MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
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"
''None at the moment.''
|'''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.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#Actions that [[MarioWiki:Administrators|sysops]] feel are appropriate to have community approval first will be added by a sysop.
===Split the talk page proposals list into sections===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
Isn't it weird how the main page proposals are split between "New features", "Removals", "Changes", and "Miscellaneous", yet the talk page proposals are all in one big list? Even though there's way more talk page than main page proposals? I think that's pretty weird.
##Monday to Thrusday: 5pm
##Friday and Saturday: 8pm
##Sunday: 3pm
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has strong reasons supporting it.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#The '''original proposer''' calls the result of the proposal and takes action(s) as decided if necessary.


Archive sub-pages will be made eventually. The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
;The benefits of sorting talk page proposals:
*Makes individual proposals easier to spot and parse by breaking up the list into easier to read chunks
*Groups similar proposals together
*Parity with main page proposals


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.
;The downsides of sorting talk page proposals:
*The list stops being fully chronological
*I can't think of another downside


__TOC__
As per [[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] on the Discord server, the categories should be "Splits", "Merges", "Moves", and "Miscellaneous", since they're by far the most common reason folks make a talk page proposal.


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==New Features==
====Split the talk page proposals====
''No proposals here yet.''
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ''Thank'' you. This is well overdue, as the TPP list has been kind of a rat's nest as of late; literally any organization is well worth it, in our opinion. Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} This kind of feature parity is quite useful, especially when the list has a lot of proposals on it!


==Policies==
====Do not split the talk page proposals====


===User Fairness===
===="Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)====
We keep a strict line on user behavior here, but should we set it in stone as a policy? Would contain:
What if a proposal falls into multiple categories? For instance, [[Talk:List of Smash Taunt characters#Doing something about this page|this]] was both a merge and move proposal, [[Talk:Cheep Cheep (bird)#Move back to Cheep Cheep (bird) and/or split Puncher|this]] was both a move and split proposal, [[Talk:Bad Luck Space#Remerge with Unlucky Space, take two|this]] is both a merge and split proposal... {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:08, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
*No personal attacks: punishable by ban
:either "Miscellaneous" or whatever the most relevant category is, same way as if a main page proposal fell into multiple categories. up to the proposer's discretion. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:20, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
*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>
==Removals==
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June
''None at the moment.''


====Set in Stone====
==Changes==
#{{User:Wayoshi/sig}} &ndash; couldn't hurt.
===Split lists of changes from remakes' articles===
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
(OK, it has been like ten years since I last made a Proposal, so forgive me if something is wrong.)<br>
#{{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


It has come to my attention, from '''trying''' to browse the [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|TTYD Switch remake]] article, not as an editor, but as a player looking for specific information, just how awfully nightmarish it is to navigate it when 80%+ of the content is a massive list of changes that, while interesting, should definitely not be the focus of four fifths of the article (nor the first proper section in it, but that's not the focus of this Proposal), particularly when many people searching for the article have possibly only played the remake and as such this information would be mostly irrelevant at best. We already split glitches, staff, beta elements, etc... Why not this?<br>


====Leave it Unsaid====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}}<br>
#[[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.
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - no need for a guidline for everything. I'm with unwritten rules.
 
#No need to make a rule for what is essentially  common sence.[[User:Gofer|Gofer]]
====Support====
#{{user|Henry Tucayo Clay}} - Per proposal
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|YoYo}} If you're going on the page for the remake specifically, chances are you are looking for what changes there are. Splitting all that information off would reduce the page for the remake into almost nothing comparatively, defeating the purpose of the page to begin with. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 12:55, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} What's the point of having reissues split from the original game if the article doesn't cover the changes that are present? Isn't that, like, the main reason they're split in the first place? The [[Virtual Console]] version of ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' isn't split because...it's just ''Super Mario Bros.'', but the [[Game Boy Color]] version of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (Game Boy Color)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' is split from the [[SNES]] version of ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' because it introduces changes such as [[Candy's Challenge]], [[Funky Fishing]], [[Necky Nutmare|a new level]], etc., and most people are gonna want to read about these changes on the reissue's article! Just makes something so simple so confusing.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all. Some releases (specifically enhanced ports) have minimal changes (such as ''[[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns HD]]'', and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]''), so this would strip most of the content from those pages. And in the cases of full remakes, like ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'', ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Mario Bros. Returns]]'', ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'', the page would just end up becoming a paragraphs long. For example, if the changes between ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' and ''[[VS. Super Mario Bros.]]'' were split off into a separate article, the ''VS. Super Mario Bros.'' article would simply discuss the production of the game, how it was never released in Japan, and its [[Arcade Archives]] port. This would also result in drastically shortening the pages for ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', since the main selling point of those games is their changes from the original version.
#{{User|Arend}} Splitting the changes off would result in the remaining page being ''really'' barren in order to avoid [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Repeated content|repeated content]]. At that point, what would be the point of keeping the remake split, then?
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Now, admittedly; we can see the merit of listing the content of a game outside of the context of "what's different in this port?". We killed "Once And Only Once" for a reason; sometimes, it's nice to just. Have a table of what exactly is in that specific incarnation of the game. The issue is, that's not currently the state the majority of remake articles are in, and these lists are either most, or ''all'', you have. The ''TTYD'' remake page, and our personal bugbear, the ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions]]'' page in particular, would become about as short as a page like ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'', and those are multi-hour long RPGs versus a 2-or-so hour long platformer game. In a world where these pages are more direct about the contents of their remakes beyond a bullet-pointed list, this would be fine, but we are not there yet. Therefore, the lists stay on the same page.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Camwoodstock. a decision like this should come from changing how we cover reissues entirely. with our current reissue coverage policy, splitting the differences is basically splitting the main meat of the article.


====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}}
@YoYo: If you are specifically looking for changes from the original to the remake, wouldn't a dedicated article make more sense, then? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 13:33, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
:What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)


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


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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
====Both====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu credits}} Per proposal
 
====Only rename articles====


===Patrollers===
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.


So is it time to remove the patroller group? Currently {{user|Confused}} and {{user|Aipom}} are patrollers.
====Only include credits sequence information====


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June


====Keep====
====Neither====
#{{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====
#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====
====Comments====
What does it mean to "use patrolling powers properly"? {{User:Plumber/sig}} 20:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)


:Don't abuse them. Also: ''"We should always have 4 Patrollers."'' &ndash; Why, exactly? ''" Ya never know when an Early Saturday mornin' and sysops are sleeping in..."'' &ndash; What exactly makes you think patrollers would be up at that time, yet not sysops? --{{User:KPH2293/Signature}} 20:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
==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.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}
 
====Do board games move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} The article is titled the "list of games," not the "list of ''VIDEO'' games." It'd be nice if this page just covered every game of every type, especially seeing how I consider board games (or anything of the sort) to be closer to games than merchandise. Besides, they are called board ''GAMES'', so why shouldn't they be included on the "list of ''GAMES''"?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock. While I understand Nintendo101's point about board games often being promotional tie-in products, they are still Mario franchise media in their own right, and a kind of game at that.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. As a big Mario Party fan. I feel like board games fit to the category of games
 
;No
#{{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.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per Nintendo101. There are a lot of different mediums for games in this world, but it's indisputable that the Mario franchise manifests itself most often in video games, and I believe this specific list is better off focusing on those, with an appropriate move to "List of ''video'' games". I can see the appeal and use of a page for Mario games that are not video games, though, and I support creating that. The wiki currently considers these games to be "merchandise", which I consider apt for some (like the shampoo bottles) but something of a stretch for others (board games).
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne. I'm not denying that board games are games, but they're not ''video'' games, and I think "List of video games" would be a more useful page for this wiki about a primarily video game franchise than "List of games".
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all. I would rather the wiki not mix the core media of the Mario franchise (video games) with miscellaneous pieces of merchandise such as board games.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per Koopa con Carne
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
====Do card games move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{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.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock again.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock and my above vote for board games.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Also per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Also a mere semantic distinction between party games like this and board games, in my view.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Things like Jenga are such family games, like ''Mario Party''. I have the feeling they should've already been classified as games long ago.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. (You also do not italicize Jenga.)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the card game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do physical games (i.e. ''Barrel of Monkeys''-style things with physical characters and pieces) move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 26, 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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Yet again per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per my other "yes" votes.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the party game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-10|Do not add ''Super Mario Ride'' 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]].
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I'm a maximal inclusivist when it comes to these things, so I think anything anyone could plausibly conceptualize as "a game" ought to be classified as a game for navigational purposes.
 
;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.
#{{User|Pseudo}} If it's a toy and not a game, it probably shouldn't count. This is a slightly different category of item.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|Add ''Play Nintendo'' games 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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} We have other browser games on the list, why not these?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. Even if the term we were using was "video game" instead of just "game" I would think these should count.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These seems like games as much as a typical Flash game of old, [[List of games#Adobe Flash|which we already include in the list of games]], so this seems more clear cut than any of the others.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Nelsonic and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
;No
 
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-11|Do not add ''Nintendo Today!'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::They might be up, they might not, but it's better to have extra hands around. Why decline some willing to help you with your work? {{User:Plumber/sig|I think there's more to it than "Don't abuse them." since I was demoted for not using my powers when I never abused them.}}
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I understand everyone else's hesitation, but Nelsonic has a point!


===Peer Reviews===
;No
So far, they aren't working out well and people are ignoring them.  
#{{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.
#{{User|Pseudo}} This seems like not so much of a game to me as a platform for games (in addition to other media); at most, I'd support adding this app's individual included games to the list.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. ''Nintendo Today!'' is basically just a daily newspaper (similar to ''[[The 'Shroom:Main Page|The 'Shroom]]'').
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Plumber/sig}} <br>
====Does ''[[Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land]]'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline:''' ''June 6, 2007''
{{Proposal outcome|passed|8-2|Add ''Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land'' to the list}}
====Keep====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
#{{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====
;Yes
#{{User:Plumber/sig}} 00:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
#No one is really reviewing the articles {{User:Aipom/sig}}
#{{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:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User:isyou/sig}}
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
# {{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|JanMisali}} Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}} I don't think it's really working out.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Eh, more or less? It's sort of an edge case but it's still primarily intended as interactive, just in an unusual format. It is definitely a "game" that relies on "video" for displaying its contents.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Checks both the "video" and the "game" parts of "video game". As long as {{wp|Dragon's Lair (1983 video game)|''Dragon's Lair''}} is considered a video game, this should too.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.


====Comments====
;No
It's a good idea, but no one is using it. Therefore, it is pointless. {{User:Plumber/sig}} 20:48, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I have mixed feelings  about this one, but I'm turning more to the "No" side. I just don't feel like interactive cartoons can be considered games.
 
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-9|Do not add rides 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.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my ''Super Mario Ride'' vote.
 
;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.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems like not so much a game as an automated experience; games require interactivity of some kind, I'd think.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Once again per Camwoodstock and Rykitu.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 26, 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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Yeah, it's pretty much a type of game. Per Camwoodstock's comparison to Game & Watch.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====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}}


==Miscellaneous==
@JanMisali: I think Nelsonic was mistaken about the amount of interactivity in Nintendo Today. The misleadingly named "quizzes" are just pages that describe a character, with no more interactivity than [https://mario.nintendo.com/characters/ the websites that the descriptions come from]. At that point, what piece of software ''wouldn't'' you consider a game? Is [[Nintendo Music]] a game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:17, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:I fully sincerely believe anything with any amount of interactivity at all can be considered a game. Websites, apps, web browsers, activity books, DVD menus, and pretty much all software. I think it's better to cast a wide net and include things that 99% of people would say aren't games than it is to be too narrow and exclude things 1% of people would say are games. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:27, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
::That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)


===Mario Awards: Wiki or Forum===
At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)
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
:{{@|Hewer}} Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)
*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.
===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.


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} <br>
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).
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 5 June


<table style="color:black;padding:5px;background:none" width=90% align=center><tr>
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.
<td style="background:#f0f0ff;text-align:left" width=45%><big>'''Wiki'''</big>
*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====
That would affect every infobox that has a "Game" field currently, the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]], and infoboxes for specific games.
#&nbsp;[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]]


====Forum====
In the end, the infoboxes affected by this change would be:
#[[User:HK-47|Hk]]
*[[Template:Board infobox]]
#<big> '''[[Thief Wario|Silent but deadly!]]''' '''Super'''''[[User:Super Luigi 821|Luigi]]'''''821''''' '''''[[Fracktail|You lost everything. Way to go genious.]]''' </big>
*[[Template:Course infobox]]
#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)
*[[Template:DDRMM song infobox]]
#{{User:Great Gonzo/sig}}
*[[Template:DK64 level infobox]]
#{{User:Aipom/sig}}
*[[Template:DKC level infobox]]
#{{user:yellowYoshi398/sig}}
*[[Template:DKC3 world infobox]]
#Forum. No offense, wiki. {{User:TheGreatBlockyBoo/sig|Filler}}
*[[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox]]
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}} Original plan, and how it's going to stay.
*[[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]]


<h4>Comments</h4>
(As for [[Template:Space infobox|spaces]], [[Template:Kart infobox|karts and kart parts]], [[Template:PM item infobox|''Paper Mario'' item]], which have an "Appears in" field, I suggest we indicate the ''series'' in the header instead (''Mario Party'', ''Mario Kart'' and ''Paper Mario''), since they are not really "tied" to the game they debuted in, but are series-wide elements.)
===Move Chat===
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.
*This would deter Willy and other trolls.
*No real troll attack on the anniversary thing.


'''Proposer:''' [[User:HK-47|Hk]] <br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br/>
'''Deadline:''' 17:00, 6 June
'''Deadline''': <s>April 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> April 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Let it lie where it is====
====Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell====
#{{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|Ahemtoday}} I like uniformity.
#{{User:Plumber/sig|I know Willy will calm down.}}
#{{User|Salmancer}} I see the appeal.
#[[User:Bottle Wizzerd|Bottle Wizzerd]] - Nobody can troll forever. :/
#[[User:Stumpers|Stumpers]] It's much more appealing where it is... I mean you just click. Boom.
#{{USer:3dejong/sig|we can just kick Willy when we comes.}}


====Move Chat to Forum====
====Oppose: do not change any infoboxes====
#[[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 away from forum, some might not even know where the forum is
#{{User:Monty Mole/sig}}


<h4>Comments</h4>
====Comments (Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers)====
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}}
My understanding is that Power Shots are exclusive to exactly two Mario Tennis games, ''[[Mario Power Tennis]]'' and ''[[Mario Tennis: Power Tour]]''. And of them, only twelve appear in both games. At that point, you might as well just have those twelve them say "Mario Power Tennis Power Shot" and say they reappear in ''Mario Tennis: Power Tour''. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:45, 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, and I tried hard to figure out how to phrase this, but there really isn't a word, un-educatable.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::::::We have successfully reasoned with Willy already, and he wants to be a good user. I stopped him, also by reacting normally and continuing his remarks like he was starting a conversation. {{User:Plumber/sig}} 20:50, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Supposedly, in chat, he said that he wanted to become a good user, but can't control himself. Then he said something about p***s and p**p, so we don't believe him that much. >_<{{USer:3dejong/sig|you're right. No rest for the wicked. And no education too.}}
::::::::You reasoned with him? I doubt it.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
:::::::::We talked to him, but I doubt he'll do anything to reform. {{User:3dejong/sig|Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Not.}}
::::::::::I wonder why nobody trusts anybody? {{User:Plumber/sig}} 20:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Its tough to trust someone who acts like Willy. Savvy?{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::::::::::::He's had a lot of chances, and blew them all. {{USer:3dejong/sig|I savvy.}}
:::::::::::::3D, vote for the change.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::::::::::::::Maxlover2 had a lot of chances and blew them all but one. {{User:Plumber/sig}} 21:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::OK, we know. But this guy, I beleive, will never change. And I think the chat should stay where it is. We can just kick Willy when we comes. {{USer:3dejong/sig|don't knock me.}}
::::::::::::::::Maxlover2 isn't a troll.{{User:HK-47/sig}}
:::::::::::::::::When he first cmae here, he knew none of the rules. Like me. {{USer:3dejong/sig|I blew all my chances but one! Look at me!}}
::::::::::::::::::And me. Maxlover2 '''was''' a troll, on Wikipedia. He came here to spam, but 3D was nice to him, so he stopped. {{User:Plumber/sig}} 21:11, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Seriously? Wow. Anyway, I personally beleive he is a spammer, and a spammer he will stay. Sorry. Look at Peachycakes! {{User:3dejong/sig|you can debate now.}}
:Look, Willy is a buffoon, and he won't stop. Look at what he said to your sister, he's a sick freak, how can you forgive him?{{User:HK-47/sig}}
::And all that stuff about "My p3|\|15 grows like ice cream" and "I like to eat creamy p**p".... AAAH! IT'S SICK! {{USer:3dejong/sig|you, sir, ROFL my WFLEs.}}

Latest revision as of 19:41, April 23, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, April 24th, 10:55 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 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)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 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 Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Refocus Papa Mario as "Mario's dad", Superstarxalien169 (ended April 4, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025)
Clean up the Pipe Cannon article, PrincessPeachFan (ended April 21, 2025)
Split Mega Cheep Chomp from Cheep Chomp, Sorbetti (ended April 21, 2025)
Split Teresa no Taigun from Blindfold Boo, Sorbetti (ended April 22, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Split the talk page proposals list into sections

Isn't it weird how the main page proposals are split between "New features", "Removals", "Changes", and "Miscellaneous", yet the talk page proposals are all in one big list? Even though there's way more talk page than main page proposals? I think that's pretty weird.

The benefits of sorting talk page proposals
  • Makes individual proposals easier to spot and parse by breaking up the list into easier to read chunks
  • Groups similar proposals together
  • Parity with main page proposals
The downsides of sorting talk page proposals
  • The list stops being fully chronological
  • I can't think of another downside

As per PopitTart on the Discord server, the categories should be "Splits", "Merges", "Moves", and "Miscellaneous", since they're by far the most common reason folks make a talk page proposal.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Split the talk page proposals

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Thank you. This is well overdue, as the TPP list has been kind of a rat's nest as of late; literally any organization is well worth it, in our opinion. Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) This kind of feature parity is quite useful, especially when the list has a lot of proposals on it!

Do not split the talk page proposals

"Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)

What if a proposal falls into multiple categories? For instance, this was both a merge and move proposal, this was both a move and split proposal, this is both a merge and split proposal... Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:08, April 21, 2025 (EDT)

either "Miscellaneous" or whatever the most relevant category is, same way as if a main page proposal fell into multiple categories. up to the proposer's discretion. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 13:20, April 21, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split lists of changes from remakes' articles

(OK, it has been like ten years since I last made a Proposal, so forgive me if something is wrong.)

It has come to my attention, from trying to browse the TTYD Switch remake article, not as an editor, but as a player looking for specific information, just how awfully nightmarish it is to navigate it when 80%+ of the content is a massive list of changes that, while interesting, should definitely not be the focus of four fifths of the article (nor the first proper section in it, but that's not the focus of this Proposal), particularly when many people searching for the article have possibly only played the remake and as such this information would be mostly irrelevant at best. We already split glitches, staff, beta elements, etc... Why not this?

Proposer: Henry Tucayo Clay (talk)
Deadline: May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support

  1. Henry Tucayo Clay (talk) - Per proposal

Oppose

  1. YoYo (talk) If you're going on the page for the remake specifically, chances are you are looking for what changes there are. Splitting all that information off would reduce the page for the remake into almost nothing comparatively, defeating the purpose of the page to begin with. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 12:55, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
  2. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) What's the point of having reissues split from the original game if the article doesn't cover the changes that are present? Isn't that, like, the main reason they're split in the first place? The Virtual Console version of Super Mario Bros. isn't split because...it's just Super Mario Bros., but the Game Boy Color version of Donkey Kong Country is split from the SNES version of Donkey Kong Country because it introduces changes such as Candy's Challenge, Funky Fishing, a new level, etc., and most people are gonna want to read about these changes on the reissue's article! Just makes something so simple so confusing.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Nelsonic (talk) Per all. Some releases (specifically enhanced ports) have minimal changes (such as Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, Donkey Kong Country Returns HD, and New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe), so this would strip most of the content from those pages. And in the cases of full remakes, like Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Mario Bros. Returns, Super Mario Advance, and Super Mario 64 DS, the page would just end up becoming a paragraphs long. For example, if the changes between Super Mario Bros. and VS. Super Mario Bros. were split off into a separate article, the VS. Super Mario Bros. article would simply discuss the production of the game, how it was never released in Japan, and its Arcade Archives port. This would also result in drastically shortening the pages for Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World, Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition, and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, since the main selling point of those games is their changes from the original version.
  5. Arend (talk) Splitting the changes off would result in the remaining page being really barren in order to avoid repeated content. At that point, what would be the point of keeping the remake split, then?
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Now, admittedly; we can see the merit of listing the content of a game outside of the context of "what's different in this port?". We killed "Once And Only Once" for a reason; sometimes, it's nice to just. Have a table of what exactly is in that specific incarnation of the game. The issue is, that's not currently the state the majority of remake articles are in, and these lists are either most, or all, you have. The TTYD remake page, and our personal bugbear, the Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions page in particular, would become about as short as a page like Super Mario Bros. Special, and those are multi-hour long RPGs versus a 2-or-so hour long platformer game. In a world where these pages are more direct about the contents of their remakes beyond a bullet-pointed list, this would be fine, but we are not there yet. Therefore, the lists stay on the same page.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock. a decision like this should come from changing how we cover reissues entirely. with our current reissue coverage policy, splitting the differences is basically splitting the main meat of the article.

Comments

@YoYo: If you are specifically looking for changes from the original to the remake, wouldn't a dedicated article make more sense, then? --TucayoSig.png™ The 'Shroom 13:33, April 21, 2025 (EDT)

What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

Both

  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
  2. Rykitu credits (talk) Per proposal

Only rename articles

Only include credits sequence information

Neither

Comments

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 April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments; this feels like kind of a no-brainer, and we're surprised these have been excluded from the Games list for as long as they have been. Board games are like, a known concept, they've been around for millennia, and heck, games like Mario Party-e exist as a hybrid board game/video game. Excluding board games feels very arbitrary, just because they aren't "video" games, but we've included the Game & Watch titles for forever, with basically no contention whatsoever, despite those not technically meeting the definition of being a "video" game.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) The article is titled the "list of games," not the "list of VIDEO games." It'd be nice if this page just covered every game of every type, especially seeing how I consider board games (or anything of the sort) to be closer to games than merchandise. Besides, they are called board GAMES, so why shouldn't they be included on the "list of GAMES"?
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per Camwoodstock. While I understand Nintendo101's point about board games often being promotional tie-in products, they are still Mario franchise media in their own right, and a kind of game at that.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. As a big Mario Party fan. I feel like board games fit to the category of games
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) This is not to disparage board games or other types of media of this nature, but I think it would be healthier for our site to have distinction between a "video game" and "promotional tie-in media and products." I do not think being interactive is enough for it count as a "game" within the context of a video game-oriented franchise, in the same way I would not include instruction booklets in a list of books because they have readable text. This kind of stuff should be supported on the site, but not here.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) per Nintendo101. There are a lot of different mediums for games in this world, but it's indisputable that the Mario franchise manifests itself most often in video games, and I believe this specific list is better off focusing on those, with an appropriate move to "List of video games". I can see the appeal and use of a page for Mario games that are not video games, though, and I support creating that. The wiki currently considers these games to be "merchandise", which I consider apt for some (like the shampoo bottles) but something of a stretch for others (board games).
  3. Hewer (talk) Per Koopa con Carne. I'm not denying that board games are games, but they're not video games, and I think "List of video games" would be a more useful page for this wiki about a primarily video game franchise than "List of games".
  4. SGoW (talk) Per all. I would rather the wiki not mix the core media of the Mario franchise (video games) with miscellaneous pieces of merchandise such as board games.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  7. YoYo (talk) Per Koopa con Carne
  8. Platform (talk) Per all.
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  10. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Do card games move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the same rationale behind board games. Sure, it's not a "video" game, but this is List of Games, not List of Video Games.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock again.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per my board game vote.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per Camwoodstock and my above vote for board games.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  3. Hewer (talk) Same as the board game vote.
  4. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  7. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  8. Platform (talk) Per all.
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  10. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

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

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. This is gonna be appearing a few more times...
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock yet again.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Also per my board game vote.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Also a mere semantic distinction between party games like this and board games, in my view.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Things like Jenga are such family games, like Mario Party. I have the feeling they should've already been classified as games long ago.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote. (You also do not italicize Jenga.)
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  3. Hewer (talk) Same as the card game vote.
  4. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  7. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  8. Platform (talk) Per all.
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  10. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

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 April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock once more.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Yet again per my board game vote.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Per my other "yes" votes.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  3. Hewer (talk) Same as the party game vote.
  4. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  5. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  7. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  8. Platform (talk) Per all.
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  10. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

Does Super Mario Ride move to the list?

Do not add Super Mario Ride to the list 2-10
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.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I'm a maximal inclusivist when it comes to these things, so I think anything anyone could plausibly conceptualize as "a game" ought to be classified as a game for navigational purposes.
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.
  4. Pseudo (talk) If it's a toy and not a game, it probably shouldn't count. This is a slightly different category of item.
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
  6. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  7. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  9. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  10. Platform (talk) Per all.

Do Play Nintendo games move to the list?

Add Play Nintendo games to the list 9-0
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. There's a dedicated HTML section now.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) With an HTML section in tow, we feel it's only fair.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Sure.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) We have other browser games on the list, why not these?
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. Even if the term we were using was "video game" instead of just "game" I would think these should count.
  6. Pseudo (talk) These seems like games as much as a typical Flash game of old, which we already include in the list of games, so this seems more clear cut than any of the others.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Nelsonic and Camwoodstock.
  8. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  9. Platform (talk) Per all.
No

Does Nintendo Today! move to the list?

Do not add Nintendo Today! to the list 2-11
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I understand everyone else's hesitation, but Nelsonic has a point!
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.
  6. Pseudo (talk) This seems like not so much of a game to me as a platform for games (in addition to other media); at most, I'd support adding this app's individual included games to the list.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. Nintendo Today! is basically just a daily newspaper (similar to The 'Shroom).
  8. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  9. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  10. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  11. Platform (talk) Per all.

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

Add Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land to the list 8-2
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) By our own definition of it being an "interactive game", yes, even if it's just a VHS analogue to those Play Nintendo quizzes, you can get a question wrong and stuff will still happen.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Eh, more or less? It's sort of an edge case but it's still primarily intended as interactive, just in an unusual format. It is definitely a "game" that relies on "video" for displaying its contents.
  7. Koopa con Carne (talk) Checks both the "video" and the "game" parts of "video game". As long as Dragon's Lair is considered a video game, this should too.
  8. YoYo (talk) Per all.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  2. Yoshi18 (talk) I have mixed feelings about this one, but I'm turning more to the "No" side. I just don't feel like interactive cartoons can be considered games.

Do rides move to the list?

Do not add rides to the list 2-9
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.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my Super Mario Ride vote.
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.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems like not so much a game as an automated experience; games require interactivity of some kind, I'd think.
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Once again per Camwoodstock and Rykitu.
  6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  8. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  9. Platform (talk) Per all.

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

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original proposal's comments; they are interactive games with a blatant physical, mechanical element to them. The lack of "video" isn't a hurdle so long as the Game & Watch games exist.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock twice more.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per all.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Yeah, it's pretty much a type of game. Per Camwoodstock's comparison to Game & Watch.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  3. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  6. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  7. Platform (talk) Per all.
  8. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.

The Comment Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JanMisali: I think Nelsonic was mistaken about the amount of interactivity in Nintendo Today. The misleadingly named "quizzes" are just pages that describe a character, with no more interactivity than the websites that the descriptions come from. At that point, what piece of software wouldn't you consider a game? Is Nintendo Music a game? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:17, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

I fully sincerely believe anything with any amount of interactivity at all can be considered a game. Websites, apps, web browsers, activity books, DVD menus, and pretty much all software. I think it's better to cast a wide net and include things that 99% of people would say aren't games than it is to be too narrow and exclude things 1% of people would say are games. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:27, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). Nelsonic (talk) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

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, which have an "Appears in" field, I suggest we indicate the series in the header instead (Mario Party, Mario Kart and Paper Mario), 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 April 28, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

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

Oppose: do not change any infoboxes

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

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

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4856665"