MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
===Use the cross-generation data for the video game console generation label===
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
It's been three months, seven weeks, and three days since the [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/71#Remove video game console generations|last proposal]] was vetoed by the staff. Just as [[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] said, the video game console generations are categorized as follows within the scope of Nintendo's video game systems:
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
 
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
;{{wp|First generation of video game consoles|First generation}}: {{iw|nwiki|Color TV-Game}}
|}
;{{wp|Second generation of video game consoles|Second generation}}: [[Game & Watch]]
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.
;{{wp|Third generation of video game consoles|Third generation}}: [[Family Computer]] / [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]
;{{wp|Fourth generation of video game consoles|Fourth generation}}: [[Super Famicom]] / [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System]]; [[Game Boy]]
;{{wp|Fifth generation of video game consoles|Fifth generation}}: [[Virtual Boy]]; [[Nintendo 64]]; [[Game Boy Color]]
;{{wp|Sixth generation of video game consoles|Sixth generation}}: [[Game Boy Advance]]; [[Nintendo GameCube]]
;{{wp|Seventh generation of video game consoles|Seventh generation}}: [[Nintendo DS]]; [[Wii]]
;{{wp|Eighth generation of video game consoles|Eighth generation}}: [[Nintendo 3DS]]; [[Wii U]]; [[Nintendo Switch]]
;{{wp|Ninth generation of video game consoles|Ninth generation}}: Nintendo Switch; [[Nintendo Switch 2]]
 
This proposal adds the Nintendo Switch 2 to the scope of the video game consoles by generation.
 
The real solution is that we will be able to add the <code>generation2</code> parameter to the {{tem|system infobox}} template.
 
This is what the <code>generation</code> parameter reads as follows:
 
<pre>
{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}
}}
</pre>
 
Once this proposal passes, then this is what the <code>generation</code> parameter will read as follows:
 
<pre>
{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{#if:{{{generation2}}}|Cross-generation ({{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}}}} – {{wp|{{{generation2}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation2}}}}})|{{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}}}
}}
</pre>
 
If we use the <code>generation2</code> parameter to the Nintendo Switch page, we'll need to use this:
 
<pre>
|generation=eighth
|generation=ninth
</pre>
 
This will read as follows:
 
<blockquote>
Cross-generation ({{wp|eighth generation of video game consoles|eighth}} – {{wp|ninth generation of video game consoles|ninth}})
</blockquote>
 
Now all of that will be the solution if the <code>generation2</code> parameter was added to the <nowiki>{{system infobox}}</nowiki> template. It's so easy to understand which generations a video game system are part of. When it comes to the Switch being a cross-generation video game console, we all know that the work needed will add an extra generation.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: We're crossing over!====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
 
====Oppose: We should cross it out...====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} The amount of things that would properly qualify for being "cross-generation", unless you decide to count the entirety of the Switch or Switch 2 as being "cross-generation" (don't) or include re-releases as being "cross-generation" (''please'' don't) are very few and far between. Off the cuff, we think it literally might just the "New Play Control!" ports, [[Skylanders: SuperChargers]], and [[Nintendo Campus Challenge]], which is going to be split soon anyways... by console generation. Furthermore, and far more pressing, none of these are consoles, they are individual video games; and this proposal specifically is targeting the system infobox. In the absence of anything compelling to use it on for systems themselves, and how niche this would be even if it was expanded to include games (something that would require us to specify a game's given console generation in the first place, which we don't currently do), we can't really see the reason to add this parameter.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} If we really wanted to mark consoles as cross-generational... just make it so we can put that information in the "generation" field. We would have to change the field a bit and move information out from the template itself into the arguments on the articles, but that would honestly be fine — as it stands, the field is a bit hyperspecialized and inflexible. Instead of doing that, this proposal is about creating a second inflexible and '''even more hyperspecialized''' field and adding it to {{tem|system infobox}}, for use on... [[Nintendo Switch|exactly one article]]. It's not a sensible way of solving this problem at all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Let's not overcomplicate things.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Camwoodstock. We only use the generation the console debuted in. The generations the console goes through after don't matter.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Hewer}} I still think we should get rid of the console generations.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
====Cross-comments====
#Actions that [[MarioWiki:Administrators|sysops]] feel are appropriate to have community approval first will be added by a sysop.
To clarify, the original proposal was vetoed by staff because the original proposer requested it to be (it was too late for them to cancel it themselves). As such, I'm not sure if Bro3256 still agrees with these arguments. [[User:Technetium|Technetium]] ([[User talk:Technetium|talk]]) 12:30, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
:Actually, aside from the subject, Bro3256's proposal is entirely irrelevant to what GuntherBaybee is proposing, if I'm reading this correctly:
##Monday to Thrusday: 5pm
:*Bro3256 proposed to ''entirely remove video game console generations'' and redefine it by home console and handheld console (and, for reasons I ''still'' don't understand to this day, ''not count the Virtual Boy at all'').
##Friday and Saturday: 8pm
:*GuntherBayBee instead proposes to add a <code>generation2</code> parameter to {{tem|System infobox}}, to account for the fact that the [[Nintendo Switch]] is a cross-generational system. It's not about removing or redefining the console generations at all: it's just ''about'' the console generations.
##Sunday: 3pm
:{{User:Arend/sig}} 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#The '''original proposer''' calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary.


Archive sub-pages will be made eventually. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
:::So let me get this out of the way first, I did not purposely not count the [[Virtual Boy]], that was an oversight when I made the initial proposal and I do apologize. The main reason I pulled the initial proposal was due to the confusion it left on some users and I feel that partially had to do with how I presented said proposal. I am considering redoing the proposal at another time. In regards to this proposal, I just don't see the point in doing this. I do want to remind users that the current video game console generation system that is used was [https://www.timeextension.com/features/is-wikipedia-really-to-blame-for-video-game-console-generations invented by Wikipedia users in the 2000s]. The concept of video game console generations had been a thing before this but it wasn't until Wikipedia that we see the system that's used to this day. The system is arbitrary even more so now than back when it was created. The [[Nintendo Switch]] for example is categorized on Wikipedia under {{wp|Nintendo Switch|8th and 9th}}
:::*''"The Switch has been compared and considered to compete with consoles of both the eighth and ninth generation by sources."''.  


So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
:::How can a video game platform be in two different console generations? If the Nintendo Switch can be in two console generations, what about other video game platforms? What the heck is a video game console generation? That last question should be quite simple to answer but frankly there is a good chance you will get a differing answer in both what it's supposed to categorize and how it's categorized. Super Mario Wiki is already an example of such an occurrence only labeling the Nintendo Switch in the 8th. I still stand by the idea about getting rid of the video game console generation system on Super Mario Wiki but I'll leave discussing that for any future proposal made in regards to this specific topic. --[[User:Bro3256|Bro3256]] ([[User talk:Bro3256|talk]]) 08:47, March 31, 2025 (EDT)


__TOC__
Are you sure the Switch 2 is a cross-generation system, instead of just a gen 10 console? Remember that the Switch 1 has been on the market for over 8 years now, which is far longer than a regular console has lasted before a successor has been released. {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm sure that the Switch 2 will be a cross-generation system if Sony and Microsoft officially announce the tenth-generation successors to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S respectively. {{User:GuntherBayBeee/sig}} 13:45, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
::No, I mean, the Switch 2 probably is ''not'' a gen 9 console. Obviously it will be competing with the successors of the PS5 and Xbox Series X, but I doubt it will compete with the PS5 and Xbox Series X ''themselves''. {{User:Arend/sig}} 13:53, March 29, 2025 (EDT)


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
I recommend your proposals in the future to be much clearer in the problems identified and what the solutions are. Your proposals have been constantly running into the issues where people, getting swamped by verbiage and code block dumps, simply cannot comprehend what's the problem and the solutions to these. {{User:Mario/sig}} 18:51, March 31, 2025 (EDT)


==New Features==
==New features==
''No proposals here yet.''
===Noting the Switch 2 Editions===
I have seen that it's kind of a mystery how we should note the [[Nintendo Switch 2#Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games|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.


==Policies==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===User Fairness===
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles====
We keep a strict line on user behavior here, but should we set it in stone as a policy? Would contain:
#{{User|memoryman3}} 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.
*No personal attacks: punishable by ban
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal and Memoryman3.
*No edit warring: punishable by warning if excessive
*"Assume good faith" &ndash; already on Wikipedia, assume a user is here to help the project unless (s)he shows malicious behavior


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article====
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m in for this one.


====Set in Stone====
====We make a Switch 2 Edition page where the Switch 2 Editions have their own respective sections====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; couldn't hurt.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:Plumber/sig|Yeah, Hk, but Link kept bugging us about it.}}
#{{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{User:Dinosaur bob/sig}} &ndash; I think it's better that way- it gives more incentive to play nice.
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}} &ndash; I doubt these are reeeeally necessary, but, as Wayoshi said, they wouldn't hurt.
#''Shyster''- I totally agree
# Why not? No harm can come from it. [[User:Hisak|Hisak]] 19:20, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
# {{User:Monty Mole/sig}} See comment


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


====Leave it Unsaid====
====Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2====
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]-We aren't idiots. No need to set it in stone. The policy was suggested by someone who uses condescending statements and insults every other line.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} 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.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - no need for a guidline for everything. I'm with unwritten rules.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#No need to make a rule for what is essentially  common sence.[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all. Too early at this point.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all, and per my comment below


====Comments====
====Comments====
All I'm saying is that we aren't stupid, people should have enough common sense to understand that if they are rude, they have to go home.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
We know so little about what a Switch 2 Edition will mean that I don't think a decision can be made right now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 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 {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 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). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Make a page for [[Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour]]===
{{Early notice|April 10, 2025}}
You know that "game" announced to act as an interactive manual for the new console? The one that should be a free pack-in like ''Astro's Playroom'' and ''Wii Sports'', but for $ome rea$on isn't? That one.
 
Today's Treehouse gameplay [https://youtu.be/MkNm2wmpyto?t=6977 showcased] a segment of the software where you play World 1-1 from ''Super Mario Bros.'' mapped pixel-to-pixel within the console's 4K screen. You're even given challenges to tick off beside simply reaching the level's finish. I'd say this pretty clearly [[MarioWiki:Coverage#Guest appearances|constitutes a guest appearance according to the coverage policy]], meaning the game should have a page that discusses this particular feature. But the policy says I need to make a proposal for it, so.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: Make page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We're not entirely sure this actually needs a proposal. Given ''[[Art Style: PiCTOBiTS]]'' has an article without any real contention when that lets you use Mario items, having a section where you're in [[World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.)]] and ''play as [[Mario]]'' is a no-brainer.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Camwoodstock
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per proposal in 4K.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all... how much will it cost me to support this proposal?
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal 2.
#{{User|Power Flotzo}} Per all.
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per propo$al.


Can we define "personal attacks" before implimenting the policy?  Otherwise, I wasn't aware that this wasn't written down... I guess it's really an extention of the "final judgement" of moderators... or whatever we refer to it as here.  Anyway, on absolutely every online community I've ever been to, moderators are allowed to do whatever they feel necesary to keep the peace, but maybe this will help community newbies understand better.  I'm in favor of the edit wars thing to.  I think if an edit war arrises, however, we need to move right to the talk page of that particular article and vote on the edits, returning the next day.  If we say, "No edit wars," I feel it is too open ended.  Hmm... I wonder what recent events triggered this proposal ;) Oops.  --[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]]
====Oppose: Don't make page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)====


This might sound cruel, but if you don't have enough common sense, you deserve to be banned. I have yet to see how this would affect anything for the better not making it a rule.
====Comments about wiki coverage of the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)====
@Camwoodstock, the policy I quoted should probably be reworded a little to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. Cases like this one where a non-Mario game lets you take control of Mario, interacting with coins, Goombas, and pipes, indeed shouldn't require a proposal to receive coverage. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:10, April 3, 2025 (EDT)
:I think the goal is to make sure everyone's on the same page, so I would be worried about how broad this statement is. Remember, we don't give crossover characters articles just for being playable in a ''WarioWare'' microgame; ergo there is a minimum bar of involvement a game would have to pass to get to the "guest appearance: rank. I would prefer something along the lines of, "A ''Super Mario'' game or portion of a ''Super Mario'' game embedded in a second game means the second game is a guest appearance at minimum", because it is more specific. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 07:11, April 4, 2025 (EDT)


==Removals==
==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.
[[File:Camwoodstock Dark Mode Icon Proposal Sprites.png|thumb|right]]
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''': {{User|Camwoodstock}}
====Which one for light mode?====
'''Deadline''': April 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
;White 3-Up Moon
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Better aesthetic, in my opinion. The alternative sticks out like a sore thumb.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Simple, clean, and fits with the Mushroom sprite perfectly.
;Shine Sprite
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my vote above. I like how it compliments the Mushroom sprite it is next to aesthetically.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} I like the sprites being the same, just palette-swapped, for the toggle. Simple's good.
#{{User|ThePowerPlayer}} Per my other vote.
;Power Moon
;Yellow Crescent (status quo)
====Comments (the sun & moon are fighting!)====
The sun and moon are fighting, eh? [http://brawlinthefamily.keenspot.com/comic/82-superstar/ 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. [[User:BMfan08|BMfan08]] ([[User talk:BMfan08|talk]]) 20:27, March 31, 2025 (EDT)


===Patrollers===
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. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 20:35, March 31, 2025 (EDT)
I have heard this issue in chat. We have ended up battling vandalism very well after a bad rash, so patrollers have become obsolete. The only patroller who has used his powers actively was Great Gonzo, who I promoted to sysophood two days ago.
: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. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:38, March 31, 2025 (EDT)


So is it time to remove the patroller group? Currently {{user|Confused}} and {{user|Aipom}} are patrollers.
I'm surprised [[Angry Sun]]/[[Moon (Super Mario Maker 2)|Moon]] aren't here. There's even the perfect quote in the latter article. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk: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! {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 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. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 03:19, April 2, 2025 (EDT)


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
===Split ''Mario & Sonic'' game categories by version===
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June
This proposal applies to the following games:  
* [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games'' (Nintendo DS)]]
* [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games (Nintendo DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games'' (Nintendo DS)]]
* [[Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (Wii)|''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' (Wii)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the London 2012 Olympic Games'' (Nintendo 3DS)]]
* [[Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Wii U)|''Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games'' (Wii U)]] and [[Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games (Nintendo 3DS)|''Mario & Sonic at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games'' (Nintendo 3DS)]]


====Keep====
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).
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; Never know when another bad rash will come along. I'll find more active users to replace the original four if necessary.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig|We should always have 4 Patrollers.}}
#Maybe we just need more patrollers...<br><small>Sorry, but</small> [[User:Confused|<span style="color:Red;">I</span>]] [[User talk:Confused|<span style="color:Blue;">am</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Confused|<span style="color:Green;">Confused</span>]] 23:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User:Beanbean/sig}} Yep, never know...
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}} Never know.
#{{User:Plumber/sig|Ya never know when an Early Saturday mornin' and sysops are sleeping in...}}


====Get Rid Of====
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.
#I really don't think they're needed. Even with patrollers, the administrators are still doing most of the anti-vandal work. No offense to the current patrollers, but they haven't done much vandal fighting since their promotion. I feel we have enough admins at the moment to withstand another vandal attack even without patrollers, anyway. (that's just my opinion, though). --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}}
#Really I mean, instead of being patrollers isn't it easier to make them sysop or something? <big> '''[[Thief Wario|Silent but deadly!]]''' '''Super'''''[[User:Super Luigi 821|Luigi]]'''''821''''' '''''[[Fracktail|You lost everything. Way to go genious.]]''' </big>
#Agree, we have than enough sysop, and there hasn't been a big vandal attack for long. [[User:Gofer|Sorry, dudes.]]
#Patrollers no longer seem necessary to me for reasons already given by other users; if a user really deserves promotion, he should be a Systems Operator (not that we don't already have enough of even those, too). {{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Technetium}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 23, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Split all categories====
#{{User|Technetium}} As Olympian.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.


===Peer Reviews===
====Split only page categories====
So far, they aren't working out well and people are ignoring them.


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Plumber/sig}} <br>
====Split only file categories====
'''Deadline:''' ''June 6, 2007''
====Keep====
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - I'd say, better less feature articles than many bad ones.
# The old system sucked, people were voting for theirs favorite characters rather than for the qulality of the article itself. [[User:Gofer|I might review some...]]
#{{User:Dinosaur bob/sig}} -I've done a few edits to Yoshi already. Just point me towards the other articles and I'll see what I and my meager talents can do.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]-Even if it was ALttP's idea, it still might help. I'll review article everyday if it helps.
#[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]] - Well... He really has a lot of good ideas.  This is one of his best ideas, IMO.  I think we need to create an article on the front page that asks for input on the articles, though.  That would be sweet.


====Get rid of====
====Keep all categories merged====
#{{User:Plumber/sig}} 00:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
#No one is really reviewing the articles {{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
#{{User:isyou/sig}}
# {{User:Beanbean/sig}} 17:49, 30 May 2007 (EDT) I don't really like this proposal thing, and not many users rate the articles.
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}} I don't think it's really working out.


====Comments====
====Comments at the Olympic Games====


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
===What is a game?===
Per {{@|Camwoodstock}}'s comments on the ongoing [[Talk:List of games#A location for the water games, pocket pinball machines, Water Teaser, and other similar items|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.


===Mario Awards: Wiki or Forum===
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}
The very exciting '''[[MarioWiki:Anniversary|Mario Awards]]''' (Saturday August 11th), an all-day event, will cap off with a 4-hour ceremony (7-11p EDT), presenting the results of the 30 awards to be voted on starting Sunday June 10. However, should this excellent event be
*on the wiki, with more members, or
*on the forum, with a select but likely active group of members?


Here I list some '''facts''' (''not'' pros/cons) for both. Look carefully.
====Do board games move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
;Yes
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock.


<table style="color:black;padding:5px;background:none" width=90% align=center><tr>
;No
<td style="background:#f0f0ff;text-align:left" width=45%><big>'''Wiki'''</big>
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.
*More users can participate
*Open page: One long page shows it all
*Templates can be used to block off presentations from comments, or sections prepared ahead of time
*Edit conflicts can be severe problem if there are no premade sections
*Official record is where it all started
</td><td style="background:#f0f0ff;text-align:right" width=45%><big>'''Forum'''</big>
*Less but maybe the most active users can participate
*Multiple pages: hard to navigate, 20 posts won't take long to fill up
*Flood control: have to wait 20 seconds between editing a post, which can be annoying
*Double/triple posting and beyond instead of editing original post may be common in excitement
*No edit conflicts
*Official record is on a sub-site, not the main site
</td></tr></table>


====Wiki====
====Do card games move to the list?====
#&nbsp;[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]]
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Forum====
;Yes
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#<big> '''[[Thief Wario|Silent but deadly!]]''' '''Super'''''[[User:Super Luigi 821|Luigi]]'''''821''''' '''''[[Fracktail|You lost everything. Way to go genious.]]''' </big>
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#I agree. Forum should be used more. Plus there are a lot of wiki glitches.<br><small>Sorry, but</small> [[User:Confused|<span style="color:Red;">I</span>]] [[User talk:Confused|<span style="color:Blue;">am</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Confused|<span style="color:Green;">Confused</span>]] 23:44, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock again.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
#Forum. No offense, wiki. {{User:TheGreatBlockyBoo/sig|Filler}}
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}} Original plan, and how it's going to stay.


<h4>Comments</h4>
;No
===Move Chat===
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
In order to deter Willy and protect this silly little anniversary thing, it has come to the attention of many that the chat should be moved back to the forums. This move has not previously been opposed, it has merely been put off.
 
*Unfortunately, this might lower the number of users in chat. If enough users support with strong supporting arguments, we may get this through the system at a higher speed.
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
*This would deter Willy and other trolls.
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
*No real troll attack on the anniversary thing.
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. This is gonna be appearing a few more times...
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock yet again.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock once more.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
 
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It is currently listed under "Other Super Mario-themed games" on the [[list of merchandise]].
 
;No
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote above.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Rides are not games.
 
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. There's a dedicated HTML section now.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} With an HTML section in tow, we feel it's only fair.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Sure.
 
;No
 
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
 
;No
#{{User|1468z}} 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.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Shinya Takahashi ("[https://www.youtube.com/live/9OqoRxXUjGA?t=34m58s <nowiki>[Nintendo Today]</nowiki> is something a little different that's not a game]").
#{{User|Rykitu}} 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
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
 
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. They were made by [[Banpresto]], usable in arcades, and required money to play.
 
;No
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Rykitu}} 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
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock twice more.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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 <s>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,</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:23, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
:Also, Wikipedia does italicise ''{{wp|Jenga}}''. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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? [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 13:21, April 8, 2025 (EDT)
::I suppose that'd work too. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 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. {{User:Rykitu/sig}}
 
:{{@|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. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 13:11, April 9, 2025 (EDT)
::Ok, that works! {{User:Rykitu/sig}}
 
===Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers===
For some infoboxes like [[Template:M&LSS enemy|RPG enemy infoboxes]] or [[Template:DKC TV episode infobox|show episode infoboxes]], the work is displayed in a header (like "''Paper Mario'' enemy" or "''Super Mario World'' episode"). Others, like the generic [[Template:Level infobox|level infobox]] (which has only "Level" in a header) and the [[Template:Minigame infobox|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 [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]], and infoboxes for specific games.
 
In the end, the infoboxes affected by this change would be:
*[[Template:Board infobox]]
*[[Template:Course infobox]]
*[[Template:DDRMM song infobox]]
*[[Template:DK64 level infobox]]
*[[Template:DKC level infobox]]
*[[Template:DKC3 world infobox]]
*[[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox]]
*[[Template:DKR course infobox]]
*[[Template:DLC infobox]]
*[[Template:Golf course infobox]]
*[[Template:Kart infobox]]
*[[Template:Level infobox]]
*[[Template:LM ghost infobox]]
*[[Template:LM portrait infobox]]
*[[Template:LM room infobox]]
*[[Template:Minigame infobox]]
*[[Template:Mission infobox]]
*[[Template:M&L attack infobox]]
*[[Template:M&S episode infobox]]
*[[Template:M&S event infobox]]
*[[Template:M+RSOH planet infobox]]
*[[Template:MKDD kart infobox]]
*[[Template:MSM court infobox]]
*[[Template:PM item infobox]]
*[[Template:PMCS location infobox]]
*[[Template:PMTOK location infobox]]
*[[Template:Power Shot infobox]]
*[[Template:Race course infobox]]
*[[Template:SMG boss infobox]]
*[[Template:Space infobox]]
*[[Template:Tennis court infobox]]
*[[Template:Tour infobox]]
*[[Template:World infobox]]
 
(As for [[Template:Space infobox|spaces]], [[Template:Kart infobox|karts and kart parts]], [[Template:PM item infobox|''Paper Mario'' item]] and [[Template:Power Shot infobox|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''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br/>
'''Deadline''': April 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I like uniformity.
 
====Oppose: do not change any infoboxes====
 
====Comments (Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers)====
 
===Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link===
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 [[:Category:Levels|Level category]] or [[World|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 [[The Desert Mystery|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.
 
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"
|-
!colspan=3 style="background: pink;" | See examples
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
|
{| class="infobox" style="width:220px;background:#f7f8ff;border-color:#88a;--darkborder:#7a8596;--darkbannerbg:#525864;--darksubbannerbg:#3d424b;--darkrowbg:none;--darkfooterbg:#292C32;--darkbg:#141619"
! colspan="2" style="font-size:120%;background:#bbccea" | Level
|-
| colspan="2" style="font-size:125%;background:#ccddfa;text-align:center" | Donut Ghost House
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center" | [[File:Donut Ghost House.png]]
|-
| '''World'''
| [[Donut Plains]]
|-
|'''Time limit'''
| 300 seconds
|- style="background:#bcf;"
!colspan=2 | Level sequence
|- style="text-align:center"
| style="width: 50%;" | '''← Previous'''<br>[[Donut Plains 2]]<br>[[Donut Secret 1]]
|'''Next →'''<br>[[Donut Plains 3]]<br>[[Top Secret Area]] (secret)
|-
|colspan=2 style="text-align: center;" | [[Super Mario World#Worlds and levels|List of levels]]
|}
|
{| class="infobox" style="width:220px;background:#f7f8ff;border-color:#88a;--darkborder:#7a8596;--darkbannerbg:#525864;--darksubbannerbg:#3d424b;--darkrowbg:none;--darkfooterbg:#292C32;--darkbg:#141619"
! colspan="2" style="font-size:120%;background:#DEA600" | ''{{Color link|#000|Donkey Kong Country (television series)|Donkey Kong Country}}'' episode
|-
| colspan="2" style="font-size:125%;background:#DEA600;text-align:center" | "Watch the Skies"
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center" | [[File:WatchTheSkiesTitle.PNG|250px]]
|-
| '''Episode'''
| 8
|-
|'''Writer'''
| Dale Schott
|- style="background:#DEA600;"
!colspan=2 | Episode chronology
|- style="text-align:center"
| style="width: 50%;" | '''← Previous'''<br>"[[Bug a Boogie]]"
|'''Next →'''<br>"[[Baby Kong Blues]]"
|-
|colspan=2 style="text-align: center;" | [[Donkey Kong Country (television series)#Episodes|List of episodes]]
|}
|
{| class="infobox" style="width:220px;background:#f7f8ff;border-color:#88a;--darkborder:#7a8596;--darkbannerbg:#525864;--darksubbannerbg:#3d424b;--darkrowbg:none;--darkfooterbg:#292C32;--darkbg:#141619"
! colspan="2" style="font-size:120%;background:#bbccea" | Level
|-
| colspan="2" style="font-size:125%;background:#ccddfa;text-align:center" | The Desert Mystery
|-
| colspan="2" style="text-align:center" | [[File:TheDesertMystery Wonder.jpg|250px]]
|-
| '''World'''
| [[Sunbaked Desert]]
|-
|'''Difficulty'''
| ★★
|- style="background:#bcf;"
!colspan=2 | Level sequence
|-
|colspan=2 | '''← Previous'''<br>[[Sunbaked Desert House]]
|-
|colspan=2 | '''Next →'''<br>[[Color-Switch Dungeon]]<br>[[Secrets of Shova Mansion]]<br>[[Sunbaked Desert Palace]]<br>[[Badge Challenge Crouching High Jump II]]<br>[[KO Arena Sunbaked Skirmish]]
|-
|colspan=2 style="text-align: center;" | [[Super Mario Bros. Wonder#Locations|List of levels]]
|}
|}


'''Proposer:''' [[User:HK-47|Hk]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 6 June
'''Deadline''': April 25, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Let it lie where it is====
====Support: change how previous and next entries are presented in infoboxes====
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; Willy will calm down. The chat needs to be open to everyone &ndash; compromise could be for Steve to unlock the restriction on the forum.
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per proposal.
#{{User:Aipom/sig}} Sorry, but my vote is here.
#{{User|PopitTart}} 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??
#{{User:Plumber/sig|I know Willy will calm down.}}
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} 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...)
#[[User:Bottle Wizzerd|Bottle Wizzerd]] - Nobody can troll forever. :/
#[[User:AmossGuy|AmossGuy]] ([[User talk:AmossGuy|talk]]) This simply shows the information more clearly, I think. And I like Ahemtoday's suggestion of "surrounding levels" for the terminology.
#[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]] It's much more appealing where it is... I mean you just click. Boom.
#{{User|Sparks}} '''YES!!'''
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} 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 Gyakushū]]s'', 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
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all! huge fan of this


====Move Chat to Forum====
====Oppose: keep previous and next entries presentation as is====
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]-As is said, many users are for this change, and this will definitely deter trolls.
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
#{{User:YellowYoshi398/sig}}
#Willy has gone crazy, I dont really think that Willy will ever calm down. {{User:isyou/sig}}
#{{User:Beanbean/sig}} Keeps trollers off
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}}


<h4>Comments</h4>
====Comments (Change previous and next entries presentation in infoboxes)====
People seem to believe this Willy guy is going away soon. Take a look-- he's been here forever. One of the first big things I did on this wiki a year ago was move pages back to their rightful name after Willy had his first bout of fun. He ISN'T going anywhere.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
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? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 00:24, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
:This is what it says in the block log about Willy: '''07:55, 18 June 2006 Porplemontage (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Willy on Wheels (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll)''', and that was about a year ago. He's struck several more times, and keeps coming back.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::This Willy is another Willy who idolizes the first one. {{User:Plumber/sig}} 20:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There have also been several other past Willy attacks that follow the same same pattern, plus Silly Dan, plus StarNeptune, equals Willy won't quit. Besides, Plumber, think of the horrible nasty things hes said about YOUR sister. Although, the entire thing could be WarioLoaf.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::::Personally, Willy and all who worship him will never calm down. There is no educating the unreasonable. {{User:Monty Mole/sig}}
:::::Exactly. How many of us have tried to reason with ALttP and failed? The unreasonable are un-educational.{{User:HK-47/sig}}

Revision as of 00:24, April 11, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, April 18th, 15:33 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)
Split Mario & Sonic game categories by version, Technetium (ended April 16, 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

Use the cross-generation data for the video game console generation label

It's been three months, seven weeks, and three days since the last proposal was vetoed by the staff. Just as Bro3256 said, the video game console generations are categorized as follows within the scope of Nintendo's video game systems:

First generation
Color TV-Game
Second generation
Game & Watch
Third generation
Family Computer / Nintendo Entertainment System
Fourth generation
Super Famicom / Super Nintendo Entertainment System; Game Boy
Fifth generation
Virtual Boy; Nintendo 64; Game Boy Color
Sixth generation
Game Boy Advance; Nintendo GameCube
Seventh generation
Nintendo DS; Wii
Eighth generation
Nintendo 3DS; Wii U; Nintendo Switch
Ninth generation
Nintendo Switch; Nintendo Switch 2

This proposal adds the Nintendo Switch 2 to the scope of the video game consoles by generation.

The real solution is that we will be able to add the generation2 parameter to the {{system infobox}} template.

This is what the generation parameter reads as follows: 

{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}
}}

Once this proposal passes, then this is what the generation parameter will read as follows: 

{{#if:{{{generation|}}}|
{{!}} '''Generation'''
{{!}} {{#if:{{{generation2}}}|Cross-generation ({{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}}}} – {{wp|{{{generation2}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation2}}}}})|{{wp|{{{generation}}} generation of video game consoles|{{{generation}}} generation}}}}
}}

If we use the generation2 parameter to the Nintendo Switch page, we'll need to use this: 

|generation=eighth
|generation=ninth

This will read as follows:

Cross-generation (eighth – ninth)

Now all of that will be the solution if the generation2 parameter was added to the {{system infobox}} template. It's so easy to understand which generations a video game system are part of. When it comes to the Switch being a cross-generation video game console, we all know that the work needed will add an extra generation.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: April 12, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: We're crossing over!

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: We should cross it out...

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) The amount of things that would properly qualify for being "cross-generation", unless you decide to count the entirety of the Switch or Switch 2 as being "cross-generation" (don't) or include re-releases as being "cross-generation" (please don't) are very few and far between. Off the cuff, we think it literally might just the "New Play Control!" ports, Skylanders: SuperChargers, and Nintendo Campus Challenge, which is going to be split soon anyways... by console generation. Furthermore, and far more pressing, none of these are consoles, they are individual video games; and this proposal specifically is targeting the system infobox. In the absence of anything compelling to use it on for systems themselves, and how niche this would be even if it was expanded to include games (something that would require us to specify a game's given console generation in the first place, which we don't currently do), we can't really see the reason to add this parameter.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) If we really wanted to mark consoles as cross-generational... just make it so we can put that information in the "generation" field. We would have to change the field a bit and move information out from the template itself into the arguments on the articles, but that would honestly be fine — as it stands, the field is a bit hyperspecialized and inflexible. Instead of doing that, this proposal is about creating a second inflexible and even more hyperspecialized field and adding it to {{system infobox}}, for use on... exactly one article. It's not a sensible way of solving this problem at all.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) Let's not overcomplicate things.
  4. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Camwoodstock. We only use the generation the console debuted in. The generations the console goes through after don't matter.
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  6. Hewer (talk) I still think we should get rid of the console generations.

Cross-comments

To clarify, the original proposal was vetoed by staff because the original proposer requested it to be (it was too late for them to cancel it themselves). As such, I'm not sure if Bro3256 still agrees with these arguments. Technetium (talk) 12:30, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

Actually, aside from the subject, Bro3256's proposal is entirely irrelevant to what GuntherBaybee is proposing, if I'm reading this correctly:
  • Bro3256 proposed to entirely remove video game console generations and redefine it by home console and handheld console (and, for reasons I still don't understand to this day, not count the Virtual Boy at all).
  • GuntherBayBee instead proposes to add a generation2 parameter to {{System infobox}}, to account for the fact that the Nintendo Switch is a cross-generational system. It's not about removing or redefining the console generations at all: it's just about the console generations.
ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
So let me get this out of the way first, I did not purposely not count the Virtual Boy, that was an oversight when I made the initial proposal and I do apologize. The main reason I pulled the initial proposal was due to the confusion it left on some users and I feel that partially had to do with how I presented said proposal. I am considering redoing the proposal at another time. In regards to this proposal, I just don't see the point in doing this. I do want to remind users that the current video game console generation system that is used was invented by Wikipedia users in the 2000s. The concept of video game console generations had been a thing before this but it wasn't until Wikipedia that we see the system that's used to this day. The system is arbitrary even more so now than back when it was created. The Nintendo Switch for example is categorized on Wikipedia under 8th and 9th
  • "The Switch has been compared and considered to compete with consoles of both the eighth and ninth generation by sources.".
How can a video game platform be in two different console generations? If the Nintendo Switch can be in two console generations, what about other video game platforms? What the heck is a video game console generation? That last question should be quite simple to answer but frankly there is a good chance you will get a differing answer in both what it's supposed to categorize and how it's categorized. Super Mario Wiki is already an example of such an occurrence only labeling the Nintendo Switch in the 8th. I still stand by the idea about getting rid of the video game console generation system on Super Mario Wiki but I'll leave discussing that for any future proposal made in regards to this specific topic. --Bro3256 (talk) 08:47, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

Are you sure the Switch 2 is a cross-generation system, instead of just a gen 10 console? Remember that the Switch 1 has been on the market for over 8 years now, which is far longer than a regular console has lasted before a successor has been released. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:48, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

I'm sure that the Switch 2 will be a cross-generation system if Sony and Microsoft officially announce the tenth-generation successors to the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X|S respectively. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 13:45, March 29, 2025 (EDT)
No, I mean, the Switch 2 probably is not a gen 9 console. Obviously it will be competing with the successors of the PS5 and Xbox Series X, but I doubt it will compete with the PS5 and Xbox Series X themselves. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 13:53, March 29, 2025 (EDT)

I recommend your proposals in the future to be much clearer in the problems identified and what the solutions are. Your proposals have been constantly running into the issues where people, getting swamped by verbiage and code block dumps, simply cannot comprehend what's the problem and the solutions to these. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:51, March 31, 2025 (EDT)

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.
  2. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal and Memoryman3.

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

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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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)

Make a page for Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on April 10, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

You know that "game" announced to act as an interactive manual for the new console? The one that should be a free pack-in like Astro's Playroom and Wii Sports, but for $ome rea$on isn't? That one.

Today's Treehouse gameplay showcased a segment of the software where you play World 1-1 from Super Mario Bros. mapped pixel-to-pixel within the console's 4K screen. You're even given challenges to tick off beside simply reaching the level's finish. I'd say this pretty clearly constitutes a guest appearance according to the coverage policy, meaning the game should have a page that discusses this particular feature. But the policy says I need to make a proposal for it, so.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: April 17, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Make page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) We're not entirely sure this actually needs a proposal. Given Art Style: PiCTOBiTS has an article without any real contention when that lets you use Mario items, having a section where you're in World 1-1 (Super Mario Bros.) and play as Mario is a no-brainer.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock
  4. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  5. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal in 4K.
  6. Tails777 (talk) Per all... how much will it cost me to support this proposal?
  7. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal 2.
  8. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.
  9. Killer Moth (talk) Per all.
  10. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per propo$al.

Oppose: Don't make page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)

Comments about wiki coverage of the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour(TM)

@Camwoodstock, the policy I quoted should probably be reworded a little to be more of a recommendation than a requirement. Cases like this one where a non-Mario game lets you take control of Mario, interacting with coins, Goombas, and pipes, indeed shouldn't require a proposal to receive coverage. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:10, April 3, 2025 (EDT)

I think the goal is to make sure everyone's on the same page, so I would be worried about how broad this statement is. Remember, we don't give crossover characters articles just for being playable in a WarioWare microgame; ergo there is a minimum bar of involvement a game would have to pass to get to the "guest appearance: rank. I would prefer something along the lines of, "A Super Mario game or portion of a Super Mario game embedded in a second game means the second game is a guest appearance at minimum", because it is more specific. Salmancer (talk) 07:11, April 4, 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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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.

Oppose: do not change any infoboxes

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

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

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

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)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4835459"