MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Monday, April 14th, 08:30 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

  1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
  2. A given user may author/co-author up to five ongoing proposals. Any additional proposals will be immediately canceled.
  3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
    • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
  5. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
  6. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
  7. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
    • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
  8. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
  9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  10. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
  11. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
  12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
  14. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
  15. All proposals are archived. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer can ask for that help.
  16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  17. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
  18. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
  19. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
  20. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  21. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  22. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary. 

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 GMT

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

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

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

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

To vote for an option, just insert #{{User|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal."

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

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

===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Create pages for the Captain N episodes where Donkey Kong is a central character, Glowsquid (ended April 1, 2025)
Make a page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, Koopa con Carne (ended April 11, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split the enemy/obstacle ice block of Yoshi's Woolly World from Ice Block, Sorbetti (ended March 29, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Refocus Papa Mario as "Mario's dad", Superstarxalien169 (ended April 4, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

New features

Noting the Switch 2 Editions

I have seen that it's kind of a mystery how we should note the Switch 2 Edition of a game. This question caused some controversy when I asked it in Talk:Super Mario Party Jamboree, so I have decided to involve the whole community in this to see what everyone thinks and so we all know what we should do in the future, when more Switch 2 Editions will follow.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles

  1. memoryman3 (talk) Switch 2 Editions are unique game builds that Nintendo gives you the option to upgrade to, and as such should be treated as unique games. Determining whether a game deserves a separate article should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to other reissues. This would be no different from distinguishing a game like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD or Donkey Kong Country Returns HD as unique titles, unless the changes are so minimal that the games are classified as ports.

We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article

  1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I’m in for this one.

We make a Switch 2 Edition page where the Switch 2 Editions have their own respective sections

Propose in the games' talk page based on what the Switch 2 Edition adds

Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Ideally, we should wait until after launch since there's still much we don't know. From what I understand, they don't even have their own physical versions when seemingly everything else does (literally just the original Switch copy with a one-time download-code, or for all intents and purposes, DLC). If these "upgrade packs" act just like DLC does on previous consoles, then I think we should treat them as such, but that's to be determined at a later time.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Yeah, no, we should definitely wait on this until the Switch 2 releases. Otherwise, we might end up pre-emptively codifying a ton of articles with nothing substantial to them beyond "It's exactly the same as Switch 1, the gameplay functions, visuals, text, audio, and everything are all the same, but it just runs smoother." We'd like to refer to the PC-88 and Sharp X1 versions of Super Mario Bros. Special, not just because it's fresh on our mind, but it is genuinely relevant to the subject; that is a game that very expressly has a performance-related different release on another platform, but outside of the very obvious audiovisual elements, there just isn't enough to warrant splitting on the gameplay side. We could very easily see the Switch 2 Editions being similar to this, where the gameplay is entirely intact with no unique mechanics or mild substitutions due to hardware improvements, but the vast majority of the differences are just "uh, it looks different and runs smoother", which is not particularly substantial.
  3. Tails777 (talk) Per all. Too early at this point.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) per all, and per my comment below
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal and all.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments

We know so little about what a Switch 2 Edition will mean that I don't think a decision can be made right now. Salmancer (talk) 12:05, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Seconding this--wouldn't it be better to just wait for the Switch 2 to actually release to see how the Switch 2 editions actually work? We're highly skeptical they would actually feature exclusive content in the first place, mind you, but without a Switch 2 edition having actually released, we're kind of voting in the dark here. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 12:07, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
i want to point out the "Switch 2 Edition" moniker is specifically reserved for versions which have actual content changes (ie, not what Odyssey is getting, which is just a free compatibility update). however, i still think we should wait more before deciding what to do, and that it might be better to case-by-case it — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Case-by-case where we only split ones with significant new content might be the way to go. This reminds me of how New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is split while New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis isn't. As for determining which ones have enough new content, it seems like the titles can help with that - so far, ones that are mainly just graphical improvements are just called "Game – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition", while ones that have more content added have another bit on the end of the title after a "＋" (like Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition ＋ Jamboree TV). I guess the option closest to this is the fourth one, except I'd rather not strictly require a proposal to determine it in cases where it's obvious (though of course we'd be allowed to have one if it's not). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:50, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

I understand everyone's argument about this but I feel like we already know enough about the Switch 2 Edition of Jamboree to make this proposal. Blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)

It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Change the moon icon for Dark Mode

NOTE: Yes, we see what day it is. No, this is not a prank proposal! The fact this is actually coherent should've told you that much, but in case you couldn't tell, we are being genuine about this one. However, given how silly the subject matter is, we couldn't resist.

In case you somehow missed it, fairly recently, a proper dark mode was added to the wiki. You can enable it by clicking the moon icon on the top of the page; it's black on light mode, and yellow on dark mode. This works. This is adequate. We won't say it's bad by any stretch of the imagination. But look at the iconography all around it! The background has assorted icons, the wiki logo and favicon is a mushroom, and heck, for as long as we can remember, a mushroom sprite has been next to the username bar! While the alert bell and inbox icons are both a rather understandable grey, the moon actively changes colors and is positioned right next to that mushroom sprite in the username bar, which begs the question why it's like that.

Three candidates for Dark Mode toggle icons, used in a proposal.

Having asked on the Discord, we've come up with 3 possible changes to make, displayed to the right there:

  • Both Light and Dark Mode use a 3-Up Moon: Self-explanatory. Light Mode would be a white recoloring of the original SMW sprite, whereas dark mode would use the original yellow sprite.
  • Light Mode has a Shine Sprite, Dark Mode uses a Power Moon: Similar concept, but with more modern day collectibles. We've made some edited sprites to use for this (using sprites from Bowser's Inside Story and Odyssey as a basis), but we'd be open to improvements.
  • Do nothing: Light Mode uses a black crescent, dark mode uses a yellow crescent. Simple-as.

In addition, if there's genuine interest in doing so, we could perhaps make proposals to change the alert bell and notice inbox icons as well. For now, though, we'd like to keep it to the Dark Mode moon, as it's both new enough, and also it has the (dis)advantage of being juxtaposed directly with the mushroom next to the username, so it sticks out more to us.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)

Which one for light mode?

Deadline: April 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

White 3-Up Moon
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option. It's parity with the dark mode button, though we feel like making the light mode option a moon like the dark mode one is a missed opportunity.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I like how it matches the Mushroom it is next too. The Shine Sprite and Power Moon are too contemporary in aesthetics. However, I wonder if porplemontage uses the moon symbol across the wikis he manages, like SmashWiki and the like. This is speculative, but it may not be technically possible to update the moon on Super Mario Wiki and not for other wikis that share its infrastructure. But if it is possible, this is the direction I would go with.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) Better aesthetic, in my opinion. The alternative sticks out like a sore thumb.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Simple, clean, and fits with the Mushroom sprite perfectly.
Shine Sprite
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) Primary option. While we stand firmly by the 3-Up Moon for dark mode, Shine Sprites are far more unique silhouette-wise.
Black Crescent (status quo)

Which one for dark mode?

Deadline: April 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yellow 3-Up Moon
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) This one's our ride-or-die option. Ever since we saw the original icon, we've kinda been hoping it'd get to be a 3-Up Moon to go alongside the SMB3 Mushroom.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my vote above. I like how it compliments the Mushroom sprite it is next to aesthetically.
  3. LinkTheLefty (talk) I like the sprites being the same, just palette-swapped, for the toggle. Simple's good.
  4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per my other vote.
Power Moon
Yellow Crescent (status quo)

Comments (the sun & moon are fighting!)

The sun and moon are fighting, eh? I have a solution for that...

In all seriousness, I'm not entirely decided on my vote, but I feel like it would be better to have an different icon from the moon for light mode. That's just my 5 cents though. BMfan08 (talk) 20:27, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Im not sure making this a poll proposal is a good idea because the icon options are quite different stylistically. Imagine, for example, the detailed Shine Sprite sprite being used alongside the minimalistic yellow moon icon. Additionally, the Shine Sprite/Power Moon options could stand to be a little more cohesive between each other, mainly regarding the outline, but also the shading to some extent. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 20:35, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

We're well aware, don't worry; we'd be fine to tweak the actual images as need be, such as reducing the shading on the Shine Sprite if it wins alongside the 3-Up Moon. The images are just our little concept pieces to illustrate the point. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 20:38, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

I'm surprised Angry Sun/Moon aren't here. There's even the perfect quote in the latter article. LinkTheLefty (talk) 21:28, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Your honor... 1. we forgor 2. We weren't really confident in our ability to sprite a 16x16 Angry Sun that actually looks good by the time we remembered--let alone a SMM2 moon. Those sprites are larger for a reason! Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 14:23, April 1, 2025 (EDT)
Fair enough. By the way, if the 3-Up Moons pass, it'd look cute if the toggle was moved a little closer to the mushroom icon - since the sprite faces the other way, it'd seem like the moon's leaning against it. LinkTheLefty (talk) 03:19, April 2, 2025 (EDT)

Split Mario & Sonic game categories by version

This proposal applies to the following games:

Put plainly, it doesn't make sense to me that the Wii/Wii U and DS/3DS versions of these games share the same categories. The versions quite substantially differ from each other to the point where each version gets its own page. I propose we handle categories for these games the same way we handle categories for Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. For instance, with file categories, there is still Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS / Wii U images and its subcategories for images that apply to both versions, but there are also split Category:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS images and Category:Super Smash Bros. for Wii U images categories and subcategories. So, for instance, even if we aren't sure where an asset comes from or if the two games share an asset, it can stay in the existing merged category. This split will be especially useful for screenshots, given it's sometimes not clear when a screenshot is from DS/3DS or Wii/Wii U (some screenshots of the former lack the double screen).

As for page categories, both versions of a game sharing them lead to confusion. For instance, there's the page 4x100m Relay (Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games). Its identifier doesn't list a version, so does that mean this event is in both the DS and Wii versions? Nope, only the Wii version (I don't think we should change identifiers, to be clear). From what I've seen, no event page covers both versions of a game. So why do we only have a single events category per game? Category:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games events is a confusing mess as it currently stands. This doesn't only apply to events, but items as well - the story mode of the DS version of Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games has a lot of subjects not in the Wii version, and even some of the pages themselves don't clarify which version the subject is from (perhaps because of confusion on version differences - for example look at Battle Snow Machine). By splitting these categories, not only will navigation be easier, but there will be less confusion on subjects as well.

Proposer: Technetium (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split all categories

  1. Technetium (talk) As Olympian.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We encountered this exact issue last night, actually, while adding Aboutfile descriptions. We're a bit surprised this hasn't already been done. Per proposal.
  3. Salmancer (talk) Per all.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.

Split only page categories

Split only file categories

Keep all categories merged

Comments at the Olympic Games

Miscellaneous

What is a game?

Per @Camwoodstock's comments on the ongoing electronic water-related proposal on the list of games. The way that a game is considered a game is currently arbitrary, with board games being split to one list, card games being relegated elsewhere, Play Nintendo getting its own list, and Nintendo Today! quizzes all being merged into the app's article. This proposal aims to decide what gets on the list of games article, since there isn't anything on that page that explicitly states that the games listed have to be video games (minus the text "organized by video game system", but this can be changed). To note, this proposal is not suggesting that anything should be removed from the list, the goal of this proposal is to figure out whether or not anything should be added to the list of games.

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)

Do board games move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments; this feels like kind of a no-brainer, and we're surprised these have been excluded from the Games list for as long as they have been. Board games are like, a known concept, they've been around for millennia, and heck, games like Mario Party-e exist as a hybrid board game/video game. Excluding board games feels very arbitrary, just because they aren't "video" games, but we've included the Game & Watch titles for forever, with basically no contention whatsoever, despite those not technically meeting the definition of being a "video" game.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) The article is titled the "list of games," not the "list of VIDEO games." It'd be nice if this page just covered every game of every type, especially seeing how I consider board games (or anything of the sort) to be closer to games than merchandise. Besides, they are called board GAMES, so why shouldn't they be included on the "list of GAMES"?
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) This is not to disparage board games or other types of media of this nature, but I think it would be healthier for our site to have distinction between a "video game" and "promotional tie-in media and products." I do not think being interactive is enough for it count as a "game" within the context of a video game-oriented franchise, in the same way I would not include instruction booklets in a list of books because they have readable text. This kind of stuff should be supported on the site, but not here.

Do card games move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the same rationale behind board games. Sure, it's not a "video" game, but this is List of Games, not List of Video Games.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock again.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per my board game vote.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.

Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. This is gonna be appearing a few more times...
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock yet again.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Also per my board game vote.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote. (You also do not italicize Jenga.)

Do physical games (i.e. Barrel of Monkeys-style things with physical characters and pieces) move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock once more.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Yet again per my board game vote.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.

Does Super Mario Ride move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It is currently listed under "Other Super Mario-themed games" on the list of merchandise.
No
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) From the looks of it, those are toy cars; those are toys, not games. Them being listed as "other Super Mario-themed games" feels like a bit of a misnomer.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote above.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Rides are not games.

Do Play Nintendo games move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. There's a dedicated HTML section now.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) With an HTML section in tow, we feel it's only fair.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Sure.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) We have other browser games on the list, why not these?
No

Does Nintendo Today! move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
No
  1. 1468z (talk) The only thing that comes the closest to the definition of game and is related to Mario is the silhouette quizzes, which despite their name are actually just articles with a profile of a character without any interactive elements. It's not that different from something you would find on Nintendo's website.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) To be honest, we're a bit on the fence, but we're leaning on this for now. Maybe if there were more active game elements to them, but as it stands, these are just articles at the moment with no real interactive elements aside from. Clicking it and reading it.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per Shinya Takahashi ("[Nintendo Today] is something a little different that's not a game").
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per all. If you really think about it, if we count Nintendo Today as a game, that would mean the Super Mario Wiki would be considered a game.

Does Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) By our own definition of it being an "interactive game", yes, even if it's just a VHS analogue to those Play Nintendo quizzes, you can get a question wrong and stuff will still happen.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.

Do rides move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. They were made by Banpresto, usable in arcades, and required money to play.
No
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) You don't really interact with it aside from sitting on it; if there was a more game-ified aspect to it, kinda like Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car, maybe? But as it stands, this is a little too non-interactive.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Once again, rides are not games. Except Būbū Mario. That is a game.

Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original proposal's comments; they are interactive games with a blatant physical, mechanical element to them. The lack of "video" isn't a hurdle so long as the Game & Watch games exist.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock twice more.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.

The Comment Games

@Nintendo101, unless us and everyone we know has been using it very wrong, we don't really see how the board game vote applies to Nintendo Today!... ;P not that it matters, as we agree that Nintendo Today! would be overkill to include either way unless they were more interactive, but y'know, Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 20:23, April 5, 2025 (EDT)

Also, Wikipedia does italicise Jenga. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:30, April 5, 2025 (EDT)

If we decide to keep the non-video games off the list of games, I feel like a name change to "List of video games" might be a good idea (though the link on the main page can keep it shortened to "Games" for simplicity if need be). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:43, April 5, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer I have an idea. Could we add a new header on the list of games (underneath the iOS stuff and the LEGO Super Mario Roku/Sky Italia games) for "physical games" or "non-electronic games", thus keeping the base list intact up to said section? Nelsonic (talk) 13:21, April 8, 2025 (EDT)
I suppose that'd work too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:25, April 9, 2025 (EDT)

If Play Nintendo is added to the list, would we include every game in the "Play" category or will we also include the quizzes, polls, puzzles, matching and painting games? If that is the case, I am warning you that there are hundreds of those and would probably take like 75% of the whole page. Sprite of Lakitu from Super Mario Bros.RykituSprite of Lakitu from Super Mario Bros.

@Rykitu I was thinking that for the duplicates, we could link to a handful of the most relevant ones and then stick something along the lines of "For a complete list of Play Nintendo quizzes, see list of Play Nintendo skill quizzes" underneath the segment. Nelsonic (talk) 13:11, April 9, 2025 (EDT)
Ok, that works! Sprite of Lakitu from Super Mario Bros.RykituSprite of Lakitu from Super Mario Bros.

Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers

For some infoboxes like RPG enemy infoboxes or show episode infoboxes, the work is displayed in a header (like "Paper Mario enemy" or "Super Mario World episode"). Others, like the generic level infobox (which has only "Level" in a header) and the minigame infobox, indicate the game in a regular field.

I propose all subject infoboxes with a "Game" field or similar (exceptions and specific details below) adopt the work-in-header-cell format (like "Super Mario World level"), and the "Game" or "Appears in" field be changed to "Reappearances" (present only in cases where the subject reappears, like retro Mario Kart courses or returning WarioWare microgames).

Why do that? In order to maintain consistency in the presentation of this type of info, and also because it makes more sense than having the work be indicated in a regular field, as the work is not an internal attribute of the subject (like a level's time or code, or an enemy's stats), but part of its context. Also, making work identification more clear is useful when the same infoboxes are widely used for subjects belonging to different games and series.

That would affect every infobox that has a "Game" field currently, the course infobox, and infoboxes for specific games.

In the end, the infoboxes affected by this change would be:

(As for spaces, karts and kart parts, Paper Mario item and power shots, which have an "Appears in" field, I suggest we indicate the series in the header instead (Mario Party, Mario Kart, Paper Mario and Mario Tennis), since they are not really "tied" to the game they debuted in, but are series-wide elements.)

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: April 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) I like uniformity.
  3. Salmancer (talk) I see the appeal.

Oppose: do not change any infoboxes

Comments (Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers)

My understanding is that Power Shots are exclusive to exactly two Mario Tennis games, Mario Power Tennis and Mario Tennis: Power Tour. And of them, only twelve appear in both games. At that point, you might as well just have those twelve them say "Mario Power Tennis Power Shot" and say they reappear in Mario Tennis: Power Tour. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on April 18, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Currently, the previous and next cell in infoboxes for TV show episodes, levels and worlds have a few issues:

  • The previous and next entries are displayed as "<<" and ">>", which make it more cumbersome to simply figure out what they are, since one may have to hover the cursor over it, and it is even worse on mobile, where you may have to open the link to learn what it is);
  • It gets always more confusing and messy when more than one entry is displayed, especially for levels that link to secret levels, displayed as "**", as it is not immediately understandable what that means;
  • Levels and worlds have a "directory of levels/worlds" link which just links to the Level category or World article. It is kind of pointless.

I propose we change that section to another format that:

  • Includes a header labeling the section;
  • Uses "previous" and "next" labels;
  • Lists the names for the entries, and, for secret levels, attach a "(secret)" note to it.
  • Links to the relevant section listing the entries in the specific article for the work;

Since some articles may have longer lists of entries (such as some levels in Super Mario Bros. Wonder, we can have an alternate format that stacks the previous and next cells instead, since it appears laid out more nicely. It may make that section take a lot more space, but cases like these are very few compared to most which have just one or two entries each side.

See examples
Level
Donut Ghost House
Donut Ghost House from Super Mario World
World Donut Plains
Time limit 300 seconds
Level sequence
← Previous
Donut Plains 2
Donut Secret 1 		Next →
Donut Plains 3
Top Secret Area (secret)
List of levels
Donkey Kong Country episode
"Watch the Skies"
The title card for the episode Watch the Skies from the Donkey Kong Country television series
Episode 8
Writer Dale Schott
Episode chronology
← Previous
"Bug a Boogie" 		Next →
"Baby Kong Blues"
List of episodes
Level
The Desert Mystery
The Desert Mystery's Wonder Effect
World Sunbaked Desert
Difficulty ★★
Level sequence
← Previous
Sunbaked Desert House
Next →
Color-Switch Dungeon
Secrets of Shova Mansion
Sunbaked Desert Palace
Badge Challenge Crouching High Jump II
KO Arena Sunbaked Skirmish
List of levels

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: April 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: change how previous and next entries are presented in infoboxes

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.
  2. PopitTart (talk) Good god, yes PLEASE. I was flabbergasted the first time I tried navigating levels in SMW and was redirected to a category of just. Every Single Level in Every Single Game the Wiki Covers. What use does that possibly have??
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) You make a lot of good points about the current problems, and this is a natural solution to 'em. I'm not sure about "episode chronology" or especially "level sequence" as a header for the section, though — those terms describe something that these sections are just a small slice of. Maybe, say, "surrounding levels" or "surrounding episodes"? (Side note, but there's something magical to me about proposals being able to overturn longstanding bits of wiki policy. These infobox sections have been formatted that way for at least fifteen years...)
  4. AmossGuy (talk) This simply shows the information more clearly, I think. And I like Ahemtoday's suggestion of "surrounding levels" for the terminology.
  5. Sparks (talk) YES!!
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) This is way overdue, especially after more non-linear games like Super Mario Bros. Wonder but even thanks to games as old as Super Mario World. Even for far more linear affairs, like your Super Mario Bros.es or your Donkey Kong 3: Dai Gyakushūs, we quite prefer the aesthetics of actually listing the page names over what we currently have; though we do feel it important to ask, in the case of games where levels are named stuff like just, "World 7-1" and "World 7-2" with nothing distinguishing them, would we just visually display them as "World 7-1" and "World 7-2", or would we include the parenthetical, and it'd display as "World 7-1 (Super Mario Bros. Special)" and "World 7-2 (Super Mario Bros. Special)"? While not a dealbreaker, it would be annoying, and we'd suggest... Not. ;P
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per all! huge fan of this
  8. Hewer (talk) Good idea.
  9. Jdtendo (talk) << >>
  10. Pseudo (talk) This would be a huge improvement on the current infoboxes in a number of ways. Also, I would agree with Camwoodstock's suggestion to not include the parentheticals in level name links.
  11. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
  12. Salmancer (talk) Yeah, current system could use a tune-up.
  13. Scrooge200 (talk) Yes! This makes so much more sense. I'm surprised this hasn't been proposed earlier.

Oppose: keep previous and next entries presentation as is

Comments (Change previous and next entries presentation in infoboxes)

i'm concerned the "List of levels" link could cause issues in games that have more than one version with differing amounts of levels (such as Mario vs. Donkey Kong). what could we do about that? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 00:24, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Probably have two links, one each for each version of the game? This would be my first idea. -- Pseudo (talk, contributions) User:Pseudo 12:27, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
maybe it could link to the "[game] levels" category? also as a sidenote, the tall version used for Wonder should align the Next levels to the right. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 00:13, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Can this proposal apply to Template:Mission infobox? At least everything in Category:Levels is the same kind of thing. That's untrue of the Missions category, which has achievements, levels, minigames, and those non-level scenario things all together because they're all called "missions". Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

And let's not forget Template:Tour infobox too. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:41, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
Yeah, this may apply to any infobox with that feature. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 13:11, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

For those concerned about the "sequence/chronology" header, I based that on how Wikipedia does it (where they have a "X chronology" in their infoboxes, like this). In my opinion, it makes more sense. (Subjective babble warning) The "previous and next" section is not a regular field, but a fixed "footer" to the infobox. It serves as a navigation aid to the topic of the infobox (e.g. "Super Mario Bros. levels" as a whole series of articles), not as data on the current subject alone. The fact the current format doesn't even list the names, but instead just tells us "go to the previous/next entry" with << and >> evidences that function. If we named it something like "surrounding levels", it would imply that these are to be taken as attributes of the entry isolatedly, like "timer" and "difficulty", when that is not the case. It doesn't seem to matter that much, but there is much implied from just a header title. Bro Hammer (Talk • Cont) 13:11, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4838658"