*Separate [[Wii U]] audio files from the ones on the [[GBA]] ([[Talk:Mario Circuit (GBA)#Separate Audio Files|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[Choco Cake]] with [[Chocolate Cake]] ([[Talk: Choco Cake#Merge Choco Cake with Chocolate Cake|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Split the Paper Mario boos from [[Big Boo]] into a separate article. ([[Talk:Big_Boo#Split_the_Paper_Mario_boos_into_a_separate_article|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Decide if [[Porcupuffer]]s are [[Cheep Cheep]]s ([[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Seperate [[Payday Waystation]] into a separate article ([[Talk:Shy Guy's Perplex Express|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 18, 2015, 23:59 GMT
*Merge [[Blurp (Yoshi's Story)]] with [[Cheep Cheep]] ([[Talk:Blurp (Yoshi's Story)#Merge Blurp (Yoshi's Story) with Cheep Cheep|Discuss]]) '''Deadline''': June 21, 2015, 23:59 GMT
==Writing Guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''
==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===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.
==Removals==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
===Stop using the term "sub-species" on the wiki===
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT
For pretty much the wiki's entire run, "sub-species" (or "subspecies") has been used as shorthand to denote species like [[Gloomba]] or [[Fire Bro]] from the more basic species they're derived from (i.e. [[Goomba]] and [[Hammer Bro]]), but it's high time we put and end to it, and here's why:
#'''It's wrong''' - In science, "subspecies" denotes different populations of a species that are genetically, geographically, behaviourally, and/or morphologically distinct, yet still similar enough for interbreeding to occur freely when possible. What ''we'' call "subspecies" are ''not'' actually subspecies at all: they are completely different species, whether we're comparing [[Lakitu]]s to [[Koopa Troopa]]s or [[Deep Cheep]]s to [[Cheep Cheep]]s. There is no reason why we should so wilfully misuse very specific scientific terminology incorrectly when there are other options available like simply "type", "variation" or just plain "species". It's not like "beta elements" where there is no umbrella term and we have to make due with what readers are most familiar with: everyone already understands what "species" means, unlike the muddled "subspecies" (which even scientists argue about).
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles====
#'''It's speculation''' - It's clear enough when things are based on other things to whatever extent, but classifying some enemies as "subspecies" instead of "species" has always struck me as presumptuous. Where exactly does the line get drawn? Some things like [[Koopa Paratroopa]]s are rather basic and fundamental in their own rights, with many derived species of their own, yet are still called "subspecies". And what about things like [[Shady Paratroopa]] that could be a subspecies of Koopa Paratroopas ''or'' Shady Koopas? Only a few sets of differently-coloured/powered RPG enemies and things like the red and blue ''PM'' [[Spike Top#Official profiles and statistics|Spike Top]]s really fit the proper "subspecies" definition, but we already established that we're not using science here, so all that's left are judgment calls being passed off as hard distinctions that don't actually exist in official material.
#{{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.
#'''It's misleading''' - Despite the liberties we're taking with the term, "subspecies" still inherently sounds like it requires close relatedness between species (based on their names and/or appearances), but for the sake of navigation and connectivity between articles, sometimes it's useful to be able to reflect the conceptual relatedness between rather different species, such as [[Clubba]]s and [[Chargin' Chuck]]s being related to the more standard Koopa species. Having relaxed terminology would make this easier (i.e. potentially [[Talk:Bandit#Decide if Bandits are a sub-species of Shy Guys|avoiding]] some [[Talk:Porcupuffer#Decide if Porcupuffers are Cheep Cheeps|TPPs]] and [[Talk:Snifit#Are_they_Shy_Guys.3F|other such discussions]]) and result in less cross-talk between users operating on differing definitions of "subspecies".
#'''It's inconsistent''' - As well as murky definitions and three different ways to spell the term ("subspecies"/"sub-species"/"sub species") being found across the wiki, and even side-by-side in single articles, there are also plenty of cases where single subjects are being called both "species" and "subspecies". For example, [[Ice Piranha Plant]] bears both [[:Category:Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:New Super Mario Bros. U Species|Category:NSMBU Species]], is listed as a "sub-species" in the [[Piranha Plant]] infobox, and is part of the "species" list in {{tem|Piranha Plants}}. This is not good.
Between the disconnect with how the real world uses the word, and the different definitions, applications and spellings throughout the wiki, there is really only one way to sum up the use of "subspecies" around here: '''''it's confusing''''', and we should get rid of it. Specifically, we should do the following:
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m in for this one.
*Remove all occurrences of "subspecies", "sub-species" or "sub species" from the articles. Instead, everything should be called plain "species", and described informally as being based on and/or related to other species with words like "type", "variety", "kind", etc.
====We make a Switch 2 Edition page where the Switch 2 Editions have their own respective sections====
*Delete [[:Category:Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Yoshi Sub-Species]], [[:Category:Donkey Kong Sub-Species]] and [[:Category:Wario Sub-Species]]. The equivalent "Species" categories exist [[:Category:Species|for]] [[:Category:Yoshi Species|all]] [[:Category:Donkey Kong Species|four]] [[:Category:Wario Species|cases]], but ideally, ''game-specific'' "Species" categories should be used to replace everything (but that's another kettle of fish altogether).
*Replace the "sub_species" variable in {{tem|Species-infobox}} with "derived_species". At the same time, "species_origin" should be replaced with "parent_species", for the sake of uniformity (there's already a "related species" variable for similar species not directly based on or providing the basis for the subject in question) and killing two birds with one stone since we'll have to fix the infoboxes anyway; this second change is from [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_42#Set_Clear_Rules_as_to_What_.22Species_Origin.22_Means|this cancelled proposal]] and its [[forum:34578.0|corresponding forum thread]] (both of which debate the use of "subspecies").
*Add "subspecies" to [[MarioWiki:Good_Writing#Frequently_misused_terms|the list of frequently misused terms]].
This will affect A LOT of articles and will take time to gradually roll out, but I think it's worth doing. There is no good reason why we need to stay inconsistent, confusing and misinformed about how we go about defining the species of the ''Mario'' series.
====Propose in the games' talk page based on what the Switch 2 Edition adds====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Walkazo}}<br>
====Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2====
'''Deadline''': June 11, 2015, 23:59 GMT
#{{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|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.
====Support====
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all. Too early at this point.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per proposal. The zoologist half of me has wanted to eradicate this accursed term from the wiki for over seven years now. No more.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all, and per my comment below
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo. And yes, even though the term is used to described fictional species, it still gave me misinformation when thinking about actual sub-species. That's not right. I admit I am a bit pedantic when it comes to vocabulary and jargon but honestly, I'm pedantic for the very reason of being fed misinformation, which isn't the ideal way to learn things.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal and all.
#{{User|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo and Baby Luigi. Yes, that's not right. In fact, I think it should be ''related spiecies'' instead of ''subspiecies''.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Kart Player 2011}} Per Walkazo.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per everyone. No need to jump the shark.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Yes, remove ALL instances of it. I was misinformed about the true definition of "subspecies" this entire time I was in this wiki. This is a personal account, but if it confuses me, it's bound to confuse a lot of other readers. This wiki leads us to think "subspecies" means a derived or related organism even though the technical term is "some differences but capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring", especially provided that the "producing fertile offspring" part is the fundamental definition of a species. In that sense, subspecies do NOT denote separate species; the basic Linnaeus names have two names, but a third one is given if it's a subspecies. "Derived species", "parent species", "related species", these are all more correct and much more precise substitutes, making them vastly superior to the vague, confusing, incorrect "subspecies". In writing, we aim for precision and accuracy, and this proposed changes does exactly what is the gold standard in writing, so, as someone who admits of being very pedantic at times (the scathing criticism to singular "they" and contractions), it's not surprising that I want these changed enacted. This time, though, it's not pedantry, it's about being precise and accurate. It's been seven years, but better late than never to undo all that damage.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all, but take note of the rare few [[Pale Piranha|official]] cases.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
#{{User|Andymii}} Per all; a nicely crafted argument. I just find it funny that we are now debating over scientific terminology in a wiki about talking mushrooms and turtle kings.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Per proposal. (I also notice a bit of support due to the inadvertent spread of misinformation - "Beta" is rightfully considered a misused term as well, but I really do think a better label than "Beta elements" should be considered since it's a somewhat similar situation.)
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per all.
#{{User|Binarystep}} <s>my younger self would hate me for this</s> Per all.
#{{User|Lumastar}} Per all.
#{{User|Stonehill}} Yes! GET RID OF IT! Walkazo is indeed correct!
====Oppose====
====Comments====
====Comments====
@SmokedChili: We ''can'' make an exception, but it's going to break consistency, and it won't be unreasonable to assume it's another species (just how people assumed all those [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark-eyed_junco dark-eyed juncos] were separate species), and, besides, Nintendo was ''very'' wrong about terminology before (most blatantly, the most egregious and irresponsible usage of "remix" I've ever seen in official media: ''Super Smash Bros. 4''). {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:09, 5 June 2015 (EDT)
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)
Commenting on the Shady Paratroopa part, I think we should just use the most basic enemy and say its a derivative (or whatever word we decide on using) of Koopa Troopa. {{User|Magikrazy}}
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 actually feel like it'd be better to say it's a derivative of both Shady Koopa and Paratroopa, rather than listing derivatives of derivatives on the most basic pages, at that makes for some potentially unwieldy lists. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::Per. [[Spiked Gloomba]]s can be derived from both Spiked Goombas and Gloombas, easy to list it as derived from ''both''. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:50, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
==Changes==
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)
===Super Mario Land 1 and 2 confirmed apart of the ''main series'' by Nintendo: Super Mario wiki should change accordingly===
For years it has been debated whether Nintendo considered the Super Mario Land games apart of the main Mario series or not. Super Mario Wiki, and rightfully so, chose that the Super Mario Land games are not apart of the main Mario series but rather considered its own series most likely because of the Nintendo sources below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzERrLY-_9s <br>
It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
:I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
:Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Hey guys, I have a question. When this proposal ends, which color do I have to give it in the [[MarioWiki:Proposal/Archive|proposal archive]] page? Because it doesn’t seem like any of those fit. Should I color it Grey/Gray? {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 07:14, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:I'd say red, assuming the last option passes. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:05, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
But this'll get re-proposed when the Switch 2 (or the first Switch 2 Edition releases) so doesn’t that technically mean it passed, because the option that passed is that we'll discuss it later. Because if it didn't pass, no change would've been made, ever. But this time there will be a change made. Just not now, but like, it'll still happen this year. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 11:25, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:It'd be red because the option that passed was to not take action yet. If a later proposal decides on a change then the change is attributed to that proposal and this one could switch to the blue colour. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:38, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
That's actually not a bad idea! {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 18:13, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
As one can see, Nintendo did not include the land games as part of the main Mario series titles during Mario's 25th anniversary 5 years ago. This has lead people such as myself to believe that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of their own series. However, as of May 29, 2015. Nintendo has updated Mario's 30th anniversary site to include all the main series Mario titles. In this list is Super Mario Land and Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins. As shown, this is included in both the American and Japanese versions of the site.
Due to this confirmation by Nintendo, all articles on Super Mario Wiki should be changed to fit this new information. Such articles as the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario Series'']] articles should be changed to add the two Land games, and articles such as ''[[Super Mario Land (series)|Super Mario Land Series]]'' articles should most likely be deleted entirely due to their interference of the first two Super Mario Land games being apart of the main Mario series. Other changes being the chronological order of Mario titles. An example being, changing "New Super Mario Bros. is the eighth installment in the Super Mario series." To. "New Super Mario Bros. is the tenth installment in the Super Mario series."
==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.
These things might change from time to time, but it's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. This is why the Super Mario Land games should now officially be considered apart of the main Mario series by Super Mario wiki.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|thenintendostooge}}<br>
====Do board games move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': June 14, 2015, 23:59 GMT
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
====Support====
;Yes
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Per my proposal. Due to the recent confirmation by Nintendo themselves, the wiki should have articles changed to fit this new confirmation.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Aokage}} More recent stuff takes precedence. It doesn't really make sense to exclude the Land games from the main series, anyway.
#{{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
====Oppose====
;No
#{{User|Walkazo}} - While the 30th anniversary stuff is more recent, the fact that the 25th anniversary excluded the ''SML'' games shouldn't be ignored, and it should be kept in mind that unlike the ''[[Super Mario History 1985-2010]]'' booklet (which is more complete than the linked-to poster and video), the 30th anniversary stuff leaves out all the remakes (i.e. ''SMAS'' and the ''SMA'' series), and the US version of the website also leaves out ''Lost Levels''. Plus, neither celebration included [[Super_Mario_(series)#Ports.2C_remakes.2C_and_downloadable_content|all the random ''SMB'' remakes and whatnot]], whereas ''we'' '''do''' need to take everything into account, from the remakes to the conflicting and ever-changing stances Nintendo takes on its material, and then organize them in the way that makes the most sense. And I still think it makes more sense to keep the ''SML'' games separate in History sections, templates and categories (this is actually a big change with far-reaching consequences being proposed here: not just [[Super Mario (series)]] and a few articles' opening lines), given how different the series is, its historic separation from the rest of the games, and most of all, the fact that the series straddles both ''SM'' and ''[[Wario Land (series)|Wario Land]]'' (awkward at the best of times, but it'd be worse if no bridge series is used or acknowledged). And for all we know, the 35th anniversary will be back to separating them anyway. But I ''do'' think the ''SM'' series page should include ''SML'' (and ''Yoshi's Island'') somehow, like how it's got the remakes listed separately - but certainly not ''instead'' of the [[Super Mario Land (series)|''SML'' series page]], especially considering that ''WL:SML3'' and ''VB:WL'' definitely '''aren't''' ''SM'' material, yet should still be grouped with the first two games ''somewhere'', as well as in appropriate History sections (same reason why [[Super Mario Advance (series)|''SMA'' gets its own series page]], despite being mostly part of ''SM'' and otherwise part of [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'']]).
#{{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|ShyGuy8}} Per Walkazo
#{{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|1337star}} The ''Super Mario Land'' games are incredibly distinct from the "main" ''Mario'' games, mostly by dint of being developed by [[Gunpei Yokoi]]/Nintendo R&D1 rather than Miyamoto/Nintendo EAD, and our articles should reflect that. Otherwise, per Walkazo.
#{{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|Baby Luigi}} Per Walkazo, in the comments and in the vote.
#{{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|Lumastar}} Per all. While they are platformers with similar gameplay, the ''Land'' games are unique from other ''Mario'' platformers at the end of the day.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{user|Stonehill}} Per all. Plus, which category will you put ''Super Mario Bros. 2 '''into'''''?
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Judging from my argument below, it's clear to me that I'm siding with this side. An appearance in a celebration of Mario's anniversary is significant, but not enough to be a compelling reason change our core organizational structure because Nintendo decided that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 existed for once. I'll be open for another integration if Nintendo does go beyond just an anniversary game, but the mess that is Super Mario Land 1 & 2, Virtual Boy, and Super Mario Land 3, it's good as it is.
====Comments====
====Do card games move to the list?====
@Walkazo. Potential change does not warrant the act of keeping something the same. The wiki is to be based on current viewpoints of Nintendo which is the lore creator. It's the company's current view that should be reflected on the articles. If we were to not follow Nintendo's viewpoint, any viewpoint could be established based on the person's own imagination. "What if Nintendo decides to officially change Birdo to Ostro to avoid confusion?" This is irrelevant as it is based on what Nintendo finds true and not true. "If" cannot be a factor of whether or not we apply the land games or not. That would be based on our own assumptions and our assumptions are endless. We must use Nintendo's current viewpoint to stay relevant in the Mario franchise. If not the wiki becomes outdated with old information. {{unsigned|Thenintendostooge}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:My point isn't that Nintendo ''might'' change their minds again, but rather, that they really doesn't give a crap about "lore", "true"ness or keeping its stories straight when it comes to ''Mario'': they flip-flop about stuff all the time and information is often inconsistent, and as a result, the only way to maintain easy, logical organization is for the wiki to think for ourselves sometimes, like with splitting, merging and grouping enemies based on facts other than plain names, or deciding on how to organize our game pages. For in-universe stuff like the Kooplaings' paternity, our hands are tied and we need to give the new story prominence (but still mention the old story), but this is a different matter: as long as we acknowledge on all the relevant pages that Nintendo currently considers ''SML'' 1 & 2 as part of the ''SM'' series, and didn't before, whether or not we follow up with shuffling History sections, categories, lists and templates is up to us, based on whether we think it will or won't be a better way to present and organize the information. - {{User|Walkazo}}
Whether Nintendo cares about the Mario canon or not is not for us to decide. We can mention how Nintendo used to not consider the Land games being apart of the main series, but we must also tell the reader Nintendo's current stand point. An example being starwars. The lore is changing all the time, however, the star wars wiki does not keep the old lore as canon. It mentions how it used to be canon, but supports the current standpoint of lucas film if we like it or not. There is much Mario lore that Nintendo has dropped that has been official in the past. This is not a situation like the koopalings where the creator of Mario says they are not Bowsers kids, but this is the whole company of Nintendo saying that the Super Mario Land games are indeed apart of the main series. Both in Japan, and all over the World. I know it sounds like a lot of work for us to have to update so many articles. If there is official information with no way to disprove it, it CANNOT be denied. All official Mario information must be used in Mario wiki. One could argue that the past has more info, but that does not make it relevant. Over time things become outdated and it is Nintendo that updates it. We must accept what Nintendo updates. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
;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.
@Walkazo - I'm not completely confident in either choice right now, but remakes/rereleases were never a necessary mention in official celebrations since it's understood that they're not exactly the original titles (we certainly don't count them as such, either), so I'm not sure why they're factored in the counter-argument... (I must say, ''Super Mario 3D Land'' makes sense with its namesake included.) [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 17:54, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
;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.
@LinkTheLefty- Indeed, the remakes have never been mentioned to be apart of the main Super Mario titles. As we all know, Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not remakes of any main series Mario game. Unless someone has any evidence to prove that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not apart of the main series, and since Nintendo has stated they are apart of the main series as of now, it is only right to have Super Mario wiki state the same. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:My point is that what works for Nintendo for their celebration stuff doesn't necessarily work for us, since they're cherry-picking lists of showy platformers while we're trying to document every single game and present all that info in the clearest way possible. They already cut out plenty of remakes and obscure games that we can't, and they don't need to worry about awkward things like ''SML'' and ''SML2'' having a direct sequel (''WK:SML3'') that's also the start of a separate series, and another followup that never got finished (''VB Mario Land'') and wouldn't've fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' anyway. As long as we're basing out decisions on facts, we're allowed to make judgment calls when splitting, merging or reclassifying iffy enemy situations and whatnot, and similarly, we're also allowed to think outside the box a bit when it comes to dealing with iffy series situations. Like I said in my vote, the first two ''SML'' series games should be acknowledged on [[Super Mario (series)]] (that page is missing a lot of remakes too, but I digress), but they should remain separate when it comes to overall wiki organization. (On a side note, my guess is that ''SM3DL'' is the reason why the games are included this time around, unlike in 2010, although besides the name, like every other ''SM'' game, it has nothing to do with ''SML'' or its sequel at all.) - {{User|Walkazo}}
;Yes
::Yeah, you do have a point in how Nintendo cannot celebrate all Mario games they acknowledge into one anniversary game, or they'll be here all day. But that they picked Super Mario Land out of all games alongside games like Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and even the forgotten Super Mario Bros. 2 does feel significant. As of now, however, I'm still supporting still holding out how Nintendo really treats Super Mario Land. This is a rather big change that will affect the corresponding history section, so I feel like acting carefully is the best decision to make when it comes to this. Still, Super Mario Land being placed alongside the other major games still means something... {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:48, 7 June 2015 (EDT)
#{{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.
Then when do you propose is the right time? Nintendo did say that they would talk more about Mario's 30th anniversary during E3 2015, so maybe till then? I do not think we should wait to long on this. We cannot wait another 10 years to see if Nintendo still counts the land games as apart of the main series because that would make this wiki outdated. Although it is very understandable to be questioning if Nintendo will keep it apart in the future or not, it is very important to keep the wiki up to date on Nintendo's standpoint. We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding. If not we would not have a wiki based on Nintendo's Mario, but rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be. I know it is a lot of work and a huge overhaul for the wiki. Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair. The sooner we start editing, the more our readers know more about this information. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
;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.
:I'm on the fence. If this Super Mario Land categorization feels isolated, in other words, continues to feel discourse, as I said, it's a lot of work. I'd wait for perhaps one or two more years (not ten, where did you get that figure from?); as the Super Mario Land games are heavily disjointed from the mainstream games, more so than Super Mario Bros. 2, this work we're proposing would essentially be a waste of time and effort for our editors. And no editor would like that. I think the categorization works as it does, although I do admit that the organization is still an issue, ''but'', logical and convenient organization sometimes works over company ideals, especially when the company can be all over the place with the Mario games. I don't think you've really refuted 'kazo's points though, as you've just reiterated what you said earlier.
====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
:"We must focus the wiki on Nintendo's understanding."
;Yes
:Nintendo's understanding is putting the Super Mario Land games in the same series as Super Mario series. This is the only evidence in favor of reorganizing the info, and we have several reasons to keep Super Mario Land as separate: very disjointed, obscure game, hardly any reappearances from enemies to worlds to music in the future games, and that it was left out of an anniversary game that was very limited in itself does mean something. This is why I'd rather wait and see any future actions of what Nintendo might do to the Super Mario Land series.
#{{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.
:"Rather a wiki based on what we want Mario to be"
;No
:No, we're not saying that we're writing the Mario series as how we interpret; we're saying that we and Nintendo have different methods of ''organization'', and Nintendo hasn't had this problem because they aren't and, so far, never required to cover the Mario series in the same scope as us.
#{{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.
:" Though it is very important for the readers to know about this information Nintendo has provided us. To ignore it based on our assumptions is not fair."
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
:We shouldn't be ignoring it, but my biggest problem with this proposal is changing long-established structure because "it appeared in a Mario anniversary game". Of course, that game is fairly significant, but I don't think it proves a lot. I did say it meant something for Super Mario Land to appear alongside the bigger games, but so far, it's one game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:44, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person. One could argue that Super Mario bros 2 (U.S.A) is too obscure to be considered a main series Mario title, though we all know it is. Another example being Super Mario Sunshine. Very different environment, no standard Mario enemies (Koopas, Goombas, etc), and a very different gameplay mechanic involving F.L.U.D.D. Although these two games are very different from other main series Mario titles, they are still apart of the main series. Even with their mass differences, they all keep the same design, they are platformers. Super Mario land 1 and 2 are both platformers that follow heavily on the 2d Mario aspect. Mario still grabs mushrooms, still defeats enemies, still fights bosses, and completes levels in similar manner to the other Mario games.
;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.
This is not a simple anniversary game, this is an entire celebration recognizing that the Super Mario Land games are apart of the main Super Mario series. Posters, commercials, and celebration videos will all recognize this. For Nintendo to recognize these games for Mario's 30th anniversary celebration is huge. Saying it is all apart of one small game is a little extravagant. Please don't take this as rude in anyway, as I don't want to offend anyone, but fear of a lot of work shows laziness. Although it is a lot of work, it is our job to tell our readers. If it will take 1-2 years to tell our readers. We can at least delete absolutes, such as "Super Mario Land is not considered apart of the Super Mario series." As shown on the Super Mario Land (series) article.
;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.
"not ten, where did you get that figure from?"
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
What I said was not actually sarcasm. My estimates are based on when Mario's 40th anniversary occurs. As Nintendo will most likely bring back up the main series on Mario's 40th anniversary, it makes sense for me to think that the wiki would wait that long to see if Nintendo confirmed it again. You could argue that I could have just said 5 years based on Mario's 35th anniversary. But the chances of Nintendo celebrating this big again are more low and is not as big as a 40th anniversary. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Well, a lot of the weird ''SMS'' things got incorporated into the both subsequent ''SM'' games and the series at large, like Petey Piranha, Bowser Jr., Toadsworth, Gooper Blooper, Piantas, Cataquacks, FLUDD references and Isle Delfino locations in spinoffs. ''SMS'' also included a few regular enemies, like Bob-ombs, Bullet Bills, Boos, Chain Chomps, Pokeys, Bloopers, Cheep Cheep, a Monty Mole boss, Peach as the damsel-in-distress, and Bowser as the final boss. By contrast, ''SML'' has Mario, (Super) Mushrooms, Star(men) and ''nothing'' else, with nothing recurring save for Tatanga in ''SML2'' and Daisy reappearing in spinoffs only, with possible but unconfirmed Sarasaland locations to go along with her sometimes. ''SML2'' is better off in the using-recurring-enemies department, even a bit better off than ''SMS'', but it still doesn't ''add'' anything to the ''SM'' series, unlike ''SMS'' which was clearly embraced as from the start. The only thing it did was add Wario to the series, and the first thing ''he'' did was launch his own spinoff series with ''Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3'', which really just emphasizes why subsuming ''SML'' into ''SM'' is a bad idea: it has as much to do with ''WL'' as the ''SM'' games, and reflecting that bridge existence by keeping it separate from both is the least awkward way to try and deal with it (with ''WL:SML3'' either being with the rest of ''WL'' or the rest of ''SML'' depending on the content in question - but it certainly wouldn't do to put it with ''SM'', ever). You can ignore ''SML'' and ''SML2'' and the rest of the series will stay exactly the same (and so far, we ''have'' ignored it without issue), but the same can't be said for any of the other non-remake games; even ''Lost Levels'' added new stuff, like Luigi's different jump mechanics. - {{User|Walkazo}}
;Yes
::''Obscurity is not an excuse and can be subjective based on the person.'' While it is true that obscurity can be subjective, what is generally known is that the Super Mario Land are a far deviant from any Mario game, and it rarely gets mentioned in other Mario games, hence why it's perfectly appropriate to say they're obscure. The term "obscure" is a relative term regardless, and using it to describe the Super Mario Land series in comparison with other Super Mario games is reasonable considering that, as Walkazo has stated, has been barely referenced throughout the entire realm of the Mario series whereas the rest of the Super Mario games have at one point. The Super Mario platformers are a highly popular and well-known brand, the Super Mario Land, while it could be about as popular, isn't remarkable as well known as any other entry of the Mario series, and is extremely deviant from it, is fine to be its own separate thing. Walkazo has already proposed a solution to this muddy categorizing and I agree with her on using that. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:15, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
#{{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.
Although Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have had less of an impact with less references, to say the Land games did nothing to add on to the Super Mario series in the future is false. Such example as the director of Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Super Mario 3D Land, in an interview with IGN. Koichi Hayashida (the director) said that when Mario shoots a fireball in Super Mario 3D Land it bounces off the wall. He said this was taken from Super Mario Land as he had so much fun having the "Super Ball" bounce off the wall in the game. Interview can be read below.
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
Even easter eggs have occurred from Super Mario Land. An example being in Super Mario 3D Land, one can see a flying saucer believed to be Tatanga flying through the sky. Easter egg can be seen in video below.
;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!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smwnedFs8I8
;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.
#{{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.
Impact cannot be a factor whether or not the Land games are included. If Nintendo refers to the Land games as part of the main series then it should be so. Development team can also not be used as a counter argument because many other Nintendo franchises have done the same. Although the Land games were not made by EAD, that is not a counter argument. The Legend of Zelda games oracle of ages and oracle of seasons were made by Capcom, yet Nintendo refers to them as apart of the main Zelda series. If one could use the argument of impact, then oracle of ages and seasons should not be apart of the main Zelda series because it has had little to no references in future games. Another example being Metroid. Many teams have worked on Metroid such as EAD, Retro Studios, and Team Ninja. Many of these arguments cannot be used against why the Land games should not be included.{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
====Does ''[[Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land]]'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
btw, @Walkazo- I can already tell we are going to be big rivals on this wiki XD.
;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.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
#{{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.
:That is hardly any influence to the Mario series other than an extremely minor nod and a speculative Easter Egg. Hardly anything from Super Mario Land 1 & 2 has been put in later Mario games, down right to the music. Walkazo is correct: Super Mario Land is a heavily disjointed Mario game with no impact in most Mario games. It's great that it has its section in an anniversary game, showing that Nintendo hasn't ''completely'' ignored it, but based on how little impact it has made, it might not even exist. :/ No, we editors aren't pretending it didn't exist or it's a "fake" Mario game.
;No
#{{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.
:In this case, impact on the entire series is a good indicator on how the Land games should be grouped. Nintendo hasn't had any official word on it, so we're left to organize with our own standards. Unlike Mario, ''The Legend of Zelda'' games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; ''all'' Mario games are ambiguously canon, even Hotel Mario and Mario is Missing, even though those aren't acknowledged by Nintendo. We're not using developer teams as an argument here (except for l337star, who brought it up, but that's a reason the games are so distinct rather than "it's developed by these guys, so it's a different game"; his argument still has problems, but it's not my main thrust) and I wasn't intending to either. As we stated, Nintendo doesn't need to cover the Mario series in the same scope as we do. As for your argument "fear of a lot of work shows laziness", you're oversimplifying it. What I'm arguing is this proposal is, as I stated earlier is "this proposal is changing long-established structure because 'it appeared in a Mario anniversary game'." It's not a very compelling reason for me or other editors apparently, to start devoting hard work. We will devote hard work to wikis, if you see from our previous proposals. Finally, the final argument is how we have Super Mario Land 3, which is the first game in a new nonMario series. You haven't proposed any solutions to that potential problem if we have the Super Mario Land games integrated into the same section as Super Mario Bros. 2. It might be convenient for Nintendo to select only Super Mario Land 1 & 2 to showcase that "yeah, they exist", but we have to consider all three Super Mario Lands and that's a problem for us.
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:In the meantime, it's good you're here for a discussion because it's not very often we have a user willing to go on long debates. :){{User:Mario/sig}} 00:49, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
;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.
I should be in bed, but I love my Mario talk so here comes another novel XD.
;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.
Once again, influence is subjective. How much we say somthing influences something else to determine if it fits with something is always debatable. Either way, influence should not be a counter argument. Something could be influential or not at all, but that does not make it any less relevant. Yes the Land games have many elements that are different. But at it's core it still plays very much like any standard Mario game.
====Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
"The Legend of Zelda games have an established canon, and the Oracle of Ages and Seasons games are included within the official timeline; all Mario games are ambiguously canon." This is not true if Nintendo themselves say Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are canon. Which they are. According to the Hyrule historia, it says that Nintendo may change the Zelda timeline at any time. So Zelda does not have a completely established canon either.
;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.
As for a solution for Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3. We can treat it like we do with Yoshi's island : Super Mario world 2. We obviously do not have a "Super Mario World series" article. We have a Yoshi series article and "Super Mario World 2" is in it. We can just leave Super Mario Land 3 (Wario Land) in the Wario Land series article and delete the Super Mario Land Series article to put the Super Mario Land games in the main series article. There would be no need for their own section as other main series Mario titles are series with in themselves as well. The Super Mario Galaxy series, the New Super Mario Bros series, the Super Mario Bros series, the 3D series, etc. Despite these all being a series with in a series, there is no need for a "Super Mario Galaxy" series article because it is apart of the main series.
;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.
Glad you like having me debate. If there is no one to challenge anything, things don't always progress. That is why I, the biggest Mario nerd is here. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
====The Comment Games====
:Just as long as we nerds have a civilized debate, I'm fine for that. In fact, I need to go to bed sometime soon. I really don't like one-sided proposals because I fear group-think may take over, and that's bad. :)
{{@|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)
:Influence is subjective, but also relative. We measure influence on how it has impacted future Mario games in terms of appearances and mechanics in later games; let's work from that. Super Mario Land, in that definition, has little influence on future Mario games. Its soundtrack (like its first level), is catchy, but unrecognizable. The invincibility theme is the can-can theme. We have sea dragons shooting fireballs, zombie Pionpis from the Chai Kingdom; the games look and sound very exotic. Oh, Super Mario Land is still a relevant game, don't get me wrong, but it's an obscure game by Mario standards; if it wasn't relevant, we wouldn't be having this argument! Anyhow, why can't we use influence as an argument? We sometimes use consistency and logic for our approach for organization, and Super Mario Land 1 & 2, being very different games, we use that kind of approach, especially with Nintendo's very minimalist approach with the Mario canon.
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)
:Speaking of Mario canon, I haven't stated that Super Mario Land 1 & 2 aren't canon. I meant to the say that the ''entire'' Mario series, subseries and all, [[MarioWiki:Canonicity|has no established canon]], so ''all'' games/comics/TV shows/film have ambiguous canon, although some subseries have their own set of continuity, most notably, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi. Meanwhile, while ''Link'' timeline is, of course, subject to change as Nintendo sees fit, it's still far more established than the Mario canon, so it's clearer which game is canon and which game isn't. Again, subject to change, but it's unlikely Nintendo is going to overhaul ''The Legend of Zelda'' 's rather convoluted timeline any time soon. It's a different argument from what we're talking here, though, but just throwing it out, and I'm not going to go further into that one. It's in another castle.
:{{@|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)
:The issue is that we can easily separate the two games; two games isn't quite enough to make it a series while three games are. Two games are simply a game and its sequel. Your proposal would be an easy solution if Super Mario Land were two games, but it's three games, so Super Mario Land 3 has to be included with the first two games because of the title (it's a horrible title, I agree) and not to confuse our readers. I understand where you're coming from, though, as I do want to incorporate Super Mario Land into the main Mario games because they are indeed 2D Mario platformers, and Nintendo has never acknowledged them as spin offs, so perhaps they are ''technically'' mainstream games, but I'm also uncomfortable on defining them as "mainstream" games because of their little impact and very self-contained continuity. They do look like weird bootlegs from another planet if you think about it, due to how it's been pushed to obscurity and hardly any Mario game, if at all, references them, and it's only now that they've been actually mentioned in an anniversary game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 02:36, 9 June 2015 (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}}
Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world. In fact, you say they're so obscure, yet Super Mario Land is the 4th best selling Mario game of all time selling a whopping 18.14 million copies and the sequel being the 10 best selling at a huge 11.18 million. If we were to use the argument of impact (which I argue there is none), Super Mario Land is still regarded among millions of people and still remembered and being bought to this day via 3ds e-shop. If the land games were indeed so obscure...
:{{@|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}}
1. No one would remember them (though millions including us do)
@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)
2. It would not have sold very much at all (18 million is huge)
: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)
3. People would not be buying it today (yet thousands still do via eshop)
::That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
So I find the value argument invalid because the Land games have a huge influence on gamers and Nintendo alike. You may argue that the impact of the games have worn off and not as many people remember it, however, this is not true as modern videos such as bentalfloss's have shown that videos on Super Mario Land gets millions of views even to this day.
At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAtWQ_xn0kI
===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.
{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
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).
:And Brentalfloss's ''Dr. Mario'' video has 3 million ''more'' views - doesn't mean we're gonna make that part of the central ''SM'' series too. Not including ''SML'' in the ''SM'' series isn't saying it's not "canon" or a bad game that no one cares about or anything like that, it's just wiki organization, based on the subject matter of the game, the name, the conflicting info Nintendo pumps out over the years, and the context of the other games. Also, just off the top of my head, seeing as Mario only appears in ''WL:SML3'' it makes more sense to lump it in with the rest of the ''SML'' games rather than making a separate ''WL'' series History subsection. The three games are also one of the few cases of explicit continuity in the entire ''Mario'' franchise, with each game directly referencing the events of the previous game, including ''WL:SML3'', so it ''is'' important to have a series page linking the three games together under one roof. Plus there's the fourth, unfinished game, ''[[VB Mario Land]]'', which wouldn't fit in either ''SM'' or ''WL'' series pages, and which is the exact sorta thing which ''shouldn't'' be left to wallow without a parent series (or a convenient place in History sections for a "this almost happened too btw" aside), since that'll be the only way most readers will probably hear about it at all, and spreading info is kinda what we're here to do. - {{User|Walkazo}}
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.
You are contradicting yourself. Your counter argument for why the Super Mario Land games should not be apart of the main series, despite what Nintendo says, was that it is not relevant (or not relevant enough) through influences to count. That is what you said correct? Then if I am not mistaken, when I proved that the Super Mario Land games do have enough impact, you counter by saying Dr. Mario is also relevant. Dr. Mario is never referred to Nintendo as being apart of the main series at all (as we know very well).
That would affect every infobox that has a "Game" field currently, the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]], and infoboxes for specific games.
Since I proved that Super Mario Land has enough impact, and since we know Nintendo says they are apart of the main series. You are now saying they can't because of organization? I believe I gave a solution to the organization problem. If you want to use organization as a counter argument, you must counter my solution and why my solution does not work. If not, then you have nothing to counter with, which in turn means you have no means of viable information to argue with.
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]]
If I am able to completely and successfully counter you, then that means you do not have a good reason to vote. I may be mistaken but according to the rules, if you do not have a good reason, your vote does not apply. And all those saying "per Walkazo" do not have a vote either because they do not have a good reason (if your reason is not good that is). Once again, I believe if I am able to counter all of your arguments, then your, and everyone else's vote that applies to you, does not count. Please address me if I am mistaken by this rule. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
(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.)
:Why are you saying that Super Mario Land 1 and 2 are not the ''main series'' of Nintendo? That is not true. Plus, your arguments are not going to change anyone's votes. It's our own choice to vote what we want to vote.
<span style="color:red;font-family:monospace">Kamek Power!</span> 14:20, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
::They're an important part of the overall ''Mario'' franchise/series, but not the specific, central ''Super Mario'' series. Same with ''Dr. Mario'', although my point there was more that popular parody YouTube videos are a poor way to measure relative importance of any given game. I mean, the most popular ''Mario'' meme is Weegee, yet no one's saying ''Mario is Missing!'' is a seminal work of gaming art. You're ''not'' countering my opinions, just offering different opinions; people so far seem to share my opinions more than yours, and for that perfectly valid reason, they are voting "per Walkazo". Lucky for me, unlucky for you, stop whining about it - that's how proposals work. - {{User|Walkazo}}
====Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell====
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I like uniformity.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I see the appeal.
I find the comment "whining" to be inappropriate for this situation. Whether I contradict your arguments is not up to you or me, but up to an administrator. If an administrator finds that I do indeed disprove your argument, then it will have to be accepted (according to rule 5). Although right now you do have the more popular vote, that is true, ideas of popularity does not make the idea right. An example when everyone once thought the world was flat. You have also been on this wiki as opposed to me who is new, which could in turn give a biasness to your character rather then the problem at hand.
====Oppose: do not change any infoboxes====
"They're an important part of the overall ''Mario'' franchise/series, but not the specific, central ''Super Mario'' series."
====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''. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
Tell me, how are they not apart of the Main Super Mario series? {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:::Ok, stop there. I'll disprove your "everyone believed the world is flat" argument right there. Even that analogy is not correct at all. The Ancient Greeks always believed that the Earth was round, and even calculated the Earth's circumference. The educated Europeans believed that the world was round too. Hell, Columbus didn't sail to the Americas to prove it was round, he and the Spanish government who funded it already was well aware the Earth was round. It was the uneducated who thought it was flat, but honestly, they couldn't care less regardless it was that or that. I could argue the same with the geocentric vs heliocentric theory theory, and why the Galileo gambit doesn't work when trying to disprove an argument that appeals to popularity, but I'd go off in a tangent.
:::Walkazo IS an admin here, in case you hadn't realized. She's an admin who disagrees with you. Hell, she's a bureaucrat, a step above a sysop. However, you don't need to be an admin to come up with sound arguments. If you come up with sound arguments, more people will side with you.
:::Lastly, this isn't an appeal to popularity. This is us agreeing with Walkazo's rationale rather than yours.
:::By the way, ''Tell me, how are they not apart of the Main Super Mario series?''. I thought we explained to you how it's deviant from the Super Mario series and hasn't been referenced. The overall Mario franchise means the entire Mario series while the "Super Mario" series refers to the platformers such as Super Mario Bros., Galaxy, etc. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:34, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
:It is a ''Mario'' Game. You are overreacting, this is not really something to complain about. Like [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] said, this is what proposals are about: voting on your opinion.<s>Please stop arguing. It is important in the ''Mario'' series so it should just stay as it is.</s>[[File:PowerKamekSig.jpg|100px|link=User:PowerKamek]]
<span style="color:red;font-family:monospace">Kamek Power!</span> 15:29, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
::PowerKamek, please don't stifle reasonable debate by handwaving that it's a children series of video games. Ok thanks. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:35, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
I am a Mario nerd. That is what we do, over care about Mario :p.
You have no opposition to deny my reason. Since you don't, I have every reason to continue. That is how proposals work. One proposes, one denies, one challenges the denied with a counter to move forward their proposal, and if one finds a problem with their counter, they counter back. This continues until the opposed or the proposed is proven wrong, or until the time for debate is expired. As far as I know the talk for this proposal has not expired. I still await my counter.
So I ask specifically, how are Super Mario Land 1 and 2 not apart of the Main Super Mario series? {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
::They aren't. We've said a million times they're not because *insert reason* here. Go look at Walkazo's support again and some of her comments, she's highlighted exactly why they don't fit in the main Super Mario series. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:41, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
@PowerKamek Fair enough on the world is flat analogy, I should have used another example. But to continue the overall debate.
"I thought we explained to you how it's deviant from the Super Mario series and hasn't been referenced. The overall Mario franchise means the entire Mario series while the "Super Mario" series refers to the platformers such as Super Mario Bros., Galaxy, etc."
According to my counter I have proved that it is referenced. I have also countered that references do not qualify it being apart of the main Mario series. Could you reiterate why these arguments of mine are wrong? {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:Your only proof is simply, "Nintendo put it in their anniversary game". Walkazo has already dismantled that argument on why it doesn't work, considering how Nintendo is inconsistent with their claims at points. I'd argue that references to other Mario games DO qualify as it being apart of the Mario series. Every single game in the Mario series except for Super Mario Land has referenced each other at least once. What does Super Mario Land have? The physics of the super ball? That UFO that is so-called "Tatanga's Ship" as if all generic UFOs are Tantanga's Ship? We've already countered all of your points at this point, you're just reiterating it again and claiming victory. Daisy, who wasn't brought back to reference Super Mario Land? As Walkazo said, it eventually branched off and became Wario Land, it makes more sense to make it its own series primarily because it generated a sequel where Wario was the main character. Your arguments aren't wrong, but they're weak. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:58, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
::"''Though let us not forget that influence is not only the use of future elements, but also by the influence of the player. I could argue that the impact and influence of Super Mario Land 1 and 2 have been huge on players across the world.''"
::We're arguing about Nintendo's view on the series and our organizational standards. Please stick it to that. People can easily integrate Super Smash Bros. into the Mario series "canon", and Smash Bros. ''does'' seem like a game that would be part of a Mario anniversary game. Smash Bros. even had more of an influence in the series because of Luigi's moves in Mario Sports Mix and Mario & Sonic. What we're arguing is its impact on the series, not its sales numbers. Hotel Mario is famously bad. A lot of people know about that game or at least the Mario nerds, but it in itself has extremely little impact in the Mario series asides from a cute minigame name ([[Hotel Goomba]]). It has even less of an influence than Super Mario Land, but I honestly think Hotel Mario is more infamous than Super Mario Land is famous.
::"''Since I proved that Super Mario Land has enough impact, and since we know Nintendo says they are apart of the main series. You are now saying they can't because of organization? I believe I gave a solution to the organization problem. If you want to use organization as a counter argument, you must counter my solution and why my solution does not work. If not, then you have nothing to counter with, which in turn means you have no means of viable information to argue with.''"
::That's our argument from point one: the wiki organizational structure. As I repeat myself here, we're changing a core organizational structure here simply because Super Mario Land 1 & 2 appear in an anniversary game. A mention in an anniversary game is quite significant, but Nintendo has to cherry-pick and showcase several aspects of the Mario series; they leave out a lot of games, and even smaller series like Mario Kart, they have the Mario Kart arcade games left out (Mario Party has its own set of arcade games, but they're more like ports from Mario Party 5 and 8). My sister has been proposing splitting the Mario Kart arcade games in the similar way Super Mario Land is for the same reasons: it's a disjointed game with little-to-no-impact in the Mario Kart series. You haven't proved at all that it has impact other than personal experience and sales figures. We've been talking about influence within the Mario games and you were defining it to mean sales figures and player base (and that's relative; try conflating that with Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario Galaxy). That has some relevance to our wiki, but its long-term influence helps us determine how integrated within the mainstream Mario games it is. And it's not really.
::"''I find the comment "whining" to be inappropriate for this situation. Whether I contradict your arguments is not up to you or me, but up to an administrator. If an administrator finds that I do indeed disprove your argument, then it will have to be accepted (according to rule 5). Although right now you do have the more popular vote, that is true, ideas of popularity does not make the idea right. An example when everyone once thought the world was flat. You have also been on this wiki as opposed to me who is new, which could in turn give a biasness to your character rather then the problem at hand."''
::From my experience, debates don't work like that. The voting system might not be the best system since it can be so one-sided sometimes, and it's determined by sheer numbers rather than discussion, but in the long run, compelling changes do happen. You're misinterpreting our rules, which removes arguments only if they're wholly non sequitor and nonsensical; people will find your interpretation to argument akin to censorship or taking down a straw man and then removing the vote. Outright removing voting will have flaws too, since some debates go on for way too long. That being said, I'm still not convinced by your arguments, and by arguing with you further, I'm inclined to side with the janitor (my playful jargon for "admin", by the way). The main reason Walkazo is getting votes is that she makes well-thought-out arguments (I'm not a janitor like her either, just an experienced user, and I do quite frequently get perred, not all the time though; heck, I've argued with Walkazo before).
::"''According to my counter I have proved that it is referenced. I have also countered that references do not qualify it being apart of the main Mario series. Could you reiterate why these arguments of mine are wrong?''"
::One negligible bouncing fireball mechanic and a dubious "cameo" does not an influential game make. References alone do not qualify, but we're talking about overall long-term impact, not easter eggs or relevance or if it's a "true" Mario game. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:00, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
:::To add to the last "reference" bit, plenty of inarguably non-''SM'' games are referenced by the main series too, so the existence of ''SML'' refs, while worth considering, doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition position at all. And on that note, for the record, when proposers make it clear that they're ignoring the opposition's points, stop making new arguments and resort to ignorant and insulting gambits like "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too", all the while moaning in the edit summaries about how it's taking so long and gonna be so hard for them to win, then yes, it ''is'' "whining", so I stand by what I said earlier, in case anyone else questions my judgement on that matter. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Yeah, those are called red herrings, the creation of new seemingly relevant opinion and arguments that divert the original argument. Thenintendostooge, debates are always hard to do, but you have to acknowledge that the opposing side has a valid viewpoint and a patience meter, and they think their side is superior to yours as you think yours is to theirs. That inherent bias makes it extremely difficult to win each other over, but the point of this debate is to perhaps convince those "on-the-fence" rather than each other. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:24, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
@Baby Luigi- (btw, it is going to take a while to respond to all of you if you all respond at once so be patient ok? :) "Nintendo put it in their anniversary game". Wrong, I did not argue that. The games are not appearing in any anniversary game AT ALL. It is on the official Super Mario bros 30th anniversary website, not a game.
:::As we said multiple times, "One negligible bouncing fireball mechanic, a dubious "cameo", and a mention in an anniversary site do not an influential game make, especially when the previous anniversary has left out said game. References alone do not qualify, but we're talking about overall long-term impact, not easter eggs or relevance or if it's a "true" Mario game." Okay, my original argument had slightly different words, but it's not a different argument. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:28, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
@Walkazo- "To add to the last "reference" bit, plenty of inarguably non-''SM'' games are referenced by the main series too, so the existence of ''SML'' refs, while worth considering, doesn't automatically invalidate the opposition position at all."
How is it fair to say it needs relevance, but to criticize me when I try to prove its relevance by saying non confirmed games are relevant as well? The difference between the games you are trying to list is that the relevance is not used by Nintendo. Super Mario Land is.
"stop making new arguments and resort to ignorant and insulting gambits like "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too", all the while moaning in the edit summaries about how it's taking so long and gonna be so hard for them to win, then yes, it ''is'' "whining"..."
First off, it is wrong to quote what I never quoted such as "well, you're just wrong and everyone who mindlessly agrees with you should have all their votes removed too". I never said that. Second, I never insulted anyone, I am trying to have a fun clean debate here. Third off, I am not making new arguments to avoid other ones. As you can see, all of my counters have been to counter your ideas, not to start new ideas. Fourth off, I am not moaning, I am countering which I have every right to do. Fifth, I never "whined" how about how long for this debate to go on. Honestly I find it fun. I find that you are being very hurtful so lets go on a good note and debate over the proposal at hand. :)
{{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:Don't take it personally, but we've been trying to counter your arguments too, and, as I said, both of us have a patience meter. Walkazo viewed your edit summaries not very positively, and I can't say I disagree. That being said, I've already gone over that you've misunderstood the rules. The problem is that from what you're saying, you think you're winning the argument and "illogical votes should be removed". I've already explained that our rules don't work like that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:55, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
::[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] is not wrong; and all of our votes should'nt be removed just because you think you're right and we're wrong.
<span style="color:red;font-family:monospace">Kamek Power!</span> 16:38, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
@Everyone
I have noticed some people have gotten a little upset with me (as most people do). Sorry if I offended you in any way. I am just trying to defend my proposal. I am new to this site and I feel rather hurt right now (I am a touchy guy). I just want to improve this wiki. So don't feel like I am against you. If there are too many people who do not like me I will delete my account. ;-; {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:We're not offended, but I personally feel we're not really advancing in this argument. Don't take it personally, but I think whatever feeling you're getting from Walkazo and I and several other users is simply the ebbing patience within this argument. Just look how long this comments section is. But again, we've tried refuting your points and we view you as bringing up new points that are not relevant to the original debate. There are a lot of other things in the wiki you can do right now, but we're not going to ban you or label you as a heathen any time soon. It's just your argument we feel is weak; we're not hating on you. :/ I've successfully and unsuccessfully argued with people like Walkazo before, so just consider this debate as part of a much bigger learning process. {{User:Mario/sig}} 16:53, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
I just suppose I am a little disappointed and sad. I have been reading this wiki since I was 12 (I am 17 now). I thought when I joined this wiki I would make friends, that's all. I thought I could find others like me that love the Mario franchise so much that they would talk about anything Mario. I just feel I am turning you against me. I don't want to be hated or seen as stupid because someone disagrees with me. I want to make friends and have fun. I just feel... really hurt right now and I don't know if I belong here :(. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
If anyone would still like to debate, I am open but it seems I can't sway anyone. When the proposal expires I will wait 4 weeks repurpose it (I think that is the amount of time you have to wait to repropose right?) Because I am such a stupidly touchy person, I would rather not have any mean arguing and hurtful comments. Thank you. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
:If you're going to repurpose it, chances are, it will get shot down the same way again unless you can offer a sound rationale on why we should support it. Also, don't take any of these personally. I don't hate you. The only users I hate on the site are wandals and trolls. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:26, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
@BabyLuigi- I believe that if Nintendo confirms it is should. I suppose we will have to wait until the idea of the Land game being in the main series list become more apparent. Not today, but some day the wiki will place the land games in the main series list. This might have come up really suddenly by Nintendo. So it might take the wiki a couple of years to change enough for the wiki grasp the task. Slowly but surely. I just made enemies out of Mario players like me. That is really hurtful to me for some reason. Maybe I am overreacting but I just feel so sad right now. {{User|Thenintendostooge}}
===Ban the term beta<nowiki>*</nowiki> and rename pages in the Beta namespace===
[http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_36#Correct_use_of_the_term_.22Beta.22 There was a proposal] suggesting to change the name of the "beta elements" page to something more accurate. Despite being close to succeeding, it was vetoed by the admins with the reason being that "it's not meant to be taken literally" and "it works".
Except. no. The suggestion was perfectly cogent, the rationale provided for the veto was bad and the proposal should never have been reversed. Here's why
1: '''It's a bad, innacurate term''': "Beta" in programming language refers to a specific state of development, a prerelease build that's feature-complete and is being bugtested. It's not even a particularly representative term: the beta period happens near the end of development, long after ideas suggested in pre-production are shot down, games are overhauled, unique characters and objects are removed... etc, which is what the "beta" pages usually cover.
Some may argue that "language evolves" and that "beta as it is used here is not meant to be taken literally", but I don't think it's a strong arguments. Sites focused on the documentation of unused/prelease content such as Unseen 64 and TCRF have mocked the usage of "beta" as a catch-all term and lower-quality ressources that use it that way. Other fan wikis like SegaRetro also [http://segaretro.org/Beta do not use] "beta" as a generic term. Fact is, "beta" is nowhere near accepted in professional circles and that's what the wiki claims to be - a professional ressource. Furthermore, why would you use an inacurate and potentially misleading term when dozens of accurate, non-misleading alternatives exist?
2: '''It leads to muddy, vague writing.''' Whenever you see "beta" used on other pages, its catch-all nature muddies the information. "[[Dread Kong|Dread Kong did not exist in the beta version of Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]" - nevermind that referring to a singular "beta version" betrays a gross ignorance of how game development works, what's the "beta" in question? A preview in a magazine? A proto leaked on the internet? Something suggested in pre-production that was rejected and never programmed into the game? Banning the generic beta and forcing editors to be more specific (as opposed to the current [[Mariowiki:Good Writing|wishy-washy stance]] that "we know it's bad, but we still use it because reasons I guess") will improve the quality of the information.
3: '''The "grandfather clause" is never a good excuse:''' Similar to this case, "sub-species" is a long-used term that was found to be innacurate and cause inconsistencies, and the current community concensus is that it should be replaced despite its longstanding nature. "It's what we've always used" is not a good refutation when the usage of a term is proven to lower the credibility and quality of the information, as is the case here.
As a replacement, I propose beta pages to be renamed '''List of prerelease and unused content'''. "Prelease" perfectly encansuplates the varieties of content that's not present in the final code, and it's wordier, yes, but not overly so. Generic mention of "beta" should not be robotically replaced with a generic "In prelease/unused content of [game]", but rather with a specific term ("magazine preview", "prototype", "unused"), with a piped link to the "List of..." pages.
(<nowiki>*</nowiki>: This of course doesn't apply to actual beta builds, but as none of the specific builds documented here are specifically said to be real betas, that precision is kinda irrelevant.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Glowsquid}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 15, 2015, 23:59 GMT
====Move beta pages to "List of prerelease and unused content" and ban the generic "beta" in mainspace articles====
#{{User|Glowsquid}}
#{{User|thenintendostooge}} Simply because something works does not make it professional or the most efficient. The simple term beta used on the wiki goes against basic definition and term of the word that is beta.
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} "Beta" probably could be validated ''if'' it was actual developer terminology that refers to a specific point of development or build, but since Nintendo doesn't and won't do that publicly, I am completely okay with Beta banning for those reasons. Per proposal.
#{{User|PowerKamek}}I am okay with this. Beta is a bad term and I think that term may be better. It's a little long, but I like it. Per [[User:Glowsquid|Glowsquid]].
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} Okay, I'll let it out: I felt cheated when I saw that veto and I agree that it should've never happened, and ''it should not happen again''. This poorly-handled veto deserves ''all'' the criticism it gets for using administrative powers to shut down legit debate. Anyhow, nonstaff user's opinions aside, by keeping the term "beta" as "a-okay", we're contradicting our own policy, the [[MarioWiki:Good Writing#Frequently misused terms|Good writing's frequently misused terms]]. This policy will cause confusion for newer users by saying it's not okay to use "beta" while in the same time, using that term in the same way. Now, I'm feeling confident to lambast the staff team's reasoning and decision, hear me out. This is the reasoning: ''"'Beta' was never meant to be taken literally as the specific beta version, but as a convenient umbrella term synonymous with 'pre-release'. It works perfectly well as-is; there is no need to change the name.''" This reasoning has several problems. "It's never meant to be taken literally" is dodging the basic argument, that "the terminology has never been a problem in the first place" when that there was an entire proposal about it that garnered massive support (only to be shut down by a handful of people) about the usage of that term. It doesn't matter if we "intended" the term to be "taken literally"; this term certainly confuses, misleads, and misinforms our readers, just as how "subspecies", apparently, is never meant to be taken literally in this wiki. The usage of "beta" as a convenient umbrella term ''is'' the entire problem with that forsaken word. We have a much better umbrella term "pre-release and unused elements" that is not only far superior, but does not flirt with the line into pedantry. *breathes* Okay, pardon my bitter tone, I'm still a bit miffed over that, but I support this proposal as much as the subspecies eradication proposal. They're both about precise and accurate word usage and so the reasoning behind the two should be reasonably similar.
#{{User|Gabumon}} Glowsquid's reasoning makes sense and the proposed change sounds agreeable.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} There's a fine line of difference between being "pedantic" and being "outright wrong" when it comes to terminology, and this clearly falls in the latter case by the reasoning Glowsquid provided. Per Glowsquid and Mario, they've already stated what I was going to say.
#{{User|Yoshi876}} I supported this the last time, I'm supporting it this time. Per all.
====Oppose====
====Comments====
@Mario - I agree with practically everything that has been said on the matter so far, and there's not much for me to add besides the fact that using the term as loosely as Mario Wiki does is definitely looked down upon in certain circles (and indeed, there is still quite a lot of rogue instances of "beta" that require cleaning up regardless of this); however, while I don't feel your sentiments are wrong, it's worth acknowledging that it was a bureaucrat who decided to initiate this second proposal. I believe that counts for something! [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:That's true. :) However, I feel like if ''I'' attempted a redux like, it might get vetoed. Oh well, I guess you can't win by doing nothing. {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:51, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
@Glowsquid, you should probably correct your support header, "prelease" to "prerelease" {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 15:17, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:It makes for a terrible pun though. http://forum.mariowiki.com/Smileys/default/dk.gif {{User:Mario/sig}} 15:30, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
===Use explanation text to explain pronouns and whatnot in quotes===
Let's take a look, for example, in [[List of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door quotes#TEC-XX|this section of the List of ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' quotes]]. I see that, since [[Princess Peach]] is referenced many times, there are many "you"s linking to her article, and this is ''just'' to indicate that she is the one being referenced. But it doesn't seem right to use links for this purpose, because for what I know they are supposed to support navigation. Plus, since regular articles usually use only one link to some subject (on the first mention), it would be nice to do the same with quotes.
So, I propose that, whenever a subject must be identified in a quote (except on the first mention), we use <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Subject">This kind of explanation</span><noinclude> to identify it.
So, this quote from ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'':
*"''If [[Merlon|he]] thinks [[Mario|you]] are the hero, [[Mario|you]] probably are. I think...''"
Would become:
*"''If <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Merlon">he</span><noinclude> thinks <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> are the hero, <span class=explain style=color:inherit title="Mario">you</span><noinclude> probably are. I think...''"
'''Proposer''': {{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}}<br>
'''Deadline''': June 16, 2015, at 23:59 GMT.
====Support====
#{{User|Mr. Ice Bro.}} Per my proposal.
====Oppose====
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} I really don't see the issue of using links to link to character articles? Adding links to character name certainly doesn't create any problems whatsoever, and what you're doing is basically stripping away the link function, since these two function essentially the same: hovering over a name to show a character's name. I'm not exactly against this, but I see this as a pointless change so I'm just going for the do-nothing option, which is essentially this vote.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - The span stuff is a huge pain to use, where as links are easy and do no harm. The wiki's studded with blue overall (or whatever colours you have your skins set to: not our fault if they links are garish), and cases like the example where "you" gets liked twice shouldn't happen anyway since the first link establishes who it is. Other times, context can tell us who's the subject matter, or perhaps the identity might not matter, just the soundbite itself for the sake of the speakers' character, so even links wouldn't be necessary. Other times, parenthetical context can be provided to explain the quotes, again without links. Overall, it's really not as bad as the proposal makes it out to be.
#{{User|PowerKamek}} That would make sense, but the problem is that the links are showing what characters they mean. In the game, it doesn't show the characters names, but since this is the Mario Wiki, it has more information on everything. I would say, "per all".
#{{User|Boo4761}} People would like to know what characters the quote is referring to. Per all.
#{{User|Bazooka Mario}} I wouldn't support outright banning the span stuff, but there's no point in using it when it's a pain to implement it (I use it for [[Wikipedia:Furigana|furigana]] inputting). I understand how this alternative is attractive rather than redundant links, but I'd stick with the simpler brackets.
====Comments====
Perhaps we can compromise by replacing all first instances (in general) with links and then making repeated instances with the explanation text fields? {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:48, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:Even so...what does that do that links can't? {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:50, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::Isn't that accomplishing the same thing with less convenience? It just seems like an unnecessary step to me. What's the downside/negative aspect of having the links in the first place? {{User:Time Turner/sig}}
:::@Baby Luigi: it's less of an eyesore than techno-color links all over the place (and maybe mobile users don't have to worry about accidentally touching them or something). We don't link every text in the gallery pages for that same reason, so maybe we can use those fields instead. However, as Time Turner said, it's another piece of wiki code to memorize and incorporate. {{User:Mario/sig}} 21:53, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::::Techno color links? You mean two colors, blue and black? That's not an eye sore at all. Perhaps we can limit the linking to once per pronoun referral but that's about it. It's not that much of an eyestrain unless this wiki uses the yellow color to link things. I don't know how mobile users work though. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 21:56, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::That's exactly what I mean. And what I mean by techno-color links, look at the example in the proposal: two links to Mario's page is a bit ludicrous. If those links are meant to give clarification, then we shouldn't have to solely rely on them; stuff like explanation text wrap exists. {{User:Mario/sig}} 22:04, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
::::::I still don't see the problem in that? You're making this a bigger deal than it really is. It's still only two colors, blue and black, and it links just as much as any other article on the wiki does. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 22:06, 8 June 2015 (EDT)
:::::::I was exaggerating myself here in terms of "gaudy links", but yeah, it was hard to tell. Sorry for that. {{User:Mario/sig}} 00:54, 9 June 2015 (EDT)
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
Latest revision as of 22:53, April 18, 2025
Current time:
Saturday, April 19th, 07:40 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.
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.
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
Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
A given user may author/co-author up to five ongoing proposals. Any additional proposals will be immediately canceled.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
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.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
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.
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.
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.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
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.
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
memoryman3 (talk) Switch 2 Editions are unique game builds that Nintendo gives you the option to upgrade to, and as such should be treated as unique games. Determining whether a game deserves a separate article should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to other reissues. This would be no different from distinguishing a game like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD or Donkey Kong Country Returns HD as unique titles, unless the changes are so minimal that the games are classified as ports.
We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article
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
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.
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.
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 ( talk • contribs ) 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 — eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
Case-by-case where we only split ones with significant new content might be the way to go. This reminds me of how New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is split while New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis isn't. As for determining which ones have enough new content, it seems like the titles can help with that - so far, ones that are mainly just graphical improvements are just called "Game – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition", while ones that have more content added have another bit on the end of the title after a "＋" (like Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition ＋ Jamboree TV). I guess the option closest to this is the fourth one, except I'd rather not strictly require a proposal to determine it in cases where it's obvious (though of course we'd be allowed to have one if it's not). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:50, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
I understand everyone's argument about this but I feel like we already know enough about the Switch 2 Edition of Jamboree to make this proposal. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)
It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Hey guys, I have a question. When this proposal ends, which color do I have to give it in the proposal archive page? Because it doesn’t seem like any of those fit. Should I color it Grey/Gray? Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 07:14, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
But this'll get re-proposed when the Switch 2 (or the first Switch 2 Edition releases) so doesn’t that technically mean it passed, because the option that passed is that we'll discuss it later. Because if it didn't pass, no change would've been made, ever. But this time there will be a change made. Just not now, but like, it'll still happen this year. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 11:25, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
It'd be red because the option that passed was to not take action yet. If a later proposal decides on a change then the change is attributed to that proposal and this one could switch to the blue colour. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:38, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
That's actually not a bad idea! Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:13, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
Removals
None at the moment.
Changes
None at the moment.
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.
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.
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"?
JanMisali (talk) Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
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.
Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. As a big Mario Party fan. I feel like board games fit to the category of games
No
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.
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).
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".
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.
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.
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
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.
Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I understand everyone else's hesitation, but Nelsonic has a point!
No
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. Nintendo Today! is basically just a daily newspaper (similar to The 'Shroom).
Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
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.
JanMisali (talk) Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
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.
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.
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.
Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. They were made by Banpresto, usable in arcades, and required money to play.
JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my Super Mario Ride vote.
No
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.
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.
@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 ( talk • contribs ) 20:23, 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)
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. Rykitu
@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)
@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)
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
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)
~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 
12:07, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)
~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) 
20:23, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
Rykitu
