbid Mario in my view, as do the other Paper/Rabbid characters. And for the record, Paper Kamek is fought at one point without the normal Kamek. Nightwicked Bowser 11:55, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
He is. But his role could have just as easily gone to normal Kamek, because aside from the art style, they are exactly the same. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:11, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
But it didn't. We're covering the game as it is, not as it hypothetically could be. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:12, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
That's not the point. The point is they are completely interchangeable. If it were written on one article, it would flow more organically and be more concise. Contrast that with the Rabbid characters Keyblade brought up, who have their own very distinct wacky personalities and differently specialized abilities. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 12:21, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
But it would be less accurate to how they're presented in the game as two distinct characters, even if their roles are similar. If a game has two very similar but separate characters, then by all means, we should have two very similar but separate articles. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:31, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Fair point but they're never seen apart and share all of their appearances whereas the paper characters are Paper Jam-only, so they have much fewer appearances than their counterparts, and they have at least some separation even in Paper Jam whereas Yellow Toad and Blue Toad are always exactly identical and even considered a single character in NSMBU Deluxe. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:45, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
I'd argue that the first Paper Mario - conceived as the direct sequel of Super Mario RPG - almost feels like an intentionally separate continuity to that game in its finalized form. LinkTheLefty (talk) 15:30, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
While it does say "two universes collide", that still only matters for this one game and should not impact this wiki's organisation. I think that argument has been countered enough at this point. Nightwicked Bowser 21:18, May 12, 2024 (EDT)
Again, MarioWiki:Canonicity. Even if Paper Jam did "confirm" that Paper Mario is in a separate universe, that doesn't retroactively override the portrayal in earlier (or later) games that are often made by completely different people. For a similar case, when games get remakes, we don't stop covering the original or treat the remake as the "true" version, we just cover both and note the differences. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 12:02, May 13, 2024 (EDT)
To anyone who reads this message. Remember that you can still support my proposal until tomorrow. If you want the Mario and the Paper Mario universe split, seperate articles for that. Thank's to everyone who supports me!
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Big Super Mario Fan (talk).
@Mariuigi Khed: The live-action film characters are planned to be merged, inconsistent differences in personality or amount of dialogue determining splits is a veryslipperyslope, and a minimum of two appearances is a very arbitrary metric that just invites further inconsistency. They're just different iterations of the same characters, being made of paper because everything in the game is made of paper is no more split-warranting than being made of yarn or plastic. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:49, May 19, 2024 (EDT)
