MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎List of talk page proposals: Don't worry, I haven't changed what the proposal is fundamentally about.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MarioWiki:Proposals/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
===Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"===
As we all know, many wikis (including the Super Mario Wiki), like to simply say "British English". But I think this just isn't right. It has been like this for long, even though we know that, unlike American English (which spelling really is exclusive to America, or people like me who prefer it over Commonwealth English most of the time), Commonwealth English spelling isn't exclusive to the United Kingdom, and (as a more famous example) also used Oceania. So this proposal aims to change this to avoid making it look like this spelling is only used in the United Kingdom/Europe.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Rename to "Commonwealth English"/"English (Commonwealth)"====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - I mean, I ''already'' write it as this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu (Commonwealth)}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not. Per proposal.
 
====Stay with "British English"/"English (United Kingdom)"====
#{{User|SmokedChili}} "British English" is fine, even "European English" would be better, because it's Nintendo of Europe who localized differently for the markets the NA versions don't reach. Making this  "Commonwealth English" would generalize and obscure this too much because that's the group the different non-American Englishes all fall into, and it's not all about spelling, the vocabularies also differ.
#{{User|Hewer}} Voting for this as a "do nothing" option. I've seen both terms used on the wiki and they're essentially interchangeable. I don't see the need to enforce a strict policy about which one to use when they're both commonly used terms that mean the same thing.
 
====Commonwealth Comments====
Just to be clear: British English is going bye-bye, but Australian English and Canadian English, also listed in the cite template's [[Template:Cite#Optional parameters|language codes]], remain intact? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:45, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
::[[Heart Panel|Some]][[List of Tetris & Dr. Mario staff|time]]s. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:::Yeah, but in terms of games, Canadian English is never used. Mostly the gaming pages (like the game infobox) and pages that state the differences between American and Commonwealth English (like most of ''[[Mario Party: Island Tour]]''{{'}}s minigames) are my main target now. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|SmokedChili}} I understand your argument, but consider that, as I said; British English isn't only used in the ''United Kingdom'' or ''Europe''. Its spelling (which is the thing that matters in games), is also used in Australia (which is the reason PAL used to exist). That the vocabularies differ doesn't really matter, because the Australian versions is just identical to British version. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Australia localize the same, so bringing up Nintendo of America doesn't really seem to be needed. Also, yes that's right. Every country except America and Canada use the Commonwealth spelling, which is the reason it should be changed. It's really not exclusive to only '''''one''''' country. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 06:52, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|Hewer}} I get what your meaning, but as the above, Commonwealth English may have originated in the UK, but is no longer exclusive to it. It's like telling ''Australians'' that they're writing in ''British'' English; it's just not right. "British English/English (United Kingdom)" is basically an old term now that spelling isn't exclusive to the UK anymore and should be changed. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:00, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:I mean, if "English" isn't exclusive to England, why must "British English" be exclusive to Britain? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:56, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:That's true, but you can't really compare them because, England is just a province (that is named ''after'' the language), while Britain (aka the UK) is a whole country, which isn't named after anything. The more-used term for Commonwealth English comes from there, unlike with England, where the name of the province itself comes from the language. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 17:10, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::If "British English" is the more common term for Commonwealth English, why should the origins of the term matter? Would you avoid using the term "American football" because the sport is also played outside America? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 18:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::The term matters because it was just simply "English" + the name of the country, even though it's not the only country it's spoken in. "English (United Kingdom/Europe)" is an even better example, the spelling is not exclusive to either of those. What's Oceania then? Nothing? Just see it like (Normal) Dutch and Flemish Dutch. Hollandic Dutch is mostly just called Dutch, because of the fact it's not only spoken in The Netherlands. While Flemish Dutch (or simply Flemish) is called like that, because it's only Flanders (Belgium). Also yes, I mostly say "rugby", because it shares many similarities. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 18:32, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Plenty of languages are spoken outside of the countries they are named after or originate from. I don't think "British English" implies that it's only spoken in Britain, just that it's a version originating from Britain, much like how Spanish isn't only spoken in Spain, French isn't only spoken in France, Italian isn't only spoken in Italy, etc. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:58, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Rework "References" sections===
As the ''Super Mario'' franchise is both massive and highly interconnected, one aspect of our coverage is listing all instances of a work referencing or being referenced by other works. This is accomplished through a pair of sections near the bottom of the article: "'''References to other games/media'''" and "'''References in other games/media'''", which list each applicable work as a bullet point on a list in chronological order, then list each reference in prose. While this format works well at smaller scales, certain games push this past its limit.
 
Take a look at [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Odyssey&oldid=4865428#References_to_other_games ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s "References to other games" section] at the time of writing. Certain games listed (such as ''Donkey Kong'', ''Super Mario 64'' or ''Super Mario Galaxy'') are so saturated that it's genuinely difficult to read. Because ''Super Mario'' games are constantly referencing past entries, this is a problem that will continue to grow until something is done about it. So, here's my pitch:
 
Instead of using bullet points for games, we use bullet points for individual references, while separating each title into subsections with <code><nowiki>;</nowiki></code>. This makes individual sections easier to parse, although they *do* take up a bit more space. An individual game listed would look like:
 
;''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''
*There is a bonus game starring [[Luigi]] available on the title screen, called ''Luigi Bros.'' It is played similarly to this game, except both playable characters are Luigi.
*The big [[POW Block]] on the very top of [[The Great Tower of Bowser Land]] must be hit multiple times, getting flatter every time it's hit, just like it does in ''Mario Bros.''
 
I've created two drafts for what a full section would look like using this model, taking ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'' as a sample:
*[[User:EvieMaybe/Sandbox of proposal examples#Referential Rework, type A|Draft A]] mantains the full chronological order our references sections currently use.
*[[User:EvieMaybe/Sandbox of proposal examples#Referential Rework, type B|Draft B]] further divides the games into series for ease of reading, [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#History|in the same manner as a History section]]. It is worth noting that [[List of references in The Super Mario Bros. Movie|List of references in ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'']] and other split reference lists (such as the soon-to-be-merged list of references to ''Super Mario Bros.'') are sorted by series as well.
*[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_3D_World&oldid=4864827#References_to_other_games ''Super Mario 3D World''{{'}}s "References to other games" section] at the time of writing, for comparison.
 
If this proposal passes, these guidelines will be codified in [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|our Manual of Style]] for posterity and slowly rolled out across articles, as we've been doing with Naming sections.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support, type A (fully chronological)====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} It's a more organized version of what we have right now and I'm fine with what we have right now, but if it's more organized, it's always better if you ask me, and making it chronological makes it even more organized, so it's basically a win-win. Sub-sections are much better than simply putting "[game name]:". Adding the sub-sections makes reading it much easier.
#{{User|Hewer}} If the goal is to decrease clutter and improve readability, I think this solution is better than the other one that adds more unnecessary headers.
#{{User|Fakename123}} I have thought about proposing something similar myself.
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per proposal.
 
====Support, type B (sorted by series)====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} my preferred choice.
 
====Oppose (reference sections are fine as is)====
 
====Comments in other games====
 
===Allow old names to be used for article titles if it avoids confusion===
The core target of this proposal is "[[Koopa Beach 2]] no wait its [[SNES Koopa Beach 2]] oh no actually it's [[SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2]]-even-though-it-isnt-a-successor-to-[[N64 Koopa Troopa Beach|Koopa Troopa Beach]] no wait now it IS [[Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)|Koopa Troopa Beach]]-even-though-it-isnt-Koopa Troopa Beach-nor-is-it-a-course-that-isnt-asuccessor". Yeah.
 
This wiki has a policy that I've always believed to be somewhat flawed, where article titles must always use the most recent name for a subject, no matter how unknown or rarely used it is, or how iconic or popular the older name is, with zero exceptions at all. This goes without saying: but that's flawed. Koopa Beach 2 has now proved that for us here.
 
With the classic prefixes added in Mario Kart DS, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Beach 2", okay that's fair.
 
In Mario Kart Tour, however, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa '''Troopa''' Beach 2" - which immediately is now creating confusion. It's a successor to [[Koopa Beach 1]], not [[N64 Koopa Troopa Beach|Koopa Troopa Beach]], but the name doesn't illustrate that. Combined with the fact that more people are going to know it as "Koopa Beach 2", there's already a significant amount of confusion created by an already flawed policy.
 
Then Mario Kart World comes in, and renames the course once again. Now it is called "[[Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)|Koopa Troopa Beach]]". I do not need to explain how much the policy overcomplicates this.
 
So: Koopa Beach 1 and Koopa Beach 2 are courses from Super Mario Kart while Koopa Troopa Beach is a course from Mario Kart 64. In Mario Kart Tour, Koopa Beach 2 was renamed to SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 while in America in Mario Kart 7, Koopa Troopa Beach is called N64 Koopa Beach, but only in America, while in Tour it's back to N64 Koopa Troopa Beach. In Mario Kart World, SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 is now just "Koopa Troopa Beach". It's bad enough, so much so that it literally caused confusion on this wiki whether it was SNES or N64 or not, and the name of the course is the sole blame. Yet, this wiki doesn't tackle the issue: because the policy MUST be enforced at all times.
 
So: because of the policy, the pages name now needs to be renamed to "Koopa Troopa Beach". But, here's the issue:
 
Naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Super Mario Kart)" is a bad idea since there is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach", while naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)" also makes no sense since the course obviously did not debut in Mario Kart World. The easiest option is to leave it as "SNES Koopa Beach 2", the name most people will search for anyways, and specify in the article the name is different in subsequent games (which it already does). Maybe a template at the top of the article can be added to inform readers about the article using an older name. I believe that enforcing a policy, especially one with little benefits like this, and forcing it with zero exceptions is a harmful idea, and it's showing now more than ever before.
 
We can tell from gameplay, screenshots, and of course the in game world map icon, that the course is just Koopa Beach 2 with little gameplay changes - just a name change.
 
So the options are simple:
 
•Keep the name policy as it is: this would rename the article to "Koopa Troopa Beach", which creates confusion and conflict.
 
or...
 
•Allow the policy to be changed, so articles can still use old names if it avoids confusion and conflict: this would effect the Koopa Beach 2 article by renaming it back to "SNES Koopa Beach 2" with the article going into detail about the subsequent name changes.
 
Koopa Beach 2 is just one example: inevitably there will be more in the future, and it's best to get this sorted now before then.
 
To keep things as simple as possible with as little grey area as possible: let's say the definition of "creating confusion" is if two subjects names are different, but then one is changed so it is now identical to the other, despite them not being so in their original appearance.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|YoYo}}
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Allow older names to be used if it prevents confusion====
#{{User|YoYo}} Per proposal.
 
====Keep the policy as is, with zero exceptions====
#{{User|Hewer}} Very strong oppose. It isn't our place to decide that official names are bad or confusing, we should report on them and use them accurately regardless of our opinions. I'd much rather maintain an accurate and consistent naming policy than start arbitrarily ignoring names we don't like. Besides, it's not like any of the games this course appears in are very obscure - a lot of people are gonna play Mario Kart World and may come to know the course as "Koopa Troopa Beach", and it may confuse ''them'' to see the wiki using a different name for it. "Koopa Beach 2" (a name that hasn't been used in a game in twenty years) being the name you're personally used to doesn't make it more correct than the newer name.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per Hewer. The wiki already covers eight ([[Rainbow Road (Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit)|arguably nine]]) entirely separate courses named Rainbow Road. This is fine.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If Nintendo broke it, we're not allowed to fix it. We report, not embellish. We call [[Hand Slap|Donkey Kong's move where he slaps the ground]] a "ground pound" in prose, even when this leads to confusion with the [[Ground Pound]]. (The only reason the page is named "Hand Slap" is because there wasn't a non-remake Donkey Kong video game for the entirety of the Nintendo Switch's lifespan, leaving Smash Ultimate to reassert Hand Slap.) Maybe on a different wiki, with a different culture, we would consider using older names for clarity. But currently, it is more important on this wiki to be correct than to match fandom expectation.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} this is incredibly subjective, and also not very helpful unless you already know which one is the SNES track and which one is the N64 track? per all.
 
====Comments====
We have something called [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Make an exception to source priority for articles with identical names|source]] [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Regarding the above (source priority exception)|priority]] [[MarioWiki talk:Naming#Expand source priority exception to include regional English differences|exception]], even though it's not mentioned in the guideline proper. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 04:37, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:Wasn't that [[Talk:Elder Princess Shroob#Move to "Princess Shroob (elder)" (proposal edition)|not intended to affect in-game names]]? (I know I opposed that proposal but I might vote differently if it happened again) {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:49, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::All the names mentioned in the proposal here are in-game, I think, so there's difference. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 04:57, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:::So source priority exception wouldn't take effect at all then, right? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 05:03, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
::::I'm just pointing out that leniency is a thing, so this proposal could basically be seen as another extension of that. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:11, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
@PopitTart, I advise you actually read the proposal. Those are all named as such since they debuted, so identifying them different like we do now is perfectly okay. This is not the same. There is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach" therefore identifying it the same way is not applicable. {{User:RealStuffMister/sig}} 05:59, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
:Iit wasn't called Koopa Troopa Beach in SMK, but it is now. That's just... what Nintendo is choosing to call it now. And it still debuted in SMK, even after getting a name change.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 06:14, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
 
==New features==
===Split the list of ongoing talk page proposals into sections===
Isn't it weird how the main page proposals are split between "New features", "Removals", "Changes", and "Miscellaneous", yet the talk page proposals are all in one big list? Even though there's way more talk page than main page proposals? I think that's pretty weird.
 
;The benefits of sorting talk page proposals:
*Makes individual proposals easier to spot and parse by breaking up the list into easier to read chunks
*Groups similar proposals together
*Parity with main page proposals
 
;The downsides of sorting talk page proposals:
*The list stops being fully chronological
*I can't think of another downside
 
As per [[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] on the Discord server, the categories should be "Splits", "Merges", "Moves", and "Miscellaneous", since they're by far the most common reason folks make a talk page proposal.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Split the talk page proposals====
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ''Thank'' you. This is well overdue, as the TPP list has been kind of a rat's nest as of late; literally any organization is well worth it, in our opinion. Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} This kind of feature parity is quite useful, especially when the list has a lot of proposals on it!
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per EvieMaybe.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per proposal, and my own mockup on the Discord.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
 
====Do not split the talk page proposals====
 
===="Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)====
What if a proposal falls into multiple categories? For instance, [[Talk:List of Smash Taunt characters#Doing something about this page|this]] was both a merge and move proposal, [[Talk:Cheep Cheep (bird)#Move back to Cheep Cheep (bird) and/or split Puncher|this]] was both a move and split proposal, [[Talk:Bad Luck Space#Remerge with Unlucky Space, take two|this]] is both a merge and split proposal... {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:08, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
:either "Miscellaneous" or whatever the most relevant category is, same way as if a main page proposal fell into multiple categories. up to the proposer's discretion. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:20, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
 
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''
 
==Changes==
===Split lists of changes from remakes' articles===
(OK, it has been like ten years since I last made a Proposal, so forgive me if something is wrong.)<br>
 
It has come to my attention, from '''trying''' to browse the [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|TTYD Switch remake]] article, not as an editor, but as a player looking for specific information, just how awfully nightmarish it is to navigate it when 80%+ of the content is a massive list of changes that, while interesting, should definitely not be the focus of four fifths of the article (nor the first proper section in it, but that's not the focus of this Proposal), particularly when many people searching for the article have possibly only played the remake and as such this information would be mostly irrelevant at best. We already split glitches, staff, beta elements, etc... Why not this?<br>
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support====
#{{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}} - Per proposal
 
====Oppose====
#{{User|YoYo}} If you're going on the page for the remake specifically, chances are you are looking for what changes there are. Splitting all that information off would reduce the page for the remake into almost nothing comparatively, defeating the purpose of the page to begin with.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} What's the point of having reissues split from the original game if the article doesn't cover the changes that are present? Isn't that, like, the main reason they're split in the first place? The [[Virtual Console]] version of ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' isn't split because...it's just ''Super Mario Bros.'', but the [[Game Boy Color]] version of ''[[Donkey Kong Country (Game Boy Color)|Donkey Kong Country]]'' is split from the [[SNES]] version of ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' because it introduces changes such as [[Candy's Challenge]], [[Funky Fishing]], [[Necky Nutmare|a new level]], etc., and most people are gonna want to read about these changes on the reissue's article! Just makes something so simple so confusing.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per all. Some releases (specifically enhanced ports) have minimal changes (such as ''[[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]]'', ''[[Donkey Kong Country Returns HD]]'', and ''[[New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe]]''), so this would strip most of the content from those pages. And in the cases of full remakes, like ''[[Super Mario Bros. Deluxe]]'', ''[[Mario vs. Donkey Kong (Nintendo Switch)|Mario vs. Donkey Kong]]'', ''[[Mario Bros. Returns]]'', ''[[Super Mario Advance]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'', the page would just end up becoming a paragraphs long. For example, if the changes between ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' and ''[[VS. Super Mario Bros.]]'' were split off into a separate article, the ''VS. Super Mario Bros.'' article would simply discuss the production of the game, how it was never released in Japan, and its [[Arcade Archives]] port. This would also result in drastically shortening the pages for ''[[Super Mario All-Stars]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World]]'', ''[[Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition]]'', and ''[[Super Mario 3D All-Stars]]'', since the main selling point of those games is their changes from the original version.
#{{User|Arend}} Splitting the changes off would result in the remaining page being ''really'' barren in order to avoid [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#Repeated content|repeated content]]. At that point, what would be the point of keeping the remake split, then?
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Now, admittedly; we can see the merit of listing the content of a game outside of the context of "what's different in this port?". We killed "Once And Only Once" for a reason; sometimes, it's nice to just. Have a table of what exactly is in that specific incarnation of the game. The issue is, that's not currently the state the majority of remake articles are in, and these lists are either most, or ''all'', you have. The ''TTYD'' remake page, and our personal bugbear, the ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions]]'' page in particular, would become about as short as a page like ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'', and those are multi-hour long RPGs versus a 2-or-so hour long platformer game. In a world where these pages are more direct about the contents of their remakes beyond a bullet-pointed list, this would be fine, but we are not there yet. Therefore, the lists stay on the same page.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per Camwoodstock. a decision like this should come from changing how we cover reissues entirely. with our current reissue coverage policy, splitting the differences is basically splitting the main meat of the article.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
 
====Comments====
@YoYo: If you are specifically looking for changes from the original to the remake, wouldn't a dedicated article make more sense, then? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 13:33, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
:What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
::To be fair, if a remake is substantial, and assuming you've played neither game, it's not very helpful to jump between two articles to track particular information. {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:11, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::That's the main reason I kept most information for the DKC trilogy remakes when splitting those remakes. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Rename "List of (game) staff" articles to "(game) credits" and include what happens in credits sequences===
"Credits" is generally the proper term when listing staff in media. As for the latter part, while we do have an article about ending [[Parade]]s, I think it couldn't hurt to mention what happens while the credits roll in the article opener. e.g for ''Super Paper Mario''{{'}}s article: "During the credits, images of scenes throughout the game are shown". Listing the staff itself will remain unchanged.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Both====
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu credits}} Per proposal
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I'm all in for using the more famous term "credits". Per proposal!
 
====Only rename articles====
 
 
====Only include credits sequence information====
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Primary choice, per the sequence part of the proposal and Waluigi Time's issue.
 
====Neither====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} My issue here is that this doesn't account for games without credits sequences or instances where staff members are uncredited, and even if it did that would create an inconsistency with page titles. I'm not necessarily opposed to including information about credits sequences but don't really see it as necessary for that page.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Mushzoom}} Secondary choice, per Waluigi Time.
#{{User|Salmancer}} per Waluigi Time. Though I'm drawing a blank for where on an article to talk about the credits. Setting sections?
 
====Comments====
Would this also apply to games that don't have a credits roll, like [[Super Mario Bros.]]? I think it would be misleading to refer to the [[List of Super Mario Bros. staff|list of staff]] as "credits" if so. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 08:06, April 24, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the ''Mario'' series===
{{Early notice|May 4, 2025}}
{|class=wikitable style=float:right;width:25%
!colspan=4|Know the difference!
|-
|width=15%|[[File:SMG Penguin Artwork.png|100px]]
|width=35%|'''''Eudyptula mariosixtyfourus'':'''<br>stubby, "chibi" build; generally blue-feathered; capable of speech; can man a vehicle
|width=15%|[[File:Pinball Penguin.gif|50px]][[File:Penguin MIMCD.png|50px]]
|width=35%|Who?
|-
|[[File:MK8 Asset Model Snowman.png|100px]]
|Wears a scarf and a blue, tilted bucket for a hat. Number one cause of car accidents during snowfall. Might be sentient.
|[[File:SnowmanDKJB.png|50px]] [[File:SPP Snowman.png|40px]]
|Little Timmy's first snowpeople.
|}
A [[Talk:Penguin#Scope|discussion at Talk:Penguin]] began over the structure and scope of the wiki's [[Penguin]] article. The article focuses almost exclusively on the blue-feathered, friendly race of creatures found throughout ''Mario'' games, while relegating information about other instances of non-specific penguins that do not fit this description to a brief Notes section. Some users believe that the article should be a catch-all for critters in the series that are called simply "penguins", resemble real penguins, and fill some role related to gameplay or plot. Others think that the current article is best reserved for the design unique to ''Mario'' and have suggested creating a different, dedicated space on the wiki for the penguins that do not use this design.
 
A similar issue arises with the page [[Snowman]]. Like penguins, snowmen appear in various shapes and sizes, some having features uncharacteristic of their real life counterparts (such as bananas for a mouth and arms). However, the ones in the ''Mario Kart'' series stand out as the most consistently designed--having a two-segmented body, a bucket for a hat (always tilted to the side), two oval beady eyes, a stumpy nose, a scarf, and, in latter appearances, a tiny smile. One such ''Mario Kart'' snowman is even a playable character in ''Mario Kart World'', cementing its kind as the ''Mario'' brand's de facto snowman look.
 
Insofar as English-language material is concerned, this situation is unique to Penguins and Snowmen in the ''Mario'' franchise. However, the franchise is no stranger to featuring generically identified things based on some kind of real life counterpart, such as [[crab]], [[frog]], and [[cheese]], as well as featuring creatures that are also based on a real world thing, but were given a distinctive ''Mario'' twist, such as [[Dolphin]] and [[Moo Moo]] (which I assume will soon be moved to Cow as per ''Mario Kart World''). The more these two categories grow, the more overlap there's bound to be, so I figured it's best we hashed out a guideline on how to manage their coverage. If no further instances of such an overlap is to emerge, then I suppose this proposal is ultimately still useful in sorting out the current Penguin/Snowman sitch.
 
The proposal centers on the two courses of action suggested in the Penguin discussion I linked above.
 
;Option 1
 
Separate a given generic subject between articles based on whether it follows a recurring, recognizable design in the ''Mario'' series.
*In this case, [[Penguin]] continues to focus on the race of blue penguins introduced in ''Super Mario 64'', while a different article is created to elaborate on all the other nondescript penguins in the series that may play some kind of role. Such an article would cover, for instance, the penguins in ''[[Pinball]]'', which [[Special:Diff/3772388|were removed from the parent article a while ago]] despite having a gameplay role, however minor. The penguins featured in "[[7 Continents for 7 Koopas]]" would also be mentioned here because they play a role in the episode's climax.
*Similarly, the [[Snowman]] page becomes exclusively focused on the ones that follow the ''Mario Kart'' design, while a separate page is made for all the other snowmen in the series, such as the ''Jungle Beat'', ''Galaxy'', ''Super Princess Peach'', and possibly the ''Mario Kart: Super Circuit'' ones.
 
As for the manner of disambiguating these articles, because I don't wish this proposal to become overly restrictive, I'll suggest something in the comments.
 
If two or more designs exist in the series for a real world thing and each is established and recurring in their own right (like the ''Super Mario 64'' Penguins), they are each given an article. This hasn't happened yet to my knowledge.
 
;Option 2
 
Cover all instances of a generic subject with a direct real world counterpart in one article and in due detail. In this scenario, the current Penguin article contains detailed information on all the penguins I've described above, sectioned accordingly. The same applies to the Snowman article, which would keep its current structure.
 
;Option 3
 
Only dedicate an article to the distinctive ''Mario'' subject and use a "Notes" section in that article to quickly go over instances of that subject that do not follow the same distinctive look. The Penguin article would remain the same as currently, and the Snowman article would be modified to reflect the former's structure.
 
'''The winning option is turned into a guideline at [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects]].'''
 
;Notes
#Whichever course of action is chosen to become a guideline, it is not to be taken as a rigid, one-size-fits-all policy linked solely to one specific design. If a given generic subject comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but these can collectively be tied to one concept peculiar to the ''Mario'' series rather than something strictly tied to the real world, the guideline would not be invoked as a reason to split those multiple variants of what is essentially the same thing. An example in the ''Mario'' series is [[Small bird]], signalled in the comments--its article describes a varied family of birds that fulfill the same gameplay role. The proposal offers users a coherent structure to follow on more clear-cut distinctions between a generic subject and a properly-defined ''Mario'' subject, but there will be enough flexibility to account for nuanced cases such as the Small bird's.
#The guideline will only apply to subjects that can clearly be construed as "generic" and non-derivative, and which have a long history of being referred to after their real life counterparts in multiple languages. This guideline is not to be enforced on subjects whose identity is contentious, or whose nature is significantly more based in fiction than real life.
#*If there is divergence on whether a subject is meant to be generic, e.g. [[Sidestepper]] (simply named "[[crab]]" in other languages) or [[Preying Mantas]] (mostly ever called "[[jellyfish]]"), a separate discussion is required.
#*The beer-throwing [[Penguin (enemy)|penguins]] in ''Wario Land II'' are out of the proposal's scope, because their appearance and behavior are too derivative of real life penguins, and they have not appeared often enough to make a compelling case either way.
#*Though there are many things named "[[Ghost]]" in the Mario franchise, their relevant articles on the wiki most often discuss particular characters that happen to have a generic name (like the [[Ghost (Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3)|boss in ''Wario Land 1'']] and [[Ghost (Wario Land II boss)|the one in ''Wario Land 2'']]), distinctive creatures with a tenuous connection to ghosts (the wispy, worm-like [[Ghost (Yoshi's Story)|things]] in ''Yoshi's Story'', the [[Ghost (Donkey Kong 64)|costumed Kremlings]] in ''Donkey Kong 64''), technical terms unrelated to supernatural apparitions, and a select enemy "species" encountered in the ''Luigi's Mansion'' series. The only two true instances of generic ghosts in the extended Mario franchise are [[Ghost (Wario Land II enemy)]] and [[Ghost (DK series)]], but because I foresee contention on whether these need to be covered on the same page, this proposal excludes them altogether.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1: Cover generic subjects based on how established their design is, collect information on non-recurrent, non-established designs in a separate article====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These smaller but still significant appearances of generically named subjects are still important! That said, subjects like the Mario 64 penguins feel strange to even regard as generic given how well-established and uniquely designed they are; it seems to me that these are more like Mario-original subjects that just lack a unique name.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Especially given the remark in the comments about giving these more generic appearances the (generic) label in the comments. This helps create a rather clear divide from "Mario-ified version of a real-world thing" and "a generic real-world thing", and the alternative of eventually having to mention [[Community Service]] on the [[Moo Moo|"Cow"]] page once ''[[Mario Kart World]]'' releases does not appeal to us one bit; better to get ahead of the curve when it comes to preventing weird WikiJank™.
#{{User|Exiled.Serenity}} It does seem to us that things like these penguins are usually presented as 'the Mario character from that game' so it makes sense to give it its own space. Still worth documenting the others, but also important not to imply the Blue Penguin From Mario is just another incidental generic penguin.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal. Having a more generic article for the generic depictions feels way better than lumping them with the more stylized depictions the ''Mario series'' occasionally creates.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} tentative support, assuming "design" is not restricted to just visual appearance. Some subjects can have radically different appearances between titles but have the same behaviors, roles, and mechanical tactileness between them, and those can be indicative of continuity and shared, ontological identity as much as a shared visual appearance. Personally, I am not invested in having an article for unrelated subjects that happen to be based on real-world penguins. None of them really appear in any context that would make an article on them particularly robust or earnestly accurate, in my view, because none of them have substantial roles or were conceived by the same people. They just happen to be realistic penguins. However, others express interest in that type of documentation, and I do not want to be the reason why they can't.
#{{User|Kirby the Formling}} both generic and stylised creatures articles have good reasons to exists, so per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} If small birds and Cow are of any indication, it might be worth it to provide coverage for recurring designs of otherwise generic subjects or objects.
#{{User|Biggestman}} Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I greatly support the idea of descriptions based on design. I feel like design changes are really important to see how the enemy has involved over the years, instead of just only covering the current design, and acting like the subject has never acted different before
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|Salmancer}} having a space to place non-Mario versions of things is more fair to WarioWare. I do want to know about the tropes WarioWare has used with flies across games, and not interfere with [[Fly (Mario Paint)]] when doing so.
 
====Option 2: Cover all instances of a generic subject on one article, whether its design is established or not====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - A lot of these are subject to series' legacy-based art direction; ie, snowmen in the ''Mario Kart'' games tend to (though not always) have a design based on the MKDS take on the MK64 ones, but they're still just as much snowmen as any of the others. With that said, I think "[[small bird]]" can stay separate with the ''Odyssey'' section's multiple designs, if only because ''Odyssey'' also concurrently features [[Bird (traveling)|larger birds]].
#{{User|Nintendo101}} alternatively, perhaps articles like that for the penguin, cow/moo moo, snowman, etc. can be restructured conceptually where all of the information is housed together under one article, but emphasis is put on the recurring, more ubiquitous ''Mario'' designs in how the article is written. Perhaps info on penguins in ''Mario is Missing'' and ''WarioWare'' can be included in ''the'' penguin article if these one-off looks are not treated with the same weight as the more prolific design that debuted in ''Super Mario 64''.
 
====Option 3: Only afford a page to the generic subject with an established design, note other instances succinctly in one section of that page====
 
====Do nothing (generic subjects)====
 
====Comments (generic subjects)====
Regarding option 1, maybe give the page for non-established designs of penguins and snowmen the "(generic)" identifier. Open to better suggestions. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
I feel like there should be a fourth option for whatever [[Earth]] is up to. TLDR: There's a section for the Earth of the real world and a section for Earth-y fictional planets. Basically Option 3 without the shortening. It's a bad option, since those should just be separate articles, but it is an answer to this that is currently on the wiki. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
Do WarioWare Gold's [[coin]]s get caught up in this? They don't have a design in the middle like every Mario-ian coin. The WarioWare: Get it Together coins do, and match Mario-ian coins at that. It does suggest a risk of option 1 splitting design histories between multiple pages, which I don't care about but some people do. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:Very good observation. I always found the scope of the [[Coin]] article to be rather messy, and I'd prefer if it followed a guideline akin to what is proposed here. In other words, should option 1 or 3 garner majority in this proposal, the coins in ''Wario Land 4'' and ''WarioWare Gold'' (among other instances) are distinguished accordingly from the established design that appears to be stamped with the Roman numeral "'''I'''" ([[File:CoinMK8.png|20px]]). That said, some coins seen throughout the franchise do not have the same design as the ''Super Mario Bros.'' coin, but are clearly derivative of it, namely:
:*The star-minted coins in ''Super Mario 64'' and ''Super Mario Pinball''. ([[File:SM64 Yellow Coin art.jpg|20px]])
:*The Yoshi-themed coins in the ''Yoshi'' platformers. ([[File:YIDS Coin.jpg|30px]])
:Without careful consideration, guideline 1 and 3 would sweep these up as well. How to handle these? My suggestion is to use the parent "Coin" article for instances of yellow/gold coins that pertain to the larger, established ''Mario'' "currency" that comprises [[Red Coin]]s and [[Blue Coin]]s. There is a clear hierarchical connection between the ''64''/''Pinball''/''Yoshi'' coins and these that the ''Wario Land 4'' coins, for instance, do not have (in fact, you can construe those as a different currency altogether [[File:WL4-Coins.png|40px]]). {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 10:53, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
I think this proposal would benefit from greater clarification on what constitutes as "generic" and what qualifies as a "recurring design." Because to me, something based on a real-world in appearance but has pretty consistent mechanical utility in-game is a recurring attribute of the subject, like [[fish]] or [[flower (environmental object)|flower]]. Similarly, I think the [[T-Rex]] from ''Super Mario Odyssey'' and ''Mario Kart World'' make sense in the same article despite one looking more realistic than the other. However, there are subjects with generic names in the language of the people that created them, like [[Maw-Ray]], but I would not support turning that article into one for any and all moray eels in the ''Super Mario'' franchise. That seems unhelpful and diluting. The [[Dolphin]]s, which are not even supposed to be generic dolphin animals in Japanese, also should not be an article for any dolphins in the ''Super Mario'' franchise.
 
To me, I do not think it is accurate to consider penguins to be generic subjects. They are as discrete to me as Toads or Gearmos, and I think it is in-part because they are typically speaking characters with cultures. I think to elevate realistic animal penguins from ''Pinball'', ''Mario is Missing'' or ''Jungle Beat'', which appear very infrequently and to which the blue talking birds have no relation to within the context of creative works, would be diluting and inaccurate. I'm not even sure the realistic-looking animal info is helpful/accurate to even have in the penguin article, as opposed to simply covering those subjects on their respective game and level articles where relevant. They are not the same subjects, in my view. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:14, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm fully aware that the terminology used in the proposal can be confusing depending on how you look at it, but that wasn't by design. I just couldn't find less unwieldy terminology to work with. To be clear, I completely agree with the notion that the ''Super Mario 64'' Penguins, the "Lifton" Dolphins, and the "Moo Moo" Cows are ad hoc ''Mario'' species, just like Goombas and Toads. However, "generic" can also describe any of the Goombas you stomp in games, relative to individuals like [[Goombario]] and [[Goombella]], and by that definition, your Moo Moos and Liftons are also rather generic, which makes them even more painful to distinguish from a "generic ''generic''" entity like the cow in the [[Community Service]] microgame. I could have used the term "non-generic generic" for those ''Mario'' species, but that's... obtuse. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
::For clarity, I didn't at all think the lack of clarity was intentional or anything like this. I agree this franchise makes this a difficult topic to discuss all on its own. But thank you for the other examples - they are helpful. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:43, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
::The ''Mario Kart'' cows were stylized based on what they could make for a simple pre-render on the Nintendo 64. I don't see anything that distinguishes them from standard cartoon cows, while Toads and Goombas are obviously more fantastical as sapient fungus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:56, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:::I'm not sure the underlying reasons why the cows look the way they do makes them more generic than Toads or Goombas, especially since this same design has been exercised for these cows for multiple decades. There are many different ways one can design a cartoon cow - only [[:File:MK8 Wii Moo Moo Meadows Course Icon.png|one way]] to design the ones from Moo Moo Meadows, or at least since 2005. While organizationally inconvenient for some, or at least on this wiki, I am not sure why this cow is not a discrete ''Mario'' subject on par with the likes of [[Maw-Ray]], which is simply referred to as a "moray eel" in Japanese. Perhaps I am missing something. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:06, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
Out of curiosity, with regards to [[Small bird]]s, what would happen if option 1 won? There's definitely a recurring type of small birds since ''Super Mario 3D Land'' that even had gameplay relevance in ''Mario Sports Superstars'' and then was put among the many other small bird species introduced in ''Super Mario Odyssey''.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 20:02, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:''Super Mario Odyssey'' achieves its tactile diversity by have many of the same objects appear in each kingdom with a unique look that matches the regional topography, and I think small birds are part of the same design philosophy. Given this, as well as the fact that ''The Art of Super Mario Odyssey'' refers to nearly all of these birds as 小鳥 and this is also the Japanese name for the white birds of the Mushroom Kingdom, I think it would be a better reflection of the same to keep them in the same article together - as stylistic renditions of the same subject. This is in part why I was resistant to the idea that physical appearance was the only criterion to qualify "design." - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:16, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:{{@|Mister Wu}}, I view the Small Bird family similarly to ''Mario''{{'}}s blue Penguins. Each has a common, base variant with different offshoots. We know that the ''Mario'' race of Penguins most commonly have a blue-and-white plumage and a consistent, ''chibi''-like body ratio ([[File:MP9 Asset Model Penguin.png|20px]]), but members of this race exist, such as [[Penguru]], the [[Coach (Super Mario Galaxy)|Coach]], and the multi-colored [[Penguin Racers]], who embody different traits while still visibly pertaining to the same collective. The Small Bird was introduced as a plain white-feathered bird ([[File:Little Bird SMO render.png|20px]]) which continues to serve as the defining member of its own group, but the creatures in ''Mario Odyssey'' that embody the same model--small, fast-fleeing birds--can also be viewed as part of this group. So, to answer your question: as long as the wiki's stance on the Small Bird remains that these tiny variations are nothing more than aesthetic adaptations of the same fictional concept introduced in ''Super Mario 3D Land'', I don't think Option 1 would apply, i.e. those tiny variations wouldn't be split. Perhaps the choice to specifically tie these proposed guidelines to a subject's visual design lacks due precision given how nuanced the situation is, but then again, it's that visual design that acts as the most straightforward, unifying aspect of a given ''Mario'' race and the most convenient reference point to convey the need for those proposed changes. The proposal aims to introduce a guideline rather than a policy, because a more complex case such as Coin or even Small Bird wouldn't benefit from an overly rigid framework; these guidelines are meant to provide flexibility within a coherent structure, and aren't meant to pre-empt discussions on what users can or cannot recognize as a "Small Bird". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:04, April 28, 2025 (EDT), edited 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
Depending on what name ''Mario Kart World'' goes for, the Mario Kart Snowman could be retitled "Snowperson" (given that was the name given to it in ''Tour'').<br>btw, will this affect [[Fruit (Yoshi food)]] and [[Fruit]] in any way? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:43, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:It's already [https://youtu.be/V9tJ471FyM4?t=15m29s confirmed] to be called "Snowman". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:33, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:RE Fruit: Names shouldn't be the sole factor of a merge or split in this proposal's terms. If that were the case, something like [[Penguin (enemy)]] would be merged into [[Penguin]] given Option 2, and I argued in the proposal's body why that shouldn't happen. The basic "Fruit" article is much more encompassing than a concept like "penguin" or "snowman" and is currently the parent article of multiple individual pages on specific fruit, both based in real life ([[Apple]], [[Grape]], [[Strawberry]]) or fiction ([[Bomb Berry]] or, indeed, the Yoshi fruit). At any rate, Fruit (Yoshi food) doesn't really have a counterpart in real life; it kinda looks like apples, but grows in bushes or on the ground, and is sometimes called "berry". It lacks the kind of real life ubiquity, or "genericness", that entails a subject based on a very tangible concept, like [[Penguin]] or [[Snowman]]. Even if Option 2 were to win, I think there'd be some serious pushback on whether these two fruit-related topics deserve to be merged. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
====Edit to the proposal (18:48, April 28, 2025)====
I [[Special:Diff/4866780|edited]] the proposal to add a note where I address certain questions among these comments. This is a reasonably complex topic to tackle given the nuances, and I'm unsure if I'm doing it coherently. If there are inconsistencies that emerge with this edit, please signal them. I'll ping current voters to let them know of this edit to the proposal, hope I'm not being annoying. <div class="contentbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"data-expandtext="show pings"data-collapsetext="hide pings">{{@|Pseudo}}{{@|Camwoodstock}}{{@|Exiled.Serenity}}{{@|Tails777}}{{@|Waluigi Time}}{{@|Nintendo101}}{{@|Kirby the Formling}}{{@|Mister Wu}}{{@|Biggestman}}{{@|DryBonesBandit}}{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}}</div> {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:54, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:Seen, and the notes are still all fine with us. Our example of preventing something like the cow in [[Community Service]] from being in the [[Moo Moo|"Cow"]] page hasn't been impacted by this, and so long as we don't encroach on that being possible, we're fine. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:07, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Allow objects to be listed on level articles===
So I tried adding level objects to SMB3 level pages and was told I need to do a proposal first. I don't see why it should be an issue; after all, we already list items, enemies, music tracks, timer seconds, and other such things on each of them. If we're going to have exact counts of every coin in a stage, why can't we list a stage as having Brick Blocks or P-Switches or unmoving obstacles or specific types of platforms or recurring ambient/decorative objects? Doesn't make much sense when you get right down to it. The easiest way to find out what levels a gimmick is used, after all, is to click on an image and see what pages it's linked on; not linking them on it makes it exponentially harder to find out where something is used with no benefit gained from not having them, and given they're generally short articles anyway, they're not going to get in the way of anything - ''object''ively!
 
EDIT: At the insistence of the opposition, I have added an option to only have interactive objects - as much as I personally disagree with that sentiment.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support - Full equality for all objects (includes interactive and decorative objects in the same section)====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Yoshi18}} In my opinion, it's absurd the wiki doesn't do this already. Objects are important things in levels. From simple objects, such as Brick Blocks, to objects that are able to change the whole level layout, such as !-Switches. And now I'm basically only talking about the 2D games! The 3D games have ''much'' more in store, when talking about objects (mainly dynamic objects). Since the level pages are also short anyway, this is a good way to usefully expand on them more. And as you said, if we literally have ''the time'' to count the amount of coins, we ''surely'' have ''the time'' to count objects.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
<s>#{{User|Arend}} ...we don't do this already?!</s>
 
====Support - Separate but equal (includes interactive and decorative objects in separate sections)====
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - Per
#{{User|Hewer}} Sure, no harm in being thorough.
 
====Half-support - Tangibility above all (includes interactive objects alone)====
#{{User|Tails777}} If this focuses more on stuff like palettes for Goombas, blocks, coins and such, I'm personally okay with that. Less so if it's like, every frame for every sprite, but I'm personally more on this option overall.
#{{User|Hewer}} Second choice.
 
====''Object''ion - Objects are second-class subjects====
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} I agree with this line of thinking, to an extent. Brick Blocks, P Switches, and other objects that the player can interact with should be listed on level articles. If that was the sole issue here, I doubt this would be at all controversial. However, going as far as [[World_1-1_(Super_Mario_Bros._3)#Objects.2C_scenery.2C_and_other_level_features|having a gallery that includes every single bush or cloud background tile in the level]], which this proposal advocates for, is overboard. And keep in mind we're only talking about SMB3 here, a relatively simple NES game. Imagine how out of hand it would be if we had a gallery of every single background model in a Galaxy or Odyssey level that the player can't even interact with.
#{{User|Sparks}} Per Waluigi Time. Listing every single background subject/things you don't interact with is too much.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Waluigi Time. The core concept is fine, but we feel like a list of background elements is overkill; it would be incredibly asinine to list [[Horsetail]]s in every single Mario level they appear in. If there was an option for just things that had tangible gameplay impact, we'd support it in a heartbeat, but for now... Too much, sorry.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Salmancer's comment. This proposal is concerningly vague about what counts as "an object". Do ''Super Mario Bros. Wonder''{{'}}s decorative objects<ref name=SMBWObjects1>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGp-YzVAyhc|author=Rimea|title=The Secret Purpose of These Rocks|date=November 13, 2024|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref><ref name=SMBWObjects2>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OYc74qkd7U|author=Rimea|title=The Secret of These Pumpkins|date=February 3, 2025|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> count as distinct objects? This proposal was sparked by you including stuff like hills or clouds in [[World 1-2 (Super Mario Bros. 3)|World 1-2]] of ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', and those are just tileset elements, so if those count then these absolutely count. Even if we limit it to "objects" which affect gameplay, what about ''Super Mario Galaxy''{{'}}s invisible gravity areas?<ref name=SMGGravity>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLH_0T_xv3I|author=Jasper|title=How Spherical Planets Bent the Rules in Super Mario Galaxy|date=September 29, 2020|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> What about ''Super Mario Bros.'', which constructs everything in its levels out of "objects"?<ref name=SMBLevels>{{cite|url=www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysdUajrhL8|author=Retro Game Mechanics Explained|title=Super Mario Bros. Glitch Levels Explained|date=November 26, 2022|publisher=YouTube|accessdate=May 1, 2025}}</ref> Limiting it once again to subjects with pages, would this require us to count every [[coin]] of every [[level]] of [[List of games by date|every game]]? As long as this proposal remains so vague and undefined about its goals, I cannot in good conscience vote for it, and even then, properly defining these goals would pretty much require this proposal to be canceled and another to be raised. If you plan on trying again, I recommend including clear criteria for what an "object" is, as well as a draft of how a page would look like if this proposal passed. Until then, I'm opposing this.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per EvieMaybe.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per EvieMaybe and Waluigi Time, this proposal is just far too vague. If you're gonna count the powerup-shaped clouds and distinct colors of semisolid platform, then you ought to also count the fossils and rocks that appear in the terrain of NSMBU levels and [[:File:NSLU Under Construction Luigi Sighting.jpg|each one of the different colors of Hard Block]] that make up hidden Luigis in NSLU. In addition, why is the goal listed as two separate gallery entries? They're literally one and the same. This proposal kinda just feels like an excuse to justify your (somewhat excessive) SMB3 sprite rips.
#{{User|Shadow2}} Per all. And we don't need the object listings on the [[Ice Land#Gallery|SMB3 world pages]] either.
#{{User|Arend}} I'm all for ''functional'' and ''interactable'' objects being listed - P-Switches and whatnot - and am baffled we still haven't done this - but after seeing Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, Eviemaybe, and others' concerns, and re-reading through the proposal, I've realized that the proposal also wants (recurring) ''background'' objects to be listed - like the dome-shaped hills or the horsetail plants - AND treats them the same as the functional and interactable ones, even though they add nothing but background aesthetic. If only there were an option that just allows the objects that can be interacted with and/or have functions in gameplay. If only such an option that ditches the background fodder was there...
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all. I agree with what others have said, in that listing functional objects would be beneficial and I would support adding that kind of thing to articles. However, I believe there is a big difference between functional objects and background objects, and I do not agree with filling object lists with background tiles which exist as decorations.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per my comments below.
#{{User|Salmancer}} If we want to set the mood for a level, we can just add more screenshots. And make the {{Fake link|Hill}} article to store up lists of every location with Hills. I'm voting here and not for the interactive items list so that this resolves as "no changes". I still don't want to curse anyone with the burden of counting beads. Or trying to count every coin the [[Gold P Switch]] in [[Conkdor Canyon]] causes to fall. Which declaring that all articles are expected to have lists of interactive objects does.
 
====Object comments====
I really, really don't want to have to count [[bead]]s in every course, and I'm not sure there is anyone who does want to. Or for a more common example, counting coins in [[New Super Mario Bros. 2]], though at least for them size is not a meaningful property of coins. I'm not sure we want to have stub notices saying we have to count up every last one of these minor dealy-bobs. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 17:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm not advocating anything be counted, I brought that up as a thing I've already seen done without anyone taking issue with it. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|Waluigi Time}} - There's a reason I said "recurring" ambient objects, as in decorations that appear throughout the game. I'm not counting level geometry that's all part of one big cohesive model (as that is one object, technically) or random parallax details (if anything, layered backgrounds could have their own gallery section). Given many of the background objects have pages of their own (like [[tree]] and [[cactus]]), it makes sense to include them in my point of view. Basically, when an asset can actually be isolated without severe edits to the source, which would take out most of what would be a potential "bloating" issue in games more graphically complex than, for instance, ''Super Mario World''. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:The Models Resource's upload of the Metro Kingdom contains 133 separate model files making up that environment. I could very easily isolate and render each piece without having to make any edits whatsoever. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:12, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::Honestly? Views of 3D map files seem like an interesting thing to have, though they'd have their own sections of course. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:24, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::The map as a whole, yes, I agree. It would be nice to have more comprehensive images of 3D environments without having to resort to other means like Noclip, I feel like that's something we're lacking for certain games. I don't think we need to get into the individual bits and bobs that make up those maps, however. --{{User:Waluigi Time/sig}} 19:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::Well much of what I uploaded are combinations anyway, so I think that those combined would still be the same thing in spirit. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
;References cited in EvieMaybe's vote
<references/>
 
{{@|EvieMaybe}} - I have stated numerous times that this proposal has nothing to do with counting things. I brought up coin counts as something I have already seen done by other users on SMB3 pages, which no one took issue with. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:i appreciate the clarification, but it does not change my opinion that this proposal is poorly concieved and poorly executed. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 18:42, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::I must ask, what issues arise with having full coverage of this? If I want to know what stages an asset appears in, the best way to find that out is to see where the image is linked to. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 18:47, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Checking the articles that an image is linked to seems like relatively extreme Wiki-fu. Aside from not being intuitive without understanding how Mediawiki works, it has two weaknesses. One is that the moment a second game reuses assets from another game the results will be covered in false positives. (Good luck differentiating New Super Mario Bros. U courses from New Super Luigi U courses solely on their titles. Example: [[:File:NSMBU Gliding Waddlewing Artwork.png]]) The second is that the results are sorted alphebetically, which isn't useful from a user perspective. Back when courses/levels/whatever were always "World X-Y", the results would match the order of the game. Ignore the game article in those results and sure, this works. But as of New Mario U courses can have all manner of names, which means the list of articles an image is linked to haphazardly jumps between Worlds and game order with little rhyme or reason. The best way to find what levels have what objects is the simplest: have the Wiki's writers make the list for the reader. Easier said than done the bigger the game involved, yes, but it generally more accessible and it doesn't bloat out a course article with a gallery of clouds and hills. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:05, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::"Relatively extreme?" It's an ''extreme''ly obvious and straightforward thing to do, and I am floored to learn that some people don't do that. Also, given most of the level titles are in the format of "World #-#" anyway, they're pretty much sorted in order anyway, so that argument makes no sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:22, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::::i'm afraid you might've fallen victim to the good ol' [https://xkcd.com/2501/ XKCD pitfall]. the average user does not have the technical know-how nor the familiarity to think "to find out in which levels this enemy appears, i should check what pages link to this image of it" (hell, ''i'' wouldn'tve come up with that on my own, and i literally just used citations on a proposal answer). even then, trying to float it as a solution for flooding level pages with sprite rips of what amounts to every single individual graphic used in a stage is absurd. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:01, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::::Again, for what reason should we ''not'' feature decorative objects? They're important to the stage's visual identity. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:20, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::::::Because the concept of listing every "decorative object" is absolutely Sisyphean. Lets stick with SMB3 as an example. If we're including the various shapes of powerup-like clouds, what about the other shapes of clouds with anywhere from 1 to 3 pairs of eyes? or the hills which come in varying amounts of lumpiness? If we're including the various designs of semisolid, should we include the various designs of ground? Do the large vertical posts in airships get a special mention? Both the aboveground and underground palettes of 1-5? On the topic of underground, are the dark sparkly background tile things an object? How many distinct pipe "objects" are in 7-1? Decor simply isn't rigidly defined at all like things that matter to gameplay.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:37, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::::::::I'd consider wiki'ing on such an expansive franchise as this an enjoyable sort of Sisyphean endeavor, myself. Anyways, I held myself back from including the "background walls" in my initial uploads, so I wasn't including them; I'd consider different colors of pipes, blocks, and ground to be fair game for "interactive objects," and the posts on the airship levels are just a particular shape of the "ground" there. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:49, May 1, 2025 (EDT)


===List of talk page proposals===
{{@|PopitTart}} - Because they are functionally two different things. Granted, the flashing card probably should be listed as an item (along with the balls Boom Boom drops and the Koopalings' wands), as that is technically what it is, while the "holding box" is a background object. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
{{TPPDiscuss|Split Antigravity Panel and/or Halfpipe-style Boost Ramps from [[Dash Panel]]|Talk:Dash Panel#Split Antigravity Panel and/or "Trick Ramp" from this article|January 27, 2018, 23:59 GMT}}
:Sure, as far as the NES is ''technically'' concerned, the latter is on the background layer and the former is on the sprite layer, but as far as the wiki is ''practically'' concerned, they are ''The Goal''. one thing. Just like a Goal Pole is a pole and flag, and an SMW goalpost is the posts and the ribbon. Conveying them separately to the reader doesn't do anything but tell them the level has a goal (shocking!) over the span of two separate gallery items.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
{{TPPDiscuss|Delete [[Elephant]]|Talk:Elephant#Delete this page|February 5, 2018, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Delete [[Tetrimino]]|Talk:Tetrimino#Delete this page|February 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT}}
{{TPPDiscuss|Remove the identifier of [[Captain Goomba (Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser)]] and change the identifier of the [[Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8)]] page to (pirate)|Talk:Captain Goomba (Minion Quest: The Search for Bowser)#Remove the identifier of this article and change the identifier of the [[Captain Goomba (Mario Party 8)]] page to (pirate)|February 6, 2018, 23:59 GMT}}


==Unimplemented proposals==
I worry this proposal is framed around a {{wp|Motte-and-bailey fallacy|motte-and-bailey argument}}. I do not imagine anyone taking issue with the inclusion of interactable objects within a level article like switches and blocks, and if that was the only thing you had done, I doubt anyone would have taken issue with it and may have even appreciated it. What raised eyebrows was the inclusion of noninteractive background elements like clouds. While the background elements are part of the game's visual identity and probably are worth discussing somewhere on the wiki, I imagine most folks would find that their documentation in the ''level'' articles, as well as every single color and iteration of each noninteractive background element within a level, is gratuitous and reduces the utility of the level articles. That is the actual issue - not the inclusion of tactile objects like blocks and switches. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
{| class=sortable align=center width=100% cellspacing=0 border=1 cellpadding=3 style="text-align:center; border-collapse:collapse; font-family:Arial;"
:I would certainly support a more nuanced proposal to document the actual contents of a level in detail. Pikipedia has lists of enemies, collectables, and reoccurring obstacles for each area, (along with the inverse lists of each area the subjects appear in) which are extraordinarily useful.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:[[File:SMB Goomba Sprite.gif]][[File:SMBBlueGoomba.gif]][[File:SMB Question Block.gif]][[File:SMB QuestionBlockUndergroundAnim.gif]][[File:SMBCoin.gif]][[File:SMB CoinUnderground.gif]][[File:SMB1 Sprite Coin.gif]][[File:SMB Green Horsetail Short.png]][[File:SMB White Horsetail Short.png]][[File:Warp Pipe SMB.png]][[File:Warp Pipe Orange SMB.png]]<-If this is OK...<br>
:[[File:SMB3 Goomba Sprite.gif]][[File:SMB3 Goomba cave.gif]][[File:Ani smb3qblock.gif]][[File:SMB3 Q Block tile cave.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin Sprite.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin tile dark.gif]][[File:SMB3 Coin sprite land.gif]][[File:SMB3 Tree green.png]][[File:SMB3 Tree orange.png]][[File:WarpPipeSMB3.png]][[File:SMB3 Pipe desert vertical.png]]<-Then this is OK.<br>
:Note that none of the upper row are my uploads. It's perfectly serviceable to document all possible static palettes. SMB3 just has a lot due to being a big game on small hardware, with the remakes lessening that by a lot due to having more palettes with more values available. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::I think there are some misunderstandings going on. I at least welcome hosting those types of assets on the same premise as you. But this proposal is about documenting noninteractive background details on the level articles, and I would not support that for any game because it dilutes those articles.
::I also do not think those were the types of assets folks found gratuitous or would have encouraged being cut. Those are illustrative and cute. A better example would be including both the [[:File:SMB3 HUD Japanese.png|Japanese HUD]] and the [[:File:SMB3 score bar.png|international one]] with only a pixel being different between. The visual difference is not even distinguishable during gameplay because they are both on black backgrounds, so we are not really earnestly illustrating anything by hosting both of them, in my view. I'm sure similar comments can be made about rubble. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:31, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::Much of the time they're not on black backgrounds, but on various shades of blue, orange, or otherwise. Anyways, if y'all insist, I'll alter the proposal to have different options. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
{{@|Tails777}} - Different animations for one subject are for their own galleries, don't worry there. I'd consider separate images for different static frames of the same animation to be redundant once the image itself has been uploaded, and I've spend the past few weeks uploading the game's animations. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:59, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
Where would a "yes but only if object has an article on the wiki already" most likely fall under because I'd probably just stick with this? Isn't that the status quo already? {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:08, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:Why trees but no pyramids? [[File:Ashley Icon Win WWMI.png|32px]] [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:17, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
::Hm yeah good point, if object has an article and(or?) the player can interact with it. The tree article I've tried to limit to ones the player can do things with OR it's a greater setting. That being said, you can point out to the opposition that if a hypothetical decorative-only and nongeneric object, like a background Skewer, is in a level, it will probably be appropriate to be listed in the article. If so, why not hills? {{User:Mario/sig}} 23:23, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
:::[[File:SMB3 Hills hill normal small.png]] Well I labeled these "hills," but given they're only as tall as Small Mario who's to say what they are? And unlike pyramids, they're not moved to the distant background with parallax scrolling in the remakes, so they're definitely a small, close thing. Not to mention SMB's horsetails, which have lore significance in that game. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 23:36, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Use the "wario ww" wikitable class on microgame lists===
Every microgame list contains the "wikitable" class, rather than the "wikitable wario ww" class. That makes no sense to me. The solution is, if we use the "wario ww" class, its corresponding tables will match how microgames appear in games in the ''WarioWare'' series.
 
Take the section regarding the [[List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! microgames#International versions|Intro Games stage's microgame order outside of Japan]] from the [[List of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! microgames|list of ''WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!'' microgames]] for example. The usage of both the plain "wikitable" class and the {{color|black|bg=#D6D6D6|#D6D6D6}} ({{color|white|bg=#555|#555}} in dark mode) makes no sense to me. However, if we both use the "wario ww" class and replace <code><nowiki>background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B</nowiki></code>, then that will solve the issue. That way, once this proposal passes, this will be what the table will look like:
 
{|class="wikitable wario ww"style="text-align:center"
!Before first "Speed Up" (3 in any order)!!After first "Speed Up" (3 in any order)!!After second "Speed Up" (3 in any order)!!Boss microgame
|-
|-
!width="3%"|#
|[[Crazy Cars]]||[[Diamond Dig]]||[[The Maze That Pays]]||rowspan=5|[[Sparring Wario]]
!width="65%"|Proposal
!width="18%"|User
!width="14%"|Date
|-
|-
|1
|[[Wario Whirled]]||[[Dodge Balls]]||[[Super Wario Bros.]]
|align=left|[[Talk:Scuttlebug#Split_Spoing.2C_Sprangler_and_Klamber_from_Scuttle_Bug|Split Spoing, Sprangler and Klamber from Scuttle Bug]]
|{{User|Vommack}}
|November 3, 2012
|-
|-
|2
|[[Saving Face (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!)|Saving Face]]||[[Repellion]]||[[Busted! (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!)|I Spy]]
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 41#Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels|Create boss level articles for ''Donkey Kong Country'' and ''Donkey Kong Land'' series]]
|{{User|Aokage}}
|January 3, 2015
|-
|-
|3
|rowspan=2 style="background-color:darkmagenta;--darkbg:#3A002C"| ||[[Wario Wear]]||[[Mug Shot (WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$!)|Mug Shot]]
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 45#Create a template for the TTYD badge drop rates|Create a template for the ''Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door'' badge drop rates]]
|{{User|Lord Bowser}}
|August 17, 2016
|-
|-
|4
|[[Hectic Highway]]||style="background-color:darkmagenta;--darkbg:#3A002C"|
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 45#Create "Mini" article|Create a Mini article]]
|}
|{{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}
 
|August 20, 2016
Here's another example. This section regards [[List of WarioWare: Touched! microgames#Microgames|the microgames in the Touch Training stage]] in the [[List of WarioWare: Touched! microgames|list of ''WarioWare: Touched!'' microgames]]. The usage of both the plain "wikitable" class and the {{color|black|bg=#e8cada|#e8cada}} ({{color|white|bg=#555|#555}} in dark mode) also makes no sense to me. However, if we both use the "wario ww" class and replace <code><nowiki>background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B</nowiki></code>, then that will solve the issue. That way, once this proposal passes, this will be what the table will look like:
 
{|class="wikitable sortable wario ww"style="text-align:center"
!class="unsortable"|Icon!!Name!!class="unsortable"|Description!!Passing score
|-
|[[File:Party Popper Icon.png]]||[[Party Popper]]||align="left"|''Balloons are lame. Pop 'em!''||20
|-
|[[File:Pet Peeved Icon.png]]||[[Pet Peeved]]||align="left"|''Poke a kitty...before we're all DOOMED!''||20
|-
|[[File:Waste with Haste Icon.png]]||[[Waste with Haste]]||align="left"|''Tap the end of the mechanical pencil! WASTE, WASTE, WASTE!''||20
|-
|[[File:Big Bang Icon.png]]||[[Big Bang (microgame)|Big Bang]]||align="left"|''Tap the fireworks to set 'em off! KABOOM!''||20
|-
|[[File:Taping a Leak Icon.png]]||'''[[Taping a Leak]]'''||align="left"|''Nobody likes leakage. Patch it!''||20
|-
|-
|5
|[[File:Sleepy Head Icon.png]]||'''[[Sleepy Head]]'''||align="left"|''Bang on something loud! They didn't want to sleep, anyway.''
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 46#Split all remaining courts/boards based on recurring places from their parent articles|Split all remaining courts and boards from their parent articles]]
|20
|{{User|NSY}}
|September 25, 2016
|-
|-
|6
|[[File:Up for Grabs Icon.png]]||'''[[Up for Grabs (WarioWare: Touched!)|Up for Grabs]]'''||align="left"|''Some people will tell you that grabbing is rude. Ignore 'em! In fact, touch this falling stick to grab it!''||15
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 47#Do_Something_With_Game-Specific_Species_Categories|Clean up species categories to only include non-hostile species]]
|{{User|Niiue}}
|August 8, 2017
|-
|-
|7
|[[File:Tune Out Icon.png]]||'''''[[Tune Out]]'''''||align="left"|''Pay attention and play the same notes the teacher plays or she'll go ballistic!''||20
|align=left|[[Category talk:Artifacts#Do something with this category|Clean up Category:Artifacts]]
|{{User|Niiue}}
|August 22, 2017
|-
|-
|8
|[[File:Freak Mutation Icon.png]]||'''''[[Freak Mutation]]'''''||align="left"|''Watch whatever falls from the top screen and choose the thing that changed.''||20
|align=left|[[Category talk:Ice Creatures#Do something about this category|Trim down Category:Fire Creatures and Category:Ice Creatures]]
|{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}}
|September 7, 2017
|-
|-
|9
|[[File:Bug Eyed Icon.png]]||'''[[Bug Eyed]]'''||align="left"|''A starving, carnivorous bug is hiding over there on that tree trunk. Go ahead and poke it! It probably won't bite.''||20
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 48#Arcade Archives page|Create an article on ''Arcade Archives'']]
|{{User|Camwood777}}
|September 23, 2017
|-
|-
|[[File:Lose Your Marble Icon.png]]||[[Lose Your Marble]]||align="left"|''Chisel the marble block! Not everyone can have a chiseled body like Wario.''
|10
|10
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 48#Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article|Split all Starbeans Cafe items from the Starbeans Cafe article]]
|{{User|Baby Luigi}}
|September 30, 2017
|-
|-
|11
|[[File:Wrap Sheet Icon.png]]||[[Wrap Sheet]]||align="left"|''Squish, pop, snap! This is almost as much fun as sitting on birthday cakes!''||20
|align=left|[[Talk:Mario Party: Island Tour#Reorganize the board table in Mario Party: Island Tour|Reorganize the board table in ''Mario Party: Island Tour'']]
|-
|{{User|Baby Luigi}}
|[[File:Swamp Things Icon.png]]||[[Swamp Things]]||align="left"|''Poke 'em in the eyes before they go for your head!''
|December 15, 2017
|20
|-
|[[File:Number Cruncher Icon.png]]||[[Number Cruncher]]||align="left"|''Tap 'em in order!''||20
|-
|[[File:Perfect Match Icon.png]]||'''''[[Twin Swimmers|Perfect Match]]'''''||align="left"|''Study the cards; when they flip over, find a match!''
|15
|-
|-
|12
|[[File:Housewares Icon.png]]||'''''[[Housewares]]'''''||align="left"|''Search the house for an item that matches the example!''
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_49#Changing_and_Adding_to_the_Switch_Buttons|Give the Nintendo Switch buttons in Template:Button better color resolution]]
|20
|{{User|Eldritchdraaks}}
|December 18, 2017
|-
|-
|13
|[[File:Profiler Icon.png]]||'''[[Profiler]]'''||align="left"|''Check out the spinning silhouette on the top screen, and then tap its match on the Touch Screen!''
|align=left|[[Talk:Behemoth#Merge_Behemoth_King_to_Behemoth_or_expand_Behemoth_King_article|Expand the Behemoth King article]]
|20
|{{User|Owencrazyboy9}}
|December 23, 2017
|-
|-
|14
|[[File:Into the Sunset Icon.png]]||'''[[Into the Sunset]]'''||align="left"|''Smack everything into the sunset!''
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 50#The Secret Courses of Remix 10 in Super Mario Run|Create articles on the Remix 10 secret courses in Super Mario Run]]
|20
|{{User|Time Turner}}
|December 26, 2017
|-
|-
|[[File:Character Development Icon.png]]||'''''[[Character Development]]'''''||align="left"|''Tap flying letters to spell the word. If you grab the wrong letter, you have to start all over!''
|15
|15
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 50#Add anchor links to Power Moon lists|Add anchor links to Power Moon lists]] ([[Talk:Lists of Power Moons|view progress]])
|{{User|Super Radio}}
|December 31, 2017
|-
|-
|16
|[[File:Accountant Assault Icon.png]]||'''''[[Accountant Assault]]'''''||align="left"|''Calculate the equation! If you're a geek and already know the answer, just punch it in and press the = button.''
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 50#The format of the statistics in the main pages of Mario Kart 7, Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe|Use points to show the statistics in the main pages of ''Mario Kart 7'', ''Mario Kart 8'' and ''Mario Kart 8 Deluxe'']]
|20
|{{User|Mister Wu}}
|January 2, 2018
|-
|-
|17
|[[File:Rump Roast Icon.png]]||'''''[[Rump Roast]]'''''||align="left"|''Whip that rump and race to victory!''
|align=left|[[Talk:List_of_Mario_references_in_Nintendo_video_games#What_is_Tetris_for_the_Game_Boy.3F|Label ''Tetris'' for the Game Boy as a guest appearance]]
|15
|{{User|Time Turner}}
|-style="background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B"
|January 21, 2018
|[[File:You Break It You Buy It Icon.png]]||{{sort|You Break It, You Buy It|BOSS: [[You Break It, You Buy It]]}}||align="left"|''Flies are crawling all over your window! Swat the screen to knock 'em off, but don't crack it too many times or you'll shatter the screen!''
|-
|7
|18
|align=left|[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 50#Give the Wario: Master of Disguise episodes their own pages|Create articles for the ''Wario: Master of Disguise'' episodes]]
|{{User|DKPetey99}}
|January 23, 2018
|}
|}


==Writing guidelines==
I conclude that it's important to know: with the addition of the "wario ww" wikitable class, we will use it on pages and sections regarding the ''WarioWare'' series. And if that's not all, we'll not only add the "wario ww" to the wikitables, but also replace <code><nowiki>background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555</nowiki></code> with <code><nowiki>background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B</nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki>background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B</nowiki></code> respectively, in the future, right after the proposal passes.
===Implement the ability to remove support votes in nominations for featured articles===
 
After seeing that people can't remove support votes in featured article nominations...why is this necessary? If we can remove both support ''and'' oppose votes in unfeatured article nominations, then why can't we do the same for featured article nominations? After all, no matter what, all you're really voting for is whether the article should be granted featured status or if it should be unfeatured, so being only able to remove oppose votes in featured article nominations sounds inconsistent.
'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Support: Add and replace====
#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal.
 
====Oppose: Keep as is====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Considering the boss microgame row is outright illegible in light mode, I'm going to say no to this. Note that a older proposal said to minimize colors in tables, especially body rows, unless they're doing something useful. Which this isn't. Aside from that, I do take minor umbrage with insisting that every table regarding every subject in every videogame has to match the colors set for its parent franchise. (This is a pattern that has been appearing on pages like [[Rare Orb]].) Colors make things pop but not everything needs to pop out compared to the rest of the page. Doubly so when the page is short enough to fit on one monitor.
#{{User|Mario}} The tables in the "microgame order" section shouldn't be tables in the first place, and there's not much reason to change the tables for the sake of having them match the navigation templates.
 
====Mega Comment$!====
It's worth noting; We've been very slowly chipping away at a full rework for these series-specific tables, and while it's [[User:Camwoodstock/sandbox|by no means complete]], this already has color changes in mind for <code>wario ww</code>. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 21:41, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
==Miscellaneous==
===What is a game?===
Per {{@|Camwoodstock}}'s comments on the ongoing [[Talk:List of games#A location for the water games, pocket pinball machines, Water Teaser, and other similar items|electronic water-related proposal on the list of games]]. The way that a game is considered a game is currently arbitrary, with board games being split to one list, card games being relegated elsewhere, [[Play Nintendo]] getting its own list, and [[Nintendo Today!]] quizzes all being merged into the app's article. This proposal aims to decide what gets on the [[list of games]] article, since there isn't anything on that page that explicitly states that the games listed have to be video games (minus the text "organized by video game system", but this can be changed). To note, this proposal is not suggesting that anything should be removed from the list, the goal of this proposal is to figure out whether or not anything should be added to the list of games.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}
 
====Do board games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|7-10|Do not add board games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments; this feels like kind of a no-brainer, and we're surprised these have been excluded from the Games list for as long as they have been. Board games are like, a known concept, they've been around for millennia, and heck, games like [[Mario Party-e]] exist as a hybrid board game/video game. Excluding board games feels very arbitrary, just because they aren't "video" games, but we've included the ''Game & Watch'' titles for forever, with basically no contention whatsoever, despite those not technically meeting the definition of being a "video" game.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} The article is titled the "list of games," not the "list of ''VIDEO'' games." It'd be nice if this page just covered every game of every type, especially seeing how I consider board games (or anything of the sort) to be closer to games than merchandise. Besides, they are called board ''GAMES'', so why shouldn't they be included on the "list of ''GAMES''"?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock. While I understand Nintendo101's point about board games often being promotional tie-in products, they are still Mario franchise media in their own right, and a kind of game at that.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. As a big Mario Party fan. I feel like board games fit to the category of games
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} This is not to disparage board games or other types of media of this nature, but I think it would be healthier for our site to have distinction between a "video game" and "promotional tie-in media and products." I do not think being interactive is enough for it count as a "game" within the context of a video game-oriented franchise, in the same way I would not include instruction booklets in a list of books because they have readable text. This kind of stuff should be supported on the site, but not here.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per Nintendo101. There are a lot of different mediums for games in this world, but it's indisputable that the Mario franchise manifests itself most often in video games, and I believe this specific list is better off focusing on those, with an appropriate move to "List of ''video'' games". I can see the appeal and use of a page for Mario games that are not video games, though, and I support creating that. The wiki currently considers these games to be "merchandise", which I consider apt for some (like the shampoo bottles) but something of a stretch for others (board games).
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne. I'm not denying that board games are games, but they're not ''video'' games, and I think "List of video games" would be a more useful page for this wiki about a primarily video game franchise than "List of games".
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all. I would rather the wiki not mix the core media of the Mario franchise (video games) with miscellaneous pieces of merchandise such as board games.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per Koopa con Carne
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do card games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|6-10|Do not add card games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the same rationale behind board games. Sure, it's not a "video" game, but this is List of Games, not List of Video Games.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock again.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock and my above vote for board games.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|7-10|Do not add party games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. This is gonna be appearing a few more times...
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock yet again.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Also per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Also a mere semantic distinction between party games like this and board games, in my view.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Things like Jenga are such family games, like ''Mario Party''. I have the feeling they should've already been classified as games long ago.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. (You also do not italicize Jenga.)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the card game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do physical games (i.e. ''Barrel of Monkeys''-style things with physical characters and pieces) move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|6-10|Do not add physical games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock once more.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Yet again per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per my other "yes" votes.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the party game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-10|Do not add ''Super Mario Ride'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It is currently listed under "Other Super Mario-themed games" on the [[list of merchandise]].
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I'm a maximal inclusivist when it comes to these things, so I think anything anyone could plausibly conceptualize as "a game" ought to be classified as a game for navigational purposes.
 
;No
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} From the looks of it, those are toy cars; those are toys, not games. Them being listed as "other Super Mario-themed games" feels like a bit of a misnomer.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote above.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Rides are not games.
#{{User|Pseudo}} If it's a toy and not a game, it probably shouldn't count. This is a slightly different category of item.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|Add ''Play Nintendo'' games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. There's a dedicated HTML section now.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} With an HTML section in tow, we feel it's only fair.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Sure.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} We have other browser games on the list, why not these?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. Even if the term we were using was "video game" instead of just "game" I would think these should count.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These seems like games as much as a typical Flash game of old, [[List of games#Adobe Flash|which we already include in the list of games]], so this seems more clear cut than any of the others.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Nelsonic and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
;No
 
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-11|Do not add ''Nintendo Today!'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


In the policy page, the rule will look like somewhat approaching this:
;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!


''Users may vote for the removal of a support/oppose vote if they feel it is invalid or not specific enough, but have to give reasons for their choice. Three users, including an administrator, are required for the removal of a support/oppose vote. This is how it should look like:''
;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.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.


<nowiki>==== Removal of support/oppose votes ====</nowiki>
====Does ''[[Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land]]'' move to the list?====
<nowiki>'''Name of a specified user'''</nowiki>
{{Proposal outcome|passed|8-2|Add ''Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land'' to the list}}
<nowiki>#{{User|Username}} Reasons the support/oppose vote should be removed</nowiki>
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


''After the required amount of votes is met, users must wait 24 hours before removing the vote. Any vote that has per'd without providing any additional reason will also be removed.''<br>
;Yes
'''Proposer''': {{User|Lcrossmk8}}<br>
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
'''Deadline''': January 28, 2018, 23:59 GMT
#{{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.
====Support====
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Lcrossmk8}} It doesn't hurt to be consistent on the wiki.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{User|DKPetey99}} After seeing your recent edit be reverted on the [[MarioWiki:Featured articles/N/Super Mario Run|Super Mario Run Nomination page]], I was just about to propose this myself. Implementing this would only enforce consistency and weed out any illegitimate votes. I'm not looking to single anyone out, but the two support votes on the current Super Mario Run nomination are not legitimate and should not be allowed to stay. This new system would be implemented to strictly remove any support votes that shouldn't be there. Why let them stay if we all agree that there has been cases as mentioned. Per Lcrossmk8 and my comments below.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
#{{User|Owencrazyboy9}} Because of what just happened, once this passes, any support votes that don't follow rules would get vaporized with the removal feature. Per all.
#{{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|Astro-Lanceur}}Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Checks both the "video" and the "game" parts of "video game". As long as {{wp|Dragon's Lair (1983 video game)|''Dragon's Lair''}} is considered a video game, this should too.
#{{User|Time Turner}} If the nomination only has one support vote, then that vote carries weight. If that vote is being held up with faulty reasoning, then I see no reason to keep it there. Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Chester Alan Arthur}} There's really no reason not to do this. If the only support vote is clearly invalid then it should be able to be removed. We shouldn't have to wait out the process if the whole nomination is invalid.
#{{User|Supermariofan67}} Per all.


====Oppose====
;No
#{{User|Super Mario Bros.}} &mdash; The reason that the wiki does not allow for the removal of support votes from Featured Article nominations is that such a process would not have a real impact on the progress of the nomination. The job of the support is not to outnumber the opposition by a particular margin; rather, it is to completely satisfy ''any'' legitimate concerns that the opposition might have. Even if one hundred people flooded in with illegitimate support reasons, one oppose vote would disallow the nomination from being passed. Because oppose votes hold much more weight than support votes and are difficult to remove if they are justified, it is pointless to design a process to remove illegitimate support votes. Additionally, the comparison of FA support votes to Unfeature support votes falls flat when one considers that they are inherently different; whereas the burden falls on the support to pass a Featured Article nomination, the burden falls on the opposition to fail an Unfeature nomination. This means that in the Unfeature process, support and oppose votes are more equal in importance and must both be backed by strong reasoning for the process to actually work.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Alex95}} - Per SMB. Support votes are moot if there are any opposes anyway.
#{{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.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per SMB and Alex.
#{{User|YoshiFlutterJump}} Do we actually have to do this?  It seems useless.  Standard proposals do not work the same way as FA nominations.  Per SMB.
#{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Was originally going to support, but didn't know that a Feature nomination failed with any number of opposes, so per all.
#{{User|Mario4Ever}} Per SMB.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per SMB.
#{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Per SMB.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per SMB.
#{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per SMB.
#{{User|Baby Luigi}} Per all.


====Comments====
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
This doesn't hurt anyone either. If we can remove opposition we should have the same guidelines to remove supports. Good idea. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}}
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-9|Do not add rides to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


[[MarioWiki:Writing_guidelines#How_do_you_create.2Falter_a_writing_guideline.3F|You need to create a draft for writing guidelines.]] {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 17:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
;Yes
:^Before anyone else votes, the proposal should be drafted so we know what this new guideline would look like. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 17:30, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. They were made by [[Banpresto]], usable in arcades, and required money to play.
::To clarify, you need to include a draft of what the rule will look like in the policy page. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 17:51, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my ''Super Mario Ride'' vote.
:::May I suggest instead of saying "not specific enough" in your draft change in to something like "insufficient." I feel that word is used better to describe it. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}}


@SMB: We ''do'' have a process to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive_33#Automatically_Removing_Fan_Votes_from_FA_Nominations|remove any kind of fan vote]], support or oppose, so it's not an entirely novel concept. Also, I'd say that support votes can carry weight if they convince other users to support it regardless of any erroneous reasons, and the users then proceed to spend their time arguing with the opposers rather than anything productive. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:04, 14 January 2018 (EST)
;No
:@Time Turner: I overlooked that and modified my vote to reflect the policy change. Even still, the reasoning applies to any other sorts of illegitimate or poorly-supported support votes. Of course, support votes can carry a symbolic weight if they are well-constructed, but that does not change the fact that when it comes down to pure policy, an oppose vote has much more weight than a support vote. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 19:14, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{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.
::I don't disagree that a single oppose vote does more than any number of support votes, but personally, it feels weird to allow poorly constructed votes to stay just because they're not strictly impacting the nomination. They could contain false or just plain bad information and reasoning, and you yourself brought up the potential symbolic weight of them. Even if they're worth a single drop of a near-full bucket, I don't want to disregard it, because that still means that it constitutes something. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 19:20, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
:::Eh, it sounds like the burden falls on the opposition to fail ''both'' featured and unfeatured article nominations. And also, @SMB, the removal of support votes ''does'' have as much impact on the progress of the nomination as much as the removal of oppose votes, especially in most of the cases when you see only one reason being given by the first voter and everyone else giving it a "per all" secondary vote. It happens in ''both'' support and oppose votes. The burden falls on the supporters to support the nomination and the opposition to fail the nomination in ''any'' nomination. After all, what's the point of voting in the first place if there is no burden on your side? {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 19:22, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Rykitu}} Once again, rides are not games. Except ''[[Būbū Mario]]''. That is a game.
::::Regardless of how many support votes there are, if there's even one oppose vote, then the feature nomination won't matter anyway. There's no need to have a "Removal of supports" because voting against the nomination does more than enough already. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 19:47, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems like not so much a game as an automated experience; games require interactivity of some kind, I'd think.
:::::@Time Turner: I also don't disagree that faulty support votes constitute ''something''; rather, I believe the process already handles these situations adequately by virtue of giving a single opposition vote more weight than any amount of support votes. If the support offers weak arguments, then the opposition will simply have a strong counterargument. It is then up to the support to revise its standpoint or edit the article to eliminate these concerns. The process is designed to handle the very concern that the proposal attempts to combat.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Once again per Camwoodstock and Rykitu.
:::::@Lcrossmk8: The burden absolutely falls on the support in the case of Featured Articles. A single support vote will not make a technical difference as long as the FA nomination meets the five vote threshold; however, a single oppose vote will completely stall the nomination from being accepted. The opposition does not have to make any real attempt to improve the article for their viewpoint to be officially accepted, whereas the support ''must'' address the concerns of the opposition if they want the nomination to succeed. Of course, there is some sort of "burden" on both sides; however, the process heavily favors the opposition, which means the support must work harder to succeed in their goal. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 19:57, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
::::::And for some reason, oppose votes don't face the same burdens? If the opposition doesn't want the nomination to succeed, then it's up to them to give all legitimate reasons as to why the support is wrong and the nomination should not succeed. It's not that complicated for any nomination, both the support and the opposition ''must'' give legitimate reasons as to why their side is right. You can say that more support votes don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination, but I can turn that around and say the ''exact'' same thing for the oppose votes: more of them don't make a difference in the progress of the nomination. The opposition must have legitimate reasons to not support the nomination for featured articles, because there is absolutely ''no'' point to them voting at all if they don't give good enough reasons. After all, my point is this: '''why are you voting at all if you don't have any burden to support or fail the nomination?''' {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 20:17, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
:::::::Oppose cancels support.  End of story. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:26, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
:::::::It's unnecessary to have the oppose votes cancel the illegitimate support votes. This is about consistency and balance. Support can cancel out oppose. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 20:29, 14 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
Support does NOT cancel oppose.  That's why we have "removal of support". -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:32, 14 January 2018 (EST)
:'''Exactly my point.''' You just proved my point right there. That's what we ''should'' have. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 20:36, 14 January 2018 (EST)
::Uh, no.  I meant to say "removal of oppose".  You might call it a typo.  But a "removal of support" is pointless. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:56, 14 January 2018 (EST)


@all opposers: I think you're all looking too deeply into this. Yes we understand that oppose votes carries a lot of weight against support votes, understandably. But you're all acknowledging that in some cases, there are support votes that really shouldn't be there. I think this new system will force any vote, regardless of support or oppose, to have legitimate reason. You're all acknowledging that there is a problem sometimes with faulty support votes, so why let that continue? Force the voters to put thought and dedication into their votes, instead of illegitimate ones that, frankly (and bluntly) stick out like a sore-thumb. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}}
====Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?====
:Well, fan votes can be deleted on sight anyway. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 20:33, 14 January 2018 (EST)
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to May 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
::@Lcrossmk8: The burden of proof is on the support side to demonstrate why an article should be featured. The reason for this is quality control: by design, it is harder to feature an article and easier to prevent its being featured. That is why opposition is tasked with providing legitimate reasons for opposing. You cannot say that more oppose votes don't make a difference, because that's simply wrong: more opposition votes ''do'' make a difference in the progress of the nomination, provided there are a variety of concerns with the article. No matter how many reasons there are to support an article being featured, just one point against it can derail the nomination; two or more reasons to oppose absolutely creates more roadblocks to the nomination passing. Also, it is not unnecessary to have an oppose vote "cancel" illegitimate support votes (which is not the term I would use... "counteract" would be better in this case), it is literally what the system is designed to do. Support absolutely ''cannot'' cancel out opposition, because the system is skewed toward the opposition for quality-control reasons.
::@DKPetey99: There is no "problem" with faulty votes. As I said above, the system is already designed to deal with the circumstance. The voters will be forced to put thought and dedication into their votes when they get met by a well-supported opposition vote. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 20:38, 14 January 2018 (EST)
:::Well I feel this proposed system furthers that principle for the better. {{User:DKPetey99/sig}}
:@SMB, and the burden of proof is on the oppose side to demonstrate why an article should ''not'' be featured. In theory, you might be right about more oppose votes making a difference, but in reality, all I see is the first oppose voter giving the reasons for why the article should not be featured and everyone after him or her just saying "per all", and once the issues get fixed, why should the oppose votes be there anymore? All it really shows is how inherently weak the oppose side can really be at times. And plus, why just keep the support votes there if they are not legitimate? It's the same with oppose votes--if they are not legitimate, then get rid of them. If you look at it, there's a clear reason why I designed the system to be exactly like the system used to get rid of bad oppose votes. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 20:46, 14 January 2018 (EST)
::Nobody is arguing with removing opposition votes if the initial concerns have been remedied. Just because a concern has been fixed does not mean it was "inherently weak," it means that the support actually rose to the occasion and improved the article. The main responsibility of the opposition is to critique and suggest improvement, whereas the main responsibility of the support is to act on these suggestions to ensure article quality. In the end, it does ''not'' matter why the supporters want the article to be featured; the implied idea behind supporting is that they believe it meets the requirements set out for featuring and that they will take action to ensure it gets featured. It absolutely ''does'' matter, however, why the opposition votes the way they do; their job is to critique the article and control the quality of the FA process. That is why their vote is given much more weight and power, and why they are more accountable for their votes; on the other hand, that is why the support is not held as accountable for their vote, but must produce results if there are legitimate concerns with the nomination. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 21:18, 14 January 2018 (EST)
:::And with the implementation of this feature, does this mean that the power of the oppose votes will be diminished? Not really, all it does is ensure that the support votes are making sure that they are sure in what they want and that they are being entirely legitimate in their reasons for wanting the article to be featured--it ''does'' matter why they want the article to be featured, because what they say will reflect off of the quality of writing on the wiki as much as the oppose voters' criticism will. In other words, '''we are holding these support voters more accountable for their actions.''' That is exactly what we need to see here on this wiki, and plus, we cannot give the constructive criticism of the oppose voters more power and weight than the positivity and idealism of the support voters. Both positive feedback and negative feedback are of equal importance, and with the ability to remove support votes, we are basically saying that '''we will hold the support voters to the same standard we hold the oppose voters to.''' Also, this is going to hold the entire wiki to a higher standard, because if people want more articles to gain featured status, then they are going to have to work harder to make the articles and the content more high-quality and well-written. If we want to be the world's best database and research center on the ''[[Mario (franchise)|Mario]]'' franchise ever found, then we're going to need to keep pushing ourselves to make better articles and more high-quality content. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 21:49, 14 January 2018 (EST)


I urge all users to look into the history of the Featured Articles system, specifically historic proposals and decisions that are similar in nature to the current one:
;Yes
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 2#Reformat Featured Articles...again!|Reformat Featured Articles...again!]] &ndash; Introduced the Featured Articles system to the Super Mario Wiki after several failed attempts. Notably did not specify that supporters provide a reason for supporting, just that objectors provide their reasons.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 3#FA Support|FA Support]] &ndash; Failed due to not meeting quorum. Interestingly, the designer of the FA system, {{User|Son of Suns}}, directly stated that "it doesn't make sense to have to provide a reason to support, cause all your reasons are already listed on the FA page."
#{{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.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 3#Fanvotes|Fanvotes]] &ndash; Failed due to tie. Again, Son of Suns argues that "a support vote does not mean the article will become an FA - it is simply a pledge" to work on the article.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock twice more.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 8#Featured Article Voting Modification|Featured Article Voting Modification]] &ndash; Passed; allowed for users to remove both support and oppose votes through the removal process.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 8#Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"|Repeal "Featured Article Voting Modification"]] &ndash; Passed; partially repealed the previous proposal, ''specifically'' the provision to allow for the removal of support votes. It is noteworthy that {{User|Stumpers}}, the sponsor of the previous proposal, supported this repeal and stated that he regretted including the provision in question.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 16#Change FA removal of votes rules|Change FA removal of votes rules]] &ndash; Passed; allowed for administrators to remove fan votes (although it is worth mentioning that support reasons themselves were ''not'' required).
#{{User|Pseudo}} Yeah, it's pretty much a type of game. Per Camwoodstock's comparison to Game & Watch.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 16#Change FA rules part 1|Change FA rules part 1]] &ndash; Rejected; would have re-enabled the process for users to remove fan votes.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 18#Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?|Allow Support Votes to be Removed on Nomination Pages?]] &ndash; Rejected; essentially the same idea as the above proposal. It was deemed unnecessary due to the previous proposal by {{User|Tucayo}} allowing for Sysops to remove fan votes.
*[[MarioWiki talk:Featured articles#Support Votes|Support Votes]] &ndash; [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_articles&diff=720177&oldid=712158 Official community compromise reached] to replace Tucayo's rule. Only the nominator was allowed to post an official support reason; otherwise, all other votes could remain but be stripped of any comments following the vote. This did not apply to oppose votes or any functions of the Unfeatured process.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 25#Require FA Support Reason|Require FA Support Reason]] &ndash; Rejected; attempted to overturn prior decision and force users to post support reasons.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 30#Require Support Reasoning for FA Nomination|Require Support Reasoning for FA Nomination]] &ndash; Rejected; essentially the same proposal as the one listed directly above.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 33#Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations|Automatically Removing Fan Votes from FA Nominations]] &ndash; Passed; reintroduced the removal of all fan votes and expedited the process, requiring automatic removal. However, when it was [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Featured_articles&diff=1439468&oldid=1438954 implemented], support votes for FA nominations were specifically excluded.
*[[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 48#Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule|Officially repeal the "no support reason" Featured Article nomination rule]] &ndash; Passed; overturned the "Support Votes" community decision to end the practice of arbitrarily removing support reasons.


This proposal isn't anything new; on the contrary, I think it fails to account for over a decade of intense debate on the very topic and numerous community discussions and decisions to try and resolve the issue. Not only has this idea been implemented before, but those that were once the strongest proponents gradually became the strongest opponents of the measure. If you check through the proposals I have linked to, you might notice that I actually ''supported'' this idea many years ago; however, I have since come to realize that I was wrong. Son of Suns (creator of the FA process), {{User|Time Q}} and all other objectors to this idea were absolutely correct: it is not a good idea to demand a "legitimate" reason of the supporters of FA nominations as their vote is an implicit acknowledgement that they believe the article meets the requirements to be featured. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 00:55, 15 January 2018 (EST)
;No
:Well, I think it's time we implement it again. We cannot give the oppose voters more credit than they already deserve, and plus, why do we have the ability to remove support votes in unfeatured article nominations? Again, it is inconsistent, and plus, if the burden falls on the oppose to fail the unfeatured nomination and on the support to pass the unfeatured nomination, then why are we removing both support and oppose votes for unfeatured nominations and only oppose votes for featured nominations? In reality, we should either be removing ''only'' support votes for unfeatured nominations and ''only'' oppose votes for featured nominations, '''OR''' we should be removing ''both'' support and oppose votes for ''both'' nominations. Again, the burden should fall on ''both'' sides to progress the nomination in their favor. Also, having the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations will make ''any'' vote, support or oppose, have legitimate reason. With this ability, no one will be able to exploit featured article nominations for any illegitimate reasons, and the nominations will have to be more rigid and strong to succeed. I'm starting to think that this is more than just a debate about whether we should implement the ability to remove support votes in featured article nominations---this is a debate about the general writing standards we have for the wiki and ourselves, and I'm starting to think that with the small amount of featured articles on the wiki, it might be time to raise the standards and push everyone to work harder to make the articles more high-quality and better. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 16:36, 15 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
::It's not that oppose votes are given "more credit than they already deserve," it's simply that the support and opposition have inherently different roles in the process. The opposition critiques the article based on the standards required for featuring and the support acts to resolve these concerns; the former requires a solid reasoning and the latter requires pure action. I will not address this again, as I have done so exhaustively in my vote, subsequent comments and resources linked above. Please do not distract the debate by pivoting to "general writing standards" or implying that those who oppose your proposal are voting against higher standards for the wiki, because your proposal actually does nothing to modify any writing standards on the wiki and deals purely with a voting mechanism of the Featuring process. That being said, I would like to request that proposal be recategorized under "Changes" and that the deadline be moved forward by a week. {{User:Super Mario Bros./sig}} 23:52, 15 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
:::I don't see it that way. I don't see the inherent difference in the process of featured and unfeatured article nominations, because it's that simple--if you don't have any motivation or burden to vote for your side, then you shouldn't be voting at all. And no, I'm not implying that the people who oppose my proposal are voting against higher standards on the wiki, because I know that the users all have different ideas on what higher writing standards means--heck, I am not even calling out anybody in general. What I ''am'' saying is that we are consistently giving negative feedback some more "value" than positive feedback, and that we are holding the support voters to a higher standard because we are forcing them to think twice about if any article really deserves to be featured with the ability to remove support votes. We simply are holding the featured article nominations to the same standards we hold the unfeatured article nominations to, and we need consistency and balance to do this. Featured article nominations deal with ''writing standards'' because what the support voters say ''will'' matter in the long run. Positive feeback and negative feedback must be treated equally. {{User:Lcrossmk8/sig}} 00:18, 16 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
::::Lcross, we only allow removal of support on unfeaturing nominations for a reason.  When featuring, any oppose vote will kill off any supports, as a legit oppose says that the article violates FA standards.  When unfeaturing, however, it is the supporters that are critiquing the article, but an oppose will still kill off all supports. I honestly don't know why that's the case when unfeaturing with an oppose, but if you want to change that rule, you'll have to make a separate proposal.  Ultimately, there is no point in eliminating weightless votes.  And please, move this proposal to "changes" and make the deadline a week earlier. -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 01:10, 16 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
:::::This proposal is the right spot, according to [[MarioWiki:Writing_guidelines#How_do_you_create.2Falter_a_writing_guideline.3F|this guideline]]. And if a vote is "weightless", why would it matter if it is removed then? {{User:DKPetey99/sig}}
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
::::::I'm opposing because we already have a "removal of support" system that goes by the name of "oppose".  Why implement a system we already have? -{{User:YoshiFlutterJump/sig}} 03:03, 16 January 2018 (EST)
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.


Here's the gist on why I agree with Super Mario Bros. on why the opposition carries more weight and is generally of more importance than a support vote in a Featured Article nomination and why the same cannot be said about an Unfeature nomination. It's far easier to describe an article's flaws than it is to talk about what it does to meet the guidelines; an analogy it's easier to describe what causes a computer to stop working than it is to describe how your computer works fine. The same sorts of praise have always been given to when an article is nominated to be featured: it follows these established guidelines, it is well-written, it is well-formatted, etc. It's the same reasons across any nomination. Hell, many times, the nomination also lists problems that it doesn't have to justify its appearance as featured: no red links, no bad writing, and all of that stuff. When an article does have problems, it's arisen from specific problems the article may have. You can go deeply in-depth into reasons ''Super Baby Luigi Armageddon'' can't be featured, because it talks about the plot too colorfully and flowerly, there's no images in X section or the images are captured in a terrible quality, there is a lack of this standard that this article doesn't have, and you can list specific sentences and link these sentences to specific guidelines that outlines. Opposition votes is also akin to proofreading an article: you don't know there are problems within your own work or nomination until another person with a different perspective takes a look at it and says what needs to be improved.
====The Comment Games====
{{@|Nintendo101}}, unless us and everyone we know has been using it ''very'' wrong, we don't really see how the board game vote applies to [[Nintendo Today!]]... ;P <s>not that it matters, as we agree that Nintendo Today! would be overkill to include either way unless they were more interactive, but y'know,</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:23, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
:Also, Wikipedia does italicise ''{{wp|Jenga}}''. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:30, April 5, 2025 (EDT)


A reason I even instated support reasons back is because there's absolutely no reason to get rid of them in the first place, and praise for the article ''is most certainly something that should be given to deserving editors when they actually work hard on the article to get it featured on the main page'' because most of the time, the person who nominated an article to be featured worked on it to a degree in the first place (that doesn't happen all the time and I'm not ignoring it, but it still means that someone somewhere saw it and liked it and wanted to thank editors for their work). Support votes aren't entirely pointless either, but I don't like how some people here would like to throw the support reasons or votes under the rug because they're not "important" or that they're "meaningless" when they actually are meaningful in their own way, just not as much as oppose votes nor as constructive. Positive feedback is a good thing, people.
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)


For an Unfeature nomination, I say that the process of the removal of support votes should be removed there instead of removing support votes in a Feature nomination, because oppose votes there act pretty much like Featured nominations, with some key differences of course that SMB already addressed that I can't really describe well outside of "well the oppose votes are trying to keep a nomination that was already passed so they have to prove themselves and..." well blah that reasoning sounds very flimsy and massive amounts of ad hoc to me myself. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 17:16, 16 January 2018 (EST)
:{{@|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)


==New features==
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}}
''None at the moment.''


==Removals==
:{{@|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)
''None at the moment.''
::Ok, that works! {{User:Rykitu/sig}}


==Changes==
@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)
''None at the moment.''
:I fully sincerely believe anything with any amount of interactivity at all can be considered a game. Websites, apps, web browsers, activity books, DVD menus, and pretty much all software. I think it's better to cast a wide net and include things that 99% of people would say aren't games than it is to be too narrow and exclude things 1% of people would say are games. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:27, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
::That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)


==Miscellaneous==
At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)
''None at the moment.''
:{{@|Hewer}} Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 10:39, May 2, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Friday, May 2nd, 14:39 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Make a page for the Nintendo Switch 2 Welcome Tour, Koopa con Carne (ended April 11, 2025)
Split Mario & Sonic game categories by version, Technetium (ended April 16, 2025)
Change previous and next entries cell in infoboxes to include actual entry names and change directory link, Bro Hammer (ended April 18, 2025)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)
Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)
Make bestiary list pages for the Minion Quest and Bowser Jr.'s Journey modes, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 11, 2024)
Allow separate articles for Diddy Kong Pilot (2003)'s subjects, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)
Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)
Merge False Character and Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams into List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended December 2, 2024)
Merge Wiggler Family to Dimble Wood, Camwoodstock (ended January 11, 2025)
Create a catch-all Poltergust article, Blinker (ended January 21, 2025)
Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)
Reverse the proposal to trim White Shy Guy, Waluigi Time (ended February 8, 2025)
Split Animal Crossing (game), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)
Split the modes in the Battles page, Mario (ended February 15, 2025)
Count ongoing serialized comics for latest appearances, Rykitu (ended March 2, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article, EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)
Refocus Papa Mario as "Mario's dad", Superstarxalien169 (ended April 4, 2025)
Merge the list of references to Super Mario Bros. with Super Mario Bros., Waluigi Time (ended April 6, 2025)
Split Hammer (move) from Hammer, Blinker (ended April 10, 2025)
Give Nathaniel's Fun Factory full coverage, Nelsonic (ended April 12, 2025)
Split Kongo Bongo Island and Jungle Kingdom from Donkey Kong Island, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 20, 2025)
Clean up the Pipe Cannon article, PrincessPeachFan (ended April 21, 2025)
Split History of the Yoshi species from Yoshi (species), Rykitu (ended April 25, 2025)
Split History of the Toad species from Toad (species), Rykitu (ended April 25, 2025)
Split Funky's Bodacious Bistro from Funky's Flights, Kaptain Skurvy (ended April 27, 2025)
Deciding the fate of the last two episodes of Super Mario Maker 2 Challenges!, Rykitu (ended April 27, 2025)
Split Big Luma from Luma, Kirby the Formling (ended April 28, 2025)
Merge Funky's Flights II and potentially the Funky's Flights bonus game to Funky's Flights, Pizza Master (ended May 1, 2025)
Split 25th Anniversary SUPER MARIO BROS. from Super Mario Bros., Nelsonic (ended May 1, 2025)
Split Donkey Kong Original Edition from Donkey Kong, Nelsonic (ended May 1, 2025)

Writing guidelines

Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"

As we all know, many wikis (including the Super Mario Wiki), like to simply say "British English". But I think this just isn't right. It has been like this for long, even though we know that, unlike American English (which spelling really is exclusive to America, or people like me who prefer it over Commonwealth English most of the time), Commonwealth English spelling isn't exclusive to the United Kingdom, and (as a more famous example) also used Oceania. So this proposal aims to change this to avoid making it look like this spelling is only used in the United Kingdom/Europe.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Rename to "Commonwealth English"/"English (Commonwealth)"

  1. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I mean, I already write it as this.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Rykitu (Commonwealth) (talk) Per all.
  5. Camwoodstock (talk) We don't see why not. Per proposal.

Stay with "British English"/"English (United Kingdom)"

  1. SmokedChili (talk) "British English" is fine, even "European English" would be better, because it's Nintendo of Europe who localized differently for the markets the NA versions don't reach. Making this "Commonwealth English" would generalize and obscure this too much because that's the group the different non-American Englishes all fall into, and it's not all about spelling, the vocabularies also differ.
  2. Hewer (talk) Voting for this as a "do nothing" option. I've seen both terms used on the wiki and they're essentially interchangeable. I don't see the need to enforce a strict policy about which one to use when they're both commonly used terms that mean the same thing.

Commonwealth Comments

Just to be clear: British English is going bye-bye, but Australian English and Canadian English, also listed in the cite template's language codes, remain intact? LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:45, April 30, 2025 (EDT)

Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
Sometimes. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
Yeah, but in terms of games, Canadian English is never used. Mostly the gaming pages (like the game infobox) and pages that state the differences between American and Commonwealth English (like most of Mario Party: Island Tour's minigames) are my main target now. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@SmokedChili I understand your argument, but consider that, as I said; British English isn't only used in the United Kingdom or Europe. Its spelling (which is the thing that matters in games), is also used in Australia (which is the reason PAL used to exist). That the vocabularies differ doesn't really matter, because the Australian versions is just identical to British version. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Australia localize the same, so bringing up Nintendo of America doesn't really seem to be needed. Also, yes that's right. Every country except America and Canada use the Commonwealth spelling, which is the reason it should be changed. It's really not exclusive to only one country. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 06:52, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer I get what your meaning, but as the above, Commonwealth English may have originated in the UK, but is no longer exclusive to it. It's like telling Australians that they're writing in British English; it's just not right. "British English/English (United Kingdom)" is basically an old term now that spelling isn't exclusive to the UK anymore and should be changed. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:00, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I mean, if "English" isn't exclusive to England, why must "British English" be exclusive to Britain? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:56, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
That's true, but you can't really compare them because, England is just a province (that is named after the language), while Britain (aka the UK) is a whole country, which isn't named after anything. The more-used term for Commonwealth English comes from there, unlike with England, where the name of the province itself comes from the language. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 17:10, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
If "British English" is the more common term for Commonwealth English, why should the origins of the term matter? Would you avoid using the term "American football" because the sport is also played outside America? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
The term matters because it was just simply "English" + the name of the country, even though it's not the only country it's spoken in. "English (United Kingdom/Europe)" is an even better example, the spelling is not exclusive to either of those. What's Oceania then? Nothing? Just see it like (Normal) Dutch and Flemish Dutch. Hollandic Dutch is mostly just called Dutch, because of the fact it's not only spoken in The Netherlands. While Flemish Dutch (or simply Flemish) is called like that, because it's only Flanders (Belgium). Also yes, I mostly say "rugby", because it shares many similarities. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:32, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Plenty of languages are spoken outside of the countries they are named after or originate from. I don't think "British English" implies that it's only spoken in Britain, just that it's a version originating from Britain, much like how Spanish isn't only spoken in Spain, French isn't only spoken in France, Italian isn't only spoken in Italy, etc. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:58, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Rework "References" sections

As the Super Mario franchise is both massive and highly interconnected, one aspect of our coverage is listing all instances of a work referencing or being referenced by other works. This is accomplished through a pair of sections near the bottom of the article: "References to other games/media" and "References in other games/media", which list each applicable work as a bullet point on a list in chronological order, then list each reference in prose. While this format works well at smaller scales, certain games push this past its limit.

Take a look at Super Mario Odyssey's "References to other games" section at the time of writing. Certain games listed (such as Donkey Kong, Super Mario 64 or Super Mario Galaxy) are so saturated that it's genuinely difficult to read. Because Super Mario games are constantly referencing past entries, this is a problem that will continue to grow until something is done about it. So, here's my pitch:

Instead of using bullet points for games, we use bullet points for individual references, while separating each title into subsections with ;. This makes individual sections easier to parse, although they *do* take up a bit more space. An individual game listed would look like:

Mario Bros.
  • There is a bonus game starring Luigi available on the title screen, called Luigi Bros. It is played similarly to this game, except both playable characters are Luigi.
  • The big POW Block on the very top of The Great Tower of Bowser Land must be hit multiple times, getting flatter every time it's hit, just like it does in Mario Bros.

I've created two drafts for what a full section would look like using this model, taking Super Mario 3D World as a sample:

If this proposal passes, these guidelines will be codified in our Manual of Style for posterity and slowly rolled out across articles, as we've been doing with Naming sections.

Proposer: EvieMaybe (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support, type A (fully chronological)

  1. Yoshi18 (talk) It's a more organized version of what we have right now and I'm fine with what we have right now, but if it's more organized, it's always better if you ask me, and making it chronological makes it even more organized, so it's basically a win-win. Sub-sections are much better than simply putting "[game name]:". Adding the sub-sections makes reading it much easier.
  2. Hewer (talk) If the goal is to decrease clutter and improve readability, I think this solution is better than the other one that adds more unnecessary headers.
  3. Fakename123 (talk) I have thought about proposing something similar myself.
  4. DesaMatt (talk) Per proposal.

Support, type B (sorted by series)

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) my preferred choice.

Oppose (reference sections are fine as is)

Comments in other games

Allow old names to be used for article titles if it avoids confusion

The core target of this proposal is "Koopa Beach 2 no wait its SNES Koopa Beach 2 oh no actually it's SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2-even-though-it-isnt-a-successor-to-Koopa Troopa Beach no wait now it IS Koopa Troopa Beach-even-though-it-isnt-Koopa Troopa Beach-nor-is-it-a-course-that-isnt-asuccessor". Yeah.

This wiki has a policy that I've always believed to be somewhat flawed, where article titles must always use the most recent name for a subject, no matter how unknown or rarely used it is, or how iconic or popular the older name is, with zero exceptions at all. This goes without saying: but that's flawed. Koopa Beach 2 has now proved that for us here.

With the classic prefixes added in Mario Kart DS, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Beach 2", okay that's fair.

In Mario Kart Tour, however, the course was renamed to "SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2" - which immediately is now creating confusion. It's a successor to Koopa Beach 1, not Koopa Troopa Beach, but the name doesn't illustrate that. Combined with the fact that more people are going to know it as "Koopa Beach 2", there's already a significant amount of confusion created by an already flawed policy.

Then Mario Kart World comes in, and renames the course once again. Now it is called "Koopa Troopa Beach". I do not need to explain how much the policy overcomplicates this.

So: Koopa Beach 1 and Koopa Beach 2 are courses from Super Mario Kart while Koopa Troopa Beach is a course from Mario Kart 64. In Mario Kart Tour, Koopa Beach 2 was renamed to SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 while in America in Mario Kart 7, Koopa Troopa Beach is called N64 Koopa Beach, but only in America, while in Tour it's back to N64 Koopa Troopa Beach. In Mario Kart World, SNES Koopa Troopa Beach 2 is now just "Koopa Troopa Beach". It's bad enough, so much so that it literally caused confusion on this wiki whether it was SNES or N64 or not, and the name of the course is the sole blame. Yet, this wiki doesn't tackle the issue: because the policy MUST be enforced at all times.

So: because of the policy, the pages name now needs to be renamed to "Koopa Troopa Beach". But, here's the issue:

Naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Super Mario Kart)" is a bad idea since there is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach", while naming it "Koopa Troopa Beach (Mario Kart World)" also makes no sense since the course obviously did not debut in Mario Kart World. The easiest option is to leave it as "SNES Koopa Beach 2", the name most people will search for anyways, and specify in the article the name is different in subsequent games (which it already does). Maybe a template at the top of the article can be added to inform readers about the article using an older name. I believe that enforcing a policy, especially one with little benefits like this, and forcing it with zero exceptions is a harmful idea, and it's showing now more than ever before.

We can tell from gameplay, screenshots, and of course the in game world map icon, that the course is just Koopa Beach 2 with little gameplay changes - just a name change.

So the options are simple:

•Keep the name policy as it is: this would rename the article to "Koopa Troopa Beach", which creates confusion and conflict.

or...

•Allow the policy to be changed, so articles can still use old names if it avoids confusion and conflict: this would effect the Koopa Beach 2 article by renaming it back to "SNES Koopa Beach 2" with the article going into detail about the subsequent name changes.

Koopa Beach 2 is just one example: inevitably there will be more in the future, and it's best to get this sorted now before then.

To keep things as simple as possible with as little grey area as possible: let's say the definition of "creating confusion" is if two subjects names are different, but then one is changed so it is now identical to the other, despite them not being so in their original appearance.

Proposer: YoYo (talk) Deadline: May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Allow older names to be used if it prevents confusion

  1. YoYo (talk) Per proposal.

Keep the policy as is, with zero exceptions

  1. Hewer (talk) Very strong oppose. It isn't our place to decide that official names are bad or confusing, we should report on them and use them accurately regardless of our opinions. I'd much rather maintain an accurate and consistent naming policy than start arbitrarily ignoring names we don't like. Besides, it's not like any of the games this course appears in are very obscure - a lot of people are gonna play Mario Kart World and may come to know the course as "Koopa Troopa Beach", and it may confuse them to see the wiki using a different name for it. "Koopa Beach 2" (a name that hasn't been used in a game in twenty years) being the name you're personally used to doesn't make it more correct than the newer name.
  2. PopitTart (talk) Per Hewer. The wiki already covers eight (arguably nine) entirely separate courses named Rainbow Road. This is fine.
  3. Salmancer (talk) If Nintendo broke it, we're not allowed to fix it. We report, not embellish. We call Donkey Kong's move where he slaps the ground a "ground pound" in prose, even when this leads to confusion with the Ground Pound. (The only reason the page is named "Hand Slap" is because there wasn't a non-remake Donkey Kong video game for the entirety of the Nintendo Switch's lifespan, leaving Smash Ultimate to reassert Hand Slap.) Maybe on a different wiki, with a different culture, we would consider using older names for clarity. But currently, it is more important on this wiki to be correct than to match fandom expectation.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) this is incredibly subjective, and also not very helpful unless you already know which one is the SNES track and which one is the N64 track? per all.

Comments

We have something called source priority exception, even though it's not mentioned in the guideline proper. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:37, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Wasn't that not intended to affect in-game names? (I know I opposed that proposal but I might vote differently if it happened again) Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:49, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
All the names mentioned in the proposal here are in-game, I think, so there's difference. LinkTheLefty (talk) 04:57, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
So source priority exception wouldn't take effect at all then, right? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 05:03, May 2, 2025 (EDT)
I'm just pointing out that leniency is a thing, so this proposal could basically be seen as another extension of that. LinkTheLefty (talk) 05:11, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

@PopitTart, I advise you actually read the proposal. Those are all named as such since they debuted, so identifying them different like we do now is perfectly okay. This is not the same. There is no course in Super Mario Kart called "Koopa Troopa Beach" therefore identifying it the same way is not applicable. - YoYo Yoshi Head (light blue) from Mario Kart: Super Circuit (Talk) 05:59, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

Iit wasn't called Koopa Troopa Beach in SMK, but it is now. That's just... what Nintendo is choosing to call it now. And it still debuted in SMK, even after getting a name change.--PopitTart (talk) 06:14, May 2, 2025 (EDT)

New features

Split the list of ongoing talk page proposals into sections

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

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

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

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

Split the talk page proposals

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Thank you. This is well overdue, as the TPP list has been kind of a rat's nest as of late; literally any organization is well worth it, in our opinion. Per proposal.
  3. OmegaRuby (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Pseudo (talk) This kind of feature parity is quite useful, especially when the list has a lot of proposals on it!
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per EvieMaybe.
  6. PopitTart (talk) Per proposal, and my own mockup on the Discord.
  7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Do not split the talk page proposals

"Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split lists of changes from remakes' articles

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

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

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

Support

  1. Henry Tucayo Clay (talk) - Per proposal

Oppose

  1. YoYo (talk) If you're going on the page for the remake specifically, chances are you are looking for what changes there are. Splitting all that information off would reduce the page for the remake into almost nothing comparatively, defeating the purpose of the page to begin with.
  2. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) What's the point of having reissues split from the original game if the article doesn't cover the changes that are present? Isn't that, like, the main reason they're split in the first place? The Virtual Console version of Super Mario Bros. isn't split because...it's just Super Mario Bros., but the Game Boy Color version of Donkey Kong Country is split from the SNES version of Donkey Kong Country because it introduces changes such as Candy's Challenge, Funky Fishing, a new level, etc., and most people are gonna want to read about these changes on the reissue's article! Just makes something so simple so confusing.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  4. Nelsonic (talk) Per all. Some releases (specifically enhanced ports) have minimal changes (such as Luigi's Mansion 2 HD, Donkey Kong Country Returns HD, and New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe), so this would strip most of the content from those pages. And in the cases of full remakes, like Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, Mario Bros. Returns, Super Mario Advance, and Super Mario 64 DS, the page would just end up becoming a paragraphs long. For example, if the changes between Super Mario Bros. and VS. Super Mario Bros. were split off into a separate article, the VS. Super Mario Bros. article would simply discuss the production of the game, how it was never released in Japan, and its Arcade Archives port. This would also result in drastically shortening the pages for Super Mario All-Stars, Super Mario All-Stars + Super Mario World, Super Mario All-Stars Limited Edition, and Super Mario 3D All-Stars, since the main selling point of those games is their changes from the original version.
  5. Arend (talk) Splitting the changes off would result in the remaining page being really barren in order to avoid repeated content. At that point, what would be the point of keeping the remake split, then?
  6. Camwoodstock (talk) Now, admittedly; we can see the merit of listing the content of a game outside of the context of "what's different in this port?". We killed "Once And Only Once" for a reason; sometimes, it's nice to just. Have a table of what exactly is in that specific incarnation of the game. The issue is, that's not currently the state the majority of remake articles are in, and these lists are either most, or all, you have. The TTYD remake page, and our personal bugbear, the Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bowser's Minions page in particular, would become about as short as a page like Super Mario Bros. Special, and those are multi-hour long RPGs versus a 2-or-so hour long platformer game. In a world where these pages are more direct about the contents of their remakes beyond a bullet-pointed list, this would be fine, but we are not there yet. Therefore, the lists stay on the same page.
  7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock. a decision like this should come from changing how we cover reissues entirely. with our current reissue coverage policy, splitting the differences is basically splitting the main meat of the article.
  8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Comments

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

What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
To be fair, if a remake is substantial, and assuming you've played neither game, it's not very helpful to jump between two articles to track particular information. Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:11, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
That's the main reason I kept most information for the DKC trilogy remakes when splitting those remakes. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:13, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

Both

  1. Nightwicked Bowser (talk) Per proposal
  2. Rykitu credits (talk) Per proposal
  3. Yoshi18 (talk) I'm all in for using the more famous term "credits". Per proposal!

Only rename articles

Only include credits sequence information

  1. Mushzoom (talk) Primary choice, per the sequence part of the proposal and Waluigi Time's issue.

Neither

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) My issue here is that this doesn't account for games without credits sequences or instances where staff members are uncredited, and even if it did that would create an inconsistency with page titles. I'm not necessarily opposed to including information about credits sequences but don't really see it as necessary for that page.
  2. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Waluigi Time.
  3. Mushzoom (talk) Secondary choice, per Waluigi Time.
  4. Salmancer (talk) per Waluigi Time. Though I'm drawing a blank for where on an article to talk about the credits. Setting sections?

Comments

Would this also apply to games that don't have a credits roll, like Super Mario Bros.? I think it would be misleading to refer to the list of staff as "credits" if so. I need more wrenches... Dive Rocket Launcher 08:06, April 24, 2025 (EDT)

Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the Mario series

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on May 4, 2025 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

Know the difference!
Penguin Eudyptula mariosixtyfourus:
stubby, "chibi" build; generally blue-feathered; capable of speech; can man a vehicle 		A penguin as seen in PinballPenguin sprite in Mario is Missing! CD-ROM Deluxe Who?
Model of a Snowman from Mario Kart 8 Wears a scarf and a blue, tilted bucket for a hat. Number one cause of car accidents during snowfall. Might be sentient. Snow Man Sprite of a Snowman in Super Princess Peach Little Timmy's first snowpeople.

A discussion at Talk:Penguin began over the structure and scope of the wiki's Penguin article. The article focuses almost exclusively on the blue-feathered, friendly race of creatures found throughout Mario games, while relegating information about other instances of non-specific penguins that do not fit this description to a brief Notes section. Some users believe that the article should be a catch-all for critters in the series that are called simply "penguins", resemble real penguins, and fill some role related to gameplay or plot. Others think that the current article is best reserved for the design unique to Mario and have suggested creating a different, dedicated space on the wiki for the penguins that do not use this design.

A similar issue arises with the page Snowman. Like penguins, snowmen appear in various shapes and sizes, some having features uncharacteristic of their real life counterparts (such as bananas for a mouth and arms). However, the ones in the Mario Kart series stand out as the most consistently designed--having a two-segmented body, a bucket for a hat (always tilted to the side), two oval beady eyes, a stumpy nose, a scarf, and, in latter appearances, a tiny smile. One such Mario Kart snowman is even a playable character in Mario Kart World, cementing its kind as the Mario brand's de facto snowman look.

Insofar as English-language material is concerned, this situation is unique to Penguins and Snowmen in the Mario franchise. However, the franchise is no stranger to featuring generically identified things based on some kind of real life counterpart, such as crab, frog, and cheese, as well as featuring creatures that are also based on a real world thing, but were given a distinctive Mario twist, such as Dolphin and Moo Moo (which I assume will soon be moved to Cow as per Mario Kart World). The more these two categories grow, the more overlap there's bound to be, so I figured it's best we hashed out a guideline on how to manage their coverage. If no further instances of such an overlap is to emerge, then I suppose this proposal is ultimately still useful in sorting out the current Penguin/Snowman sitch.

The proposal centers on the two courses of action suggested in the Penguin discussion I linked above.

Option 1

Separate a given generic subject between articles based on whether it follows a recurring, recognizable design in the Mario series.

  • In this case, Penguin continues to focus on the race of blue penguins introduced in Super Mario 64, while a different article is created to elaborate on all the other nondescript penguins in the series that may play some kind of role. Such an article would cover, for instance, the penguins in Pinball, which were removed from the parent article a while ago despite having a gameplay role, however minor. The penguins featured in "7 Continents for 7 Koopas" would also be mentioned here because they play a role in the episode's climax.
  • Similarly, the Snowman page becomes exclusively focused on the ones that follow the Mario Kart design, while a separate page is made for all the other snowmen in the series, such as the Jungle Beat, Galaxy, Super Princess Peach, and possibly the Mario Kart: Super Circuit ones.

As for the manner of disambiguating these articles, because I don't wish this proposal to become overly restrictive, I'll suggest something in the comments.

If two or more designs exist in the series for a real world thing and each is established and recurring in their own right (like the Super Mario 64 Penguins), they are each given an article. This hasn't happened yet to my knowledge.

Option 2

Cover all instances of a generic subject with a direct real world counterpart in one article and in due detail. In this scenario, the current Penguin article contains detailed information on all the penguins I've described above, sectioned accordingly. The same applies to the Snowman article, which would keep its current structure.

Option 3

Only dedicate an article to the distinctive Mario subject and use a "Notes" section in that article to quickly go over instances of that subject that do not follow the same distinctive look. The Penguin article would remain the same as currently, and the Snowman article would be modified to reflect the former's structure.

The winning option is turned into a guideline at MarioWiki:Generic subjects.

Notes
  1. Whichever course of action is chosen to become a guideline, it is not to be taken as a rigid, one-size-fits-all policy linked solely to one specific design. If a given generic subject comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but these can collectively be tied to one concept peculiar to the Mario series rather than something strictly tied to the real world, the guideline would not be invoked as a reason to split those multiple variants of what is essentially the same thing. An example in the Mario series is Small bird, signalled in the comments--its article describes a varied family of birds that fulfill the same gameplay role. The proposal offers users a coherent structure to follow on more clear-cut distinctions between a generic subject and a properly-defined Mario subject, but there will be enough flexibility to account for nuanced cases such as the Small bird's.
  2. The guideline will only apply to subjects that can clearly be construed as "generic" and non-derivative, and which have a long history of being referred to after their real life counterparts in multiple languages. This guideline is not to be enforced on subjects whose identity is contentious, or whose nature is significantly more based in fiction than real life.
    • If there is divergence on whether a subject is meant to be generic, e.g. Sidestepper (simply named "crab" in other languages) or Preying Mantas (mostly ever called "jellyfish"), a separate discussion is required.
    • The beer-throwing penguins in Wario Land II are out of the proposal's scope, because their appearance and behavior are too derivative of real life penguins, and they have not appeared often enough to make a compelling case either way.
    • Though there are many things named "Ghost" in the Mario franchise, their relevant articles on the wiki most often discuss particular characters that happen to have a generic name (like the boss in Wario Land 1 and the one in Wario Land 2), distinctive creatures with a tenuous connection to ghosts (the wispy, worm-like things in Yoshi's Story, the costumed Kremlings in Donkey Kong 64), technical terms unrelated to supernatural apparitions, and a select enemy "species" encountered in the Luigi's Mansion series. The only two true instances of generic ghosts in the extended Mario franchise are Ghost (Wario Land II enemy) and Ghost (DK series), but because I foresee contention on whether these need to be covered on the same page, this proposal excludes them altogether.

Proposer: Koopa con Carne (talk)
Deadline: May 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option 1: Cover generic subjects based on how established their design is, collect information on non-recurrent, non-established designs in a separate article

  1. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Pseudo (talk) These smaller but still significant appearances of generically named subjects are still important! That said, subjects like the Mario 64 penguins feel strange to even regard as generic given how well-established and uniquely designed they are; it seems to me that these are more like Mario-original subjects that just lack a unique name.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Especially given the remark in the comments about giving these more generic appearances the (generic) label in the comments. This helps create a rather clear divide from "Mario-ified version of a real-world thing" and "a generic real-world thing", and the alternative of eventually having to mention Community Service on the "Cow" page once Mario Kart World releases does not appeal to us one bit; better to get ahead of the curve when it comes to preventing weird WikiJank™.
  4. Exiled.Serenity (talk) It does seem to us that things like these penguins are usually presented as 'the Mario character from that game' so it makes sense to give it its own space. Still worth documenting the others, but also important not to imply the Blue Penguin From Mario is just another incidental generic penguin.
  5. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal. Having a more generic article for the generic depictions feels way better than lumping them with the more stylized depictions the Mario series occasionally creates.
  6. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) tentative support, assuming "design" is not restricted to just visual appearance. Some subjects can have radically different appearances between titles but have the same behaviors, roles, and mechanical tactileness between them, and those can be indicative of continuity and shared, ontological identity as much as a shared visual appearance. Personally, I am not invested in having an article for unrelated subjects that happen to be based on real-world penguins. None of them really appear in any context that would make an article on them particularly robust or earnestly accurate, in my view, because none of them have substantial roles or were conceived by the same people. They just happen to be realistic penguins. However, others express interest in that type of documentation, and I do not want to be the reason why they can't.
  8. Kirby the Formling (talk) both generic and stylised creatures articles have good reasons to exists, so per all.
  9. Mister Wu (talk) If small birds and Cow are of any indication, it might be worth it to provide coverage for recurring designs of otherwise generic subjects or objects.
  10. Biggestman (talk) Per all.
  11. DryBonesBandit (talk) Per all.
  12. EvieMaybe (talk) per all.
  13. Yoshi18 (talk) I greatly support the idea of descriptions based on design. I feel like design changes are really important to see how the enemy has involved over the years, instead of just only covering the current design, and acting like the subject has never acted different before
  14. DesaMatt (talk) Per all.
  15. Blinker (talk) Per Nintendo101.
  16. Salmancer (talk) having a space to place non-Mario versions of things is more fair to WarioWare. I do want to know about the tropes WarioWare has used with flies across games, and not interfere with Fly (Mario Paint) when doing so.

Option 2: Cover all instances of a generic subject on one article, whether its design is established or not

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - A lot of these are subject to series' legacy-based art direction; ie, snowmen in the Mario Kart games tend to (though not always) have a design based on the MKDS take on the MK64 ones, but they're still just as much snowmen as any of the others. With that said, I think "small bird" can stay separate with the Odyssey section's multiple designs, if only because Odyssey also concurrently features larger birds.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) alternatively, perhaps articles like that for the penguin, cow/moo moo, snowman, etc. can be restructured conceptually where all of the information is housed together under one article, but emphasis is put on the recurring, more ubiquitous Mario designs in how the article is written. Perhaps info on penguins in Mario is Missing and WarioWare can be included in the penguin article if these one-off looks are not treated with the same weight as the more prolific design that debuted in Super Mario 64.

Option 3: Only afford a page to the generic subject with an established design, note other instances succinctly in one section of that page

Do nothing (generic subjects)

Comments (generic subjects)

Regarding option 1, maybe give the page for non-established designs of penguins and snowmen the "(generic)" identifier. Open to better suggestions. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 06:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

I feel like there should be a fourth option for whatever Earth is up to. TLDR: There's a section for the Earth of the real world and a section for Earth-y fictional planets. Basically Option 3 without the shortening. It's a bad option, since those should just be separate articles, but it is an answer to this that is currently on the wiki. Salmancer (talk) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

Do WarioWare Gold's coins get caught up in this? They don't have a design in the middle like every Mario-ian coin. The WarioWare: Get it Together coins do, and match Mario-ian coins at that. It does suggest a risk of option 1 splitting design histories between multiple pages, which I don't care about but some people do. Salmancer (talk) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

Very good observation. I always found the scope of the Coin article to be rather messy, and I'd prefer if it followed a guideline akin to what is proposed here. In other words, should option 1 or 3 garner majority in this proposal, the coins in Wario Land 4 and WarioWare Gold (among other instances) are distinguished accordingly from the established design that appears to be stamped with the Roman numeral "I" (Artwork of a Coin in Mario Kart 8). That said, some coins seen throughout the franchise do not have the same design as the Super Mario Bros. coin, but are clearly derivative of it, namely:
  • The star-minted coins in Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Pinball. (Artwork of a Yellow Coin from Super Mario 64)
  • The Yoshi-themed coins in the Yoshi platformers. (Artwork of a Coin in Yoshi Topsy-Turvy (Reused for Yoshi's Island DS))
Without careful consideration, guideline 1 and 3 would sweep these up as well. How to handle these? My suggestion is to use the parent "Coin" article for instances of yellow/gold coins that pertain to the larger, established Mario "currency" that comprises Red Coins and Blue Coins. There is a clear hierarchical connection between the 64/Pinball/Yoshi coins and these that the Wario Land 4 coins, for instance, do not have (in fact, you can construe those as a different currency altogether Gold Coin, and other coins in Wario Land 4). -- KOOPA CON CARNE 10:53, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

I think this proposal would benefit from greater clarification on what constitutes as "generic" and what qualifies as a "recurring design." Because to me, something based on a real-world in appearance but has pretty consistent mechanical utility in-game is a recurring attribute of the subject, like fish or flower. Similarly, I think the T-Rex from Super Mario Odyssey and Mario Kart World make sense in the same article despite one looking more realistic than the other. However, there are subjects with generic names in the language of the people that created them, like Maw-Ray, but I would not support turning that article into one for any and all moray eels in the Super Mario franchise. That seems unhelpful and diluting. The Dolphins, which are not even supposed to be generic dolphin animals in Japanese, also should not be an article for any dolphins in the Super Mario franchise.

To me, I do not think it is accurate to consider penguins to be generic subjects. They are as discrete to me as Toads or Gearmos, and I think it is in-part because they are typically speaking characters with cultures. I think to elevate realistic animal penguins from Pinball, Mario is Missing or Jungle Beat, which appear very infrequently and to which the blue talking birds have no relation to within the context of creative works, would be diluting and inaccurate. I'm not even sure the realistic-looking animal info is helpful/accurate to even have in the penguin article, as opposed to simply covering those subjects on their respective game and level articles where relevant. They are not the same subjects, in my view. - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:14, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

I'm fully aware that the terminology used in the proposal can be confusing depending on how you look at it, but that wasn't by design. I just couldn't find less unwieldy terminology to work with. To be clear, I completely agree with the notion that the Super Mario 64 Penguins, the "Lifton" Dolphins, and the "Moo Moo" Cows are ad hoc Mario species, just like Goombas and Toads. However, "generic" can also describe any of the Goombas you stomp in games, relative to individuals like Goombario and Goombella, and by that definition, your Moo Moos and Liftons are also rather generic, which makes them even more painful to distinguish from a "generic generic" entity like the cow in the Community Service microgame. I could have used the term "non-generic generic" for those Mario species, but that's... obtuse. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 11:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
For clarity, I didn't at all think the lack of clarity was intentional or anything like this. I agree this franchise makes this a difficult topic to discuss all on its own. But thank you for the other examples - they are helpful. - Nintendo101 (talk) 11:43, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
The Mario Kart cows were stylized based on what they could make for a simple pre-render on the Nintendo 64. I don't see anything that distinguishes them from standard cartoon cows, while Toads and Goombas are obviously more fantastical as sapient fungus. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 13:56, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
I'm not sure the underlying reasons why the cows look the way they do makes them more generic than Toads or Goombas, especially since this same design has been exercised for these cows for multiple decades. There are many different ways one can design a cartoon cow - only one way to design the ones from Moo Moo Meadows, or at least since 2005. While organizationally inconvenient for some, or at least on this wiki, I am not sure why this cow is not a discrete Mario subject on par with the likes of Maw-Ray, which is simply referred to as a "moray eel" in Japanese. Perhaps I am missing something. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:06, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, with regards to Small birds, what would happen if option 1 won? There's definitely a recurring type of small birds since Super Mario 3D Land that even had gameplay relevance in Mario Sports Superstars and then was put among the many other small bird species introduced in Super Mario Odyssey.--Mister Wu (talk) 20:02, April 27, 2025 (EDT)

Super Mario Odyssey achieves its tactile diversity by have many of the same objects appear in each kingdom with a unique look that matches the regional topography, and I think small birds are part of the same design philosophy. Given this, as well as the fact that The Art of Super Mario Odyssey refers to nearly all of these birds as 小鳥 and this is also the Japanese name for the white birds of the Mushroom Kingdom, I think it would be a better reflection of the same to keep them in the same article together - as stylistic renditions of the same subject. This is in part why I was resistant to the idea that physical appearance was the only criterion to qualify "design." - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:16, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
@Mister Wu, I view the Small Bird family similarly to Mario's blue Penguins. Each has a common, base variant with different offshoots. We know that the Mario race of Penguins most commonly have a blue-and-white plumage and a consistent, chibi-like body ratio (Rendered model of a penguin in Mario Party 9. It is potentially derived from a similar model from Super Mario Galaxy by Nintendo EAD (Yoshiaki Koizumi et al.).), but members of this race exist, such as Penguru, the Coach, and the multi-colored Penguin Racers, who embody different traits while still visibly pertaining to the same collective. The Small Bird was introduced as a plain white-feathered bird (Rendered 3D model of a small bird.) which continues to serve as the defining member of its own group, but the creatures in Mario Odyssey that embody the same model--small, fast-fleeing birds--can also be viewed as part of this group. So, to answer your question: as long as the wiki's stance on the Small Bird remains that these tiny variations are nothing more than aesthetic adaptations of the same fictional concept introduced in Super Mario 3D Land, I don't think Option 1 would apply, i.e. those tiny variations wouldn't be split. Perhaps the choice to specifically tie these proposed guidelines to a subject's visual design lacks due precision given how nuanced the situation is, but then again, it's that visual design that acts as the most straightforward, unifying aspect of a given Mario race and the most convenient reference point to convey the need for those proposed changes. The proposal aims to introduce a guideline rather than a policy, because a more complex case such as Coin or even Small Bird wouldn't benefit from an overly rigid framework; these guidelines are meant to provide flexibility within a coherent structure, and aren't meant to pre-empt discussions on what users can or cannot recognize as a "Small Bird". -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:04, April 28, 2025 (EDT), edited 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

Depending on what name Mario Kart World goes for, the Mario Kart Snowman could be retitled "Snowperson" (given that was the name given to it in Tour).
btw, will this affect Fruit (Yoshi food) and Fruit in any way? ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 12:43, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

It's already confirmed to be called "Snowman". Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:33, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
RE Fruit: Names shouldn't be the sole factor of a merge or split in this proposal's terms. If that were the case, something like Penguin (enemy) would be merged into Penguin given Option 2, and I argued in the proposal's body why that shouldn't happen. The basic "Fruit" article is much more encompassing than a concept like "penguin" or "snowman" and is currently the parent article of multiple individual pages on specific fruit, both based in real life (Apple, Grape, Strawberry) or fiction (Bomb Berry or, indeed, the Yoshi fruit). At any rate, Fruit (Yoshi food) doesn't really have a counterpart in real life; it kinda looks like apples, but grows in bushes or on the ground, and is sometimes called "berry". It lacks the kind of real life ubiquity, or "genericness", that entails a subject based on a very tangible concept, like Penguin or Snowman. Even if Option 2 were to win, I think there'd be some serious pushback on whether these two fruit-related topics deserve to be merged. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

Edit to the proposal (18:48, April 28, 2025)

I edited the proposal to add a note where I address certain questions among these comments. This is a reasonably complex topic to tackle given the nuances, and I'm unsure if I'm doing it coherently. If there are inconsistencies that emerge with this edit, please signal them. I'll ping current voters to let them know of this edit to the proposal, hope I'm not being annoying.

@Pseudo@Camwoodstock@Exiled.Serenity@Tails777@Waluigi Time@Nintendo101@Kirby the Formling@Mister Wu@Biggestman@DryBonesBandit@Doc von Schmeltwick

-- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:54, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

Seen, and the notes are still all fine with us. Our example of preventing something like the cow in Community Service from being in the "Cow" page hasn't been impacted by this, and so long as we don't encroach on that being possible, we're fine. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 19:07, April 28, 2025 (EDT)

Allow objects to be listed on level articles

So I tried adding level objects to SMB3 level pages and was told I need to do a proposal first. I don't see why it should be an issue; after all, we already list items, enemies, music tracks, timer seconds, and other such things on each of them. If we're going to have exact counts of every coin in a stage, why can't we list a stage as having Brick Blocks or P-Switches or unmoving obstacles or specific types of platforms or recurring ambient/decorative objects? Doesn't make much sense when you get right down to it. The easiest way to find out what levels a gimmick is used, after all, is to click on an image and see what pages it's linked on; not linking them on it makes it exponentially harder to find out where something is used with no benefit gained from not having them, and given they're generally short articles anyway, they're not going to get in the way of anything - objectively!

EDIT: At the insistence of the opposition, I have added an option to only have interactive objects - as much as I personally disagree with that sentiment.

Proposer: Doc von Schmeltwick (talk)
Deadline: May 15, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support - Full equality for all objects (includes interactive and decorative objects in the same section)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Yoshi18 (talk) In my opinion, it's absurd the wiki doesn't do this already. Objects are important things in levels. From simple objects, such as Brick Blocks, to objects that are able to change the whole level layout, such as !-Switches. And now I'm basically only talking about the 2D games! The 3D games have much more in store, when talking about objects (mainly dynamic objects). Since the level pages are also short anyway, this is a good way to usefully expand on them more. And as you said, if we literally have the time to count the amount of coins, we surely have the time to count objects.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per all.

#Arend (talk) ...we don't do this already?!

Support - Separate but equal (includes interactive and decorative objects in separate sections)

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Per
  2. Hewer (talk) Sure, no harm in being thorough.

Half-support - Tangibility above all (includes interactive objects alone)

  1. Tails777 (talk) If this focuses more on stuff like palettes for Goombas, blocks, coins and such, I'm personally okay with that. Less so if it's like, every frame for every sprite, but I'm personally more on this option overall.
  2. Hewer (talk) Second choice.

Objection - Objects are second-class subjects

  1. Waluigi Time (talk) I agree with this line of thinking, to an extent. Brick Blocks, P Switches, and other objects that the player can interact with should be listed on level articles. If that was the sole issue here, I doubt this would be at all controversial. However, going as far as having a gallery that includes every single bush or cloud background tile in the level, which this proposal advocates for, is overboard. And keep in mind we're only talking about SMB3 here, a relatively simple NES game. Imagine how out of hand it would be if we had a gallery of every single background model in a Galaxy or Odyssey level that the player can't even interact with.
  2. Sparks (talk) Per Waluigi Time. Listing every single background subject/things you don't interact with is too much.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Waluigi Time. The core concept is fine, but we feel like a list of background elements is overkill; it would be incredibly asinine to list Horsetails in every single Mario level they appear in. If there was an option for just things that had tangible gameplay impact, we'd support it in a heartbeat, but for now... Too much, sorry.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) Per Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, and Salmancer's comment. This proposal is concerningly vague about what counts as "an object". Do Super Mario Bros. Wonder's decorative objects[1][2] count as distinct objects? This proposal was sparked by you including stuff like hills or clouds in World 1-2 of Super Mario Bros. 3, and those are just tileset elements, so if those count then these absolutely count. Even if we limit it to "objects" which affect gameplay, what about Super Mario Galaxy's invisible gravity areas?[3] What about Super Mario Bros., which constructs everything in its levels out of "objects"?[4] Limiting it once again to subjects with pages, would this require us to count every coin of every level of every game? As long as this proposal remains so vague and undefined about its goals, I cannot in good conscience vote for it, and even then, properly defining these goals would pretty much require this proposal to be canceled and another to be raised. If you plan on trying again, I recommend including clear criteria for what an "object" is, as well as a draft of how a page would look like if this proposal passed. Until then, I'm opposing this.
  5. Mario4Ever (talk) Per EvieMaybe.
  6. PopitTart (talk) Per EvieMaybe and Waluigi Time, this proposal is just far too vague. If you're gonna count the powerup-shaped clouds and distinct colors of semisolid platform, then you ought to also count the fossils and rocks that appear in the terrain of NSMBU levels and each one of the different colors of Hard Block that make up hidden Luigis in NSLU. In addition, why is the goal listed as two separate gallery entries? They're literally one and the same. This proposal kinda just feels like an excuse to justify your (somewhat excessive) SMB3 sprite rips.
  7. Shadow2 (talk) Per all. And we don't need the object listings on the SMB3 world pages either.
  8. Arend (talk) I'm all for functional and interactable objects being listed - P-Switches and whatnot - and am baffled we still haven't done this - but after seeing Waluigi Time, Camwoodstock, Eviemaybe, and others' concerns, and re-reading through the proposal, I've realized that the proposal also wants (recurring) background objects to be listed - like the dome-shaped hills or the horsetail plants - AND treats them the same as the functional and interactable ones, even though they add nothing but background aesthetic. If only there were an option that just allows the objects that can be interacted with and/or have functions in gameplay. If only such an option that ditches the background fodder was there...
  9. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all. I agree with what others have said, in that listing functional objects would be beneficial and I would support adding that kind of thing to articles. However, I believe there is a big difference between functional objects and background objects, and I do not agree with filling object lists with background tiles which exist as decorations.
  10. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comments below.
  11. Salmancer (talk) If we want to set the mood for a level, we can just add more screenshots. And make the Hill article to store up lists of every location with Hills. I'm voting here and not for the interactive items list so that this resolves as "no changes". I still don't want to curse anyone with the burden of counting beads. Or trying to count every coin the Gold P Switch in Conkdor Canyon causes to fall. Which declaring that all articles are expected to have lists of interactive objects does.

Object comments

I really, really don't want to have to count beads in every course, and I'm not sure there is anyone who does want to. Or for a more common example, counting coins in New Super Mario Bros. 2, though at least for them size is not a meaningful property of coins. I'm not sure we want to have stub notices saying we have to count up every last one of these minor dealy-bobs. Salmancer (talk) 17:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I'm not advocating anything be counted, I brought that up as a thing I've already seen done without anyone taking issue with it. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Waluigi Time - There's a reason I said "recurring" ambient objects, as in decorations that appear throughout the game. I'm not counting level geometry that's all part of one big cohesive model (as that is one object, technically) or random parallax details (if anything, layered backgrounds could have their own gallery section). Given many of the background objects have pages of their own (like tree and cactus), it makes sense to include them in my point of view. Basically, when an asset can actually be isolated without severe edits to the source, which would take out most of what would be a potential "bloating" issue in games more graphically complex than, for instance, Super Mario World. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

The Models Resource's upload of the Metro Kingdom contains 133 separate model files making up that environment. I could very easily isolate and render each piece without having to make any edits whatsoever. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:12, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Honestly? Views of 3D map files seem like an interesting thing to have, though they'd have their own sections of course. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:24, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
The map as a whole, yes, I agree. It would be nice to have more comprehensive images of 3D environments without having to resort to other means like Noclip, I feel like that's something we're lacking for certain games. I don't think we need to get into the individual bits and bobs that make up those maps, however. --Waluigi's head icon in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Too Bad! Waluigi Time! 19:39, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Well much of what I uploaded are combinations anyway, so I think that those combined would still be the same thing in spirit. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
References cited in EvieMaybe's vote
  1. ^ Rimea (November 13, 2024). The Secret Purpose of These Rocks. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  2. ^ Rimea (February 3, 2025). The Secret of These Pumpkins. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  3. ^ Jasper (September 29, 2020). How Spherical Planets Bent the Rules in Super Mario Galaxy. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  4. ^ Retro Game Mechanics Explained (November 26, 2022). Super Mario Bros. Glitch Levels Explained. YouTube. Retrieved May 1, 2025.

@EvieMaybe - I have stated numerous times that this proposal has nothing to do with counting things. I brought up coin counts as something I have already seen done by other users on SMB3 pages, which no one took issue with. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

i appreciate the clarification, but it does not change my opinion that this proposal is poorly concieved and poorly executed. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 18:42, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I must ask, what issues arise with having full coverage of this? If I want to know what stages an asset appears in, the best way to find that out is to see where the image is linked to. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 18:47, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Checking the articles that an image is linked to seems like relatively extreme Wiki-fu. Aside from not being intuitive without understanding how Mediawiki works, it has two weaknesses. One is that the moment a second game reuses assets from another game the results will be covered in false positives. (Good luck differentiating New Super Mario Bros. U courses from New Super Luigi U courses solely on their titles. Example: File:NSMBU Gliding Waddlewing Artwork.png) The second is that the results are sorted alphebetically, which isn't useful from a user perspective. Back when courses/levels/whatever were always "World X-Y", the results would match the order of the game. Ignore the game article in those results and sure, this works. But as of New Mario U courses can have all manner of names, which means the list of articles an image is linked to haphazardly jumps between Worlds and game order with little rhyme or reason. The best way to find what levels have what objects is the simplest: have the Wiki's writers make the list for the reader. Easier said than done the bigger the game involved, yes, but it generally more accessible and it doesn't bloat out a course article with a gallery of clouds and hills. Salmancer (talk) 19:05, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
"Relatively extreme?" It's an extremely obvious and straightforward thing to do, and I am floored to learn that some people don't do that. Also, given most of the level titles are in the format of "World #-#" anyway, they're pretty much sorted in order anyway, so that argument makes no sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:22, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
i'm afraid you might've fallen victim to the good ol' XKCD pitfall. the average user does not have the technical know-how nor the familiarity to think "to find out in which levels this enemy appears, i should check what pages link to this image of it" (hell, i wouldn'tve come up with that on my own, and i literally just used citations on a proposal answer). even then, trying to float it as a solution for flooding level pages with sprite rips of what amounts to every single individual graphic used in a stage is absurd. — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:01, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Again, for what reason should we not feature decorative objects? They're important to the stage's visual identity. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:20, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Because the concept of listing every "decorative object" is absolutely Sisyphean. Lets stick with SMB3 as an example. If we're including the various shapes of powerup-like clouds, what about the other shapes of clouds with anywhere from 1 to 3 pairs of eyes? or the hills which come in varying amounts of lumpiness? If we're including the various designs of semisolid, should we include the various designs of ground? Do the large vertical posts in airships get a special mention? Both the aboveground and underground palettes of 1-5? On the topic of underground, are the dark sparkly background tile things an object? How many distinct pipe "objects" are in 7-1? Decor simply isn't rigidly defined at all like things that matter to gameplay.--PopitTart (talk) 20:37, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I'd consider wiki'ing on such an expansive franchise as this an enjoyable sort of Sisyphean endeavor, myself. Anyways, I held myself back from including the "background walls" in my initial uploads, so I wasn't including them; I'd consider different colors of pipes, blocks, and ground to be fair game for "interactive objects," and the posts on the airship levels are just a particular shape of the "ground" there. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:49, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@PopitTart - Because they are functionally two different things. Granted, the flashing card probably should be listed as an item (along with the balls Boom Boom drops and the Koopalings' wands), as that is technically what it is, while the "holding box" is a background object. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:27, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Sure, as far as the NES is technically concerned, the latter is on the background layer and the former is on the sprite layer, but as far as the wiki is practically concerned, they are The Goal. one thing. Just like a Goal Pole is a pole and flag, and an SMW goalpost is the posts and the ribbon. Conveying them separately to the reader doesn't do anything but tell them the level has a goal (shocking!) over the span of two separate gallery items.--PopitTart (talk) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I worry this proposal is framed around a motte-and-bailey argument. I do not imagine anyone taking issue with the inclusion of interactable objects within a level article like switches and blocks, and if that was the only thing you had done, I doubt anyone would have taken issue with it and may have even appreciated it. What raised eyebrows was the inclusion of noninteractive background elements like clouds. While the background elements are part of the game's visual identity and probably are worth discussing somewhere on the wiki, I imagine most folks would find that their documentation in the level articles, as well as every single color and iteration of each noninteractive background element within a level, is gratuitous and reduces the utility of the level articles. That is the actual issue - not the inclusion of tactile objects like blocks and switches. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:34, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

I would certainly support a more nuanced proposal to document the actual contents of a level in detail. Pikipedia has lists of enemies, collectables, and reoccurring obstacles for each area, (along with the inverse lists of each area the subjects appear in) which are extraordinarily useful.--PopitTart (talk) 19:44, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Goomba's walking animation from Super Mario Bros.Cave Goomba from SMBAn animated ? Block from Super Mario Bros. (Overworld palette)An animated ? Block from Super Mario Bros. (Underground palette)A Coin from Super Mario Bros.An animated coin from Super Mario Bros. (Underground palette)The sprite version of the Coin from Super Mario Bros.A horsehair plant from Super Mario Bros.A horsehair plant from Super Mario Bros.Sprite of a Warp Pipe from Super Mario Bros.Warp Pipe sprite from Super Mario Bros.<-If this is OK...
A sprite of a Goomba from Super Mario Bros. 3.A Goomba in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a cave stage.A ? Block.A ? Block on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a cave stageA sprite of a coin from Super Mario Bros. 3A coin on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a dark areaA coin on the sprite layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a land stageA tree on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3A tree on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3Sprite of a Warp Pipe from Super Mario Bros. 3A pipe on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3 as seen in a hills or desert stage.<-Then this is OK.
Note that none of the upper row are my uploads. It's perfectly serviceable to document all possible static palettes. SMB3 just has a lot due to being a big game on small hardware, with the remakes lessening that by a lot due to having more palettes with more values available. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:46, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
I think there are some misunderstandings going on. I at least welcome hosting those types of assets on the same premise as you. But this proposal is about documenting noninteractive background details on the level articles, and I would not support that for any game because it dilutes those articles.
I also do not think those were the types of assets folks found gratuitous or would have encouraged being cut. Those are illustrative and cute. A better example would be including both the Japanese HUD and the international one with only a pixel being different between. The visual difference is not even distinguishable during gameplay because they are both on black backgrounds, so we are not really earnestly illustrating anything by hosting both of them, in my view. I'm sure similar comments can be made about rubble. - Nintendo101 (talk) 20:31, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Much of the time they're not on black backgrounds, but on various shades of blue, orange, or otherwise. Anyways, if y'all insist, I'll alter the proposal to have different options. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:45, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

@Tails777 - Different animations for one subject are for their own galleries, don't worry there. I'd consider separate images for different static frames of the same animation to be redundant once the image itself has been uploaded, and I've spend the past few weeks uploading the game's animations. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:59, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Where would a "yes but only if object has an article on the wiki already" most likely fall under because I'd probably just stick with this? Isn't that the status quo already? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:08, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Why trees but no pyramids? Ashley icon from WarioWare: Move It! Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:17, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
Hm yeah good point, if object has an article and(or?) the player can interact with it. The tree article I've tried to limit to ones the player can do things with OR it's a greater setting. That being said, you can point out to the opposition that if a hypothetical decorative-only and nongeneric object, like a background Skewer, is in a level, it will probably be appropriate to be listed in the article. If so, why not hills? Mario It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 23:23, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
A composite of hills on the tile layer in Super Mario Bros. 3, as seen in a hill stage Well I labeled these "hills," but given they're only as tall as Small Mario who's to say what they are? And unlike pyramids, they're not moved to the distant background with parallax scrolling in the remakes, so they're definitely a small, close thing. Not to mention SMB's horsetails, which have lore significance in that game. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 23:36, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Use the "wario ww" wikitable class on microgame lists

Every microgame list contains the "wikitable" class, rather than the "wikitable wario ww" class. That makes no sense to me. The solution is, if we use the "wario ww" class, its corresponding tables will match how microgames appear in games in the WarioWare series.

Take the section regarding the Intro Games stage's microgame order outside of Japan from the list of WarioWare, Inc.: Mega Microgame$! microgames for example. The usage of both the plain "wikitable" class and the #D6D6D6 (#555 in dark mode) makes no sense to me. However, if we both use the "wario ww" class and replace background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555 with background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B, then that will solve the issue. That way, once this proposal passes, this will be what the table will look like:

Before first "Speed Up" (3 in any order) After first "Speed Up" (3 in any order) After second "Speed Up" (3 in any order) Boss microgame
Crazy Cars Diamond Dig The Maze That Pays Sparring Wario
Wario Whirled Dodge Balls Super Wario Bros.
Saving Face Repellion I Spy
Wario Wear Mug Shot
Hectic Highway

Here's another example. This section regards the microgames in the Touch Training stage in the list of WarioWare: Touched! microgames. The usage of both the plain "wikitable" class and the #e8cada (#555 in dark mode) also makes no sense to me. However, if we both use the "wario ww" class and replace background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555 with background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B, then that will solve the issue. That way, once this proposal passes, this will be what the table will look like:

Icon Name Description Passing score
Party Popper album icon Party Popper Balloons are lame. Pop 'em! 20
Pet Peeved album icon Pet Peeved Poke a kitty...before we're all DOOMED! 20
Waste with Haste album icon Waste with Haste Tap the end of the mechanical pencil! WASTE, WASTE, WASTE! 20
Big Bang album icon Big Bang Tap the fireworks to set 'em off! KABOOM! 20
Taping a Leak album icon Taping a Leak Nobody likes leakage. Patch it! 20
Sleepy Head album icon Sleepy Head Bang on something loud! They didn't want to sleep, anyway. 20
Up for Grabs album icon Up for Grabs Some people will tell you that grabbing is rude. Ignore 'em! In fact, touch this falling stick to grab it! 15
Tune Out album icon Tune Out Pay attention and play the same notes the teacher plays or she'll go ballistic! 20
Freak Mutation album icon Freak Mutation Watch whatever falls from the top screen and choose the thing that changed. 20
Bug Eyed album icon Bug Eyed A starving, carnivorous bug is hiding over there on that tree trunk. Go ahead and poke it! It probably won't bite. 20
Lose Your Marble album icon Lose Your Marble Chisel the marble block! Not everyone can have a chiseled body like Wario. 10
Wrap Sheet album icon Wrap Sheet Squish, pop, snap! This is almost as much fun as sitting on birthday cakes! 20
Swamp Things album icon Swamp Things Poke 'em in the eyes before they go for your head! 20
Number Cruncher album icon Number Cruncher Tap 'em in order! 20
Perfect Match album icon Perfect Match Study the cards; when they flip over, find a match! 15
Housewares album icon Housewares Search the house for an item that matches the example! 20
Profiler album icon Profiler Check out the spinning silhouette on the top screen, and then tap its match on the Touch Screen! 20
Into the Sunset album icon Into the Sunset Smack everything into the sunset! 20
Character Development album icon Character Development Tap flying letters to spell the word. If you grab the wrong letter, you have to start all over! 15
Accountant Assault album icon Accountant Assault Calculate the equation! If you're a geek and already know the answer, just punch it in and press the = button. 20
Rump Roast album icon Rump Roast Whip that rump and race to victory! 15
You Break It, You Buy It album icon BOSS: You Break It, You Buy It Flies are crawling all over your window! Swat the screen to knock 'em off, but don't crack it too many times or you'll shatter the screen! 7

I conclude that it's important to know: with the addition of the "wario ww" wikitable class, we will use it on pages and sections regarding the WarioWare series. And if that's not all, we'll not only add the "wario ww" to the wikitables, but also replace background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555 and background:#e8cada;--darkbg:#555 with background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B and background-color:slateblue;--darkbg:#301D9B respectively, in the future, right after the proposal passes.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: May 16, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: Add and replace

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: Keep as is

  1. Salmancer (talk) Considering the boss microgame row is outright illegible in light mode, I'm going to say no to this. Note that a older proposal said to minimize colors in tables, especially body rows, unless they're doing something useful. Which this isn't. Aside from that, I do take minor umbrage with insisting that every table regarding every subject in every videogame has to match the colors set for its parent franchise. (This is a pattern that has been appearing on pages like Rare Orb.) Colors make things pop but not everything needs to pop out compared to the rest of the page. Doubly so when the page is short enough to fit on one monitor.
  2. Mario (talk) The tables in the "microgame order" section shouldn't be tables in the first place, and there's not much reason to change the tables for the sake of having them match the navigation templates.

Mega Comment$!

It's worth noting; We've been very slowly chipping away at a full rework for these series-specific tables, and while it's by no means complete, this already has color changes in mind for wario ww. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 21:41, May 1, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

What is a game?

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

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)

Do board games move to the list?

Do not add board games to the list 7-10
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

Do card games move to the list?

Do not add card games to the list 6-10
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

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

Do not add party games to the list 7-10
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

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

Do not add physical games to the list 6-10
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT

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

Does Super Mario Ride move to the list?

Do not add Super Mario Ride to the list 2-10
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It is currently listed under "Other Super Mario-themed games" on the list of merchandise.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I'm a maximal inclusivist when it comes to these things, so I think anything anyone could plausibly conceptualize as "a game" ought to be classified as a game for navigational purposes.
No
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) From the looks of it, those are toy cars; those are toys, not games. Them being listed as "other Super Mario-themed games" feels like a bit of a misnomer.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote above.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Rides are not games.
  4. Pseudo (talk) If it's a toy and not a game, it probably shouldn't count. This is a slightly different category of item.
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
  6. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  7. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  9. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  10. Platform (talk) Per all.

Do Play Nintendo games move to the list?

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

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

Does Nintendo Today! move to the list?

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

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal. I understand everyone else's hesitation, but Nelsonic has a point!
No
  1. 1468z (talk) The only thing that comes the closest to the definition of game and is related to Mario is the silhouette quizzes, which despite their name are actually just articles with a profile of a character without any interactive elements. It's not that different from something you would find on Nintendo's website.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) To be honest, we're a bit on the fence, but we're leaning on this for now. Maybe if there were more active game elements to them, but as it stands, these are just articles at the moment with no real interactive elements aside from. Clicking it and reading it.
  3. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  4. Hewer (talk) Per Shinya Takahashi ("[Nintendo Today] is something a little different that's not a game").
  5. Rykitu (talk) Per all. If you really think about it, if we count Nintendo Today as a game, that would mean the Super Mario Wiki would be considered a game.
  6. Pseudo (talk) This seems like not so much of a game to me as a platform for games (in addition to other media); at most, I'd support adding this app's individual included games to the list.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all. Nintendo Today! is basically just a daily newspaper (similar to The 'Shroom).
  8. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  9. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  10. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  11. Platform (talk) Per all.

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

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

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

Do rides move to the list?

Do not add rides to the list 2-9
Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal. They were made by Banpresto, usable in arcades, and required money to play.
  2. JanMisali (talk) Per proposal, and per my Super Mario Ride vote.
No
  1. Camwoodstock (talk) You don't really interact with it aside from sitting on it; if there was a more game-ified aspect to it, kinda like Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car, maybe? But as it stands, this is a little too non-interactive.
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Once again, rides are not games. Except Būbū Mario. That is a game.
  4. Pseudo (talk) Seems like not so much a game as an automated experience; games require interactivity of some kind, I'd think.
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Once again per Camwoodstock and Rykitu.
  6. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  7. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  8. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  9. Platform (talk) Per all.

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

Deadline: April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT Extended to May 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Yes
  1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Per ourselves in the original proposal's comments; they are interactive games with a blatant physical, mechanical element to them. The lack of "video" isn't a hurdle so long as the Game & Watch games exist.
  3. Rykitu (talk) Per Camwoodstock twice more.
  4. Kaptain Skurvy (talk) Per all.
  5. JanMisali (talk) Per all.
  6. Pseudo (talk) Yeah, it's pretty much a type of game. Per Camwoodstock's comparison to Game & Watch.
  7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
No
  1. Nintendo101 (talk) per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
  2. Koopa con Carne (talk) Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
  3. SGoW (talk) Per all.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
  5. Waluigi Time (talk) Per all.
  6. YoYo (talk) Per all.
  7. Platform (talk) Per all.
  8. SmokedChili (talk) Per all.
  9. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.

The Comment Games

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

Also, Wikipedia does italicise Jenga. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 20:30, April 5, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

@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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (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 A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

@Hewer Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). Nelsonic (talk) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4872693"