MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
''None at the moment.''
<br clear="all">
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
|}
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki>.


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
==New features==
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
===Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists===
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive|these]] [[MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP_archive|pages]]. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#At the deadline, the validity of each vote and the discussion is reviewed by the community.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]"
#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 a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after school, weekend nights).
I have several pitches for you.


So for example, if a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is indeed a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
<big>'''''OPTION ZERO'''''</big><br>
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. <s>It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.</s>


__TOC__
''EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 current policy] — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if  this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.''


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
<big>'''''OPTION ONE'''''</big><br>
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of [[Talk:Yoshi_(species)#Properly_define_Brown_Yoshi|the Brown Yoshi proposal]] would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)


== New Features ==
The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed ''right now'', we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later


=== Abreviation Pages ===
I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.


I feel this should be added for begginers. I am proposing that abreviations commonly used in this Wiki should have their own page. It took me 2 months to find out what NPC means. If this does not happen, then I propose instead that we change all abreviations not used in games to be changed to what they really mean.
<big>'''''OPTION TWO'''''</big><br>
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they ''are'' added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Jaffffey/sig}} <br>
This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it ''is'' introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.
'''Deadline:''' January 24, 2008, 17:00


====Support====
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] I agree, because I'm new! I want to be able to learn things like that.
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} But only as redirects to their entries on the glossary, 'k?
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per Stumpers.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per the one who Stumps.


====Oppose====
This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to [[Talk:List_of_references_on_the_Internet#Determine_what_memes_should_be_on_the_Internet_references_page|this proposal]], but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.
#{{User:Time Q/sig}} This is Super Mario Wiki, not Abbreviation Wiki. <s>There may be people who do not know what "NPC" means, but we cannot explain everything (which we would have to do if we made articles on abbreviations). And where's the problem in searching Wikipedia for NPC? It does not take 2 months, it takes 2 seconds.</s> Er, per Cobold. (I didn't know about that Glossary page, which is indeed a good place for explaining these abbreviations.)
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - That's exactly what the [[Glossary]] is for.
#{{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} - Per Cobold.
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per Cobold
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per Cobold


====Comments====
''EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.''
Don't forget to vote on your owm proposal! Anyway, abreviations are annoying but I disagree with your secondary suggestion to cut them out if this translation-page proposal doesn't fly. One major problem people might have will be "canon vs. fanon" slang, but the page could always be divided into those respective sections... I dunno, I have to think about this one. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
<s>What's about a List of Abreviations used on the Mariowiki?</s> Ah, didn't see the Glossary.  --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 17:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)
 
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] That would work too! I just want someplace to learn the abbreveations. By the way, what does NPC mean?
:Non Player Character, Characters that appear in a game, but that you can't play as. Those are mainly enemies or generic towns-people in the RPG games. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:19, 17 January 2008 (EST)
 
Can't we do what Stumpers suggested and redirect abrieviations to their glossary entries?{{User:Knife/sig}} 16:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:Would be possible if they had entries in the glossary in the first place, which is currently not the case. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:17, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Cobold: I can help there.  So, what abbreviations are we talking about?  Just list 'em out and then I can take care of 'em all at once. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::Well, NPC for starters. I guess RPG is we wanna be thorough. What other abbreviations do we use a lot (besides things like SMB for [[Super Mario Bros.]] 'cuz those can simply be redirected to the actual game pages)? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::::They should be in the glossary as well, but I would redirect 'em to the actual game page, because the glossary will just say, "An achronym for ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', usually the game rather than the movie." {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 18 January 2008 (EST)
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 16:56, 20 January 2008 (EST) Cobold is right. "NPC" isn't in the glossary. I wouldn't know what it means unless Blitzwing told me.
 
'''''STUMPERS' LIST OF ABREVIATIONS TO ADD:''''' NPC, RPG, Bros. ''(everyone: feel free to add more!)''
 
== Removals ==


== Remove Circuit City ads ==
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
I propose that we remove the Circuit City ads and replace them with Best Buy ads, because my uncle is the manager of a Best Buy location, and it kind of offends me that there are Curcuit City ads (this '''IS'''the nephew of a Best Buy manager you're talking to).-{{User:KP Shadow/sig}}
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.


== Support ==
The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.


== Oppose ==
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


== Comments ==
====Option Zero====
==Splits & Merges==
#{{User|Jdtendo}} Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per Porple.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} perple montage
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the ''worst'' thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the ''whole wiki''. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
#{{User|Arend}} Per Porple.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} Per porplemontage.
#{{User|Salmancer}} Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.


===Merge the different colored Yoshi articles===
====Option One====
I propose that we merge [[Green Yoshi]], [[Cyan Yoshi]], [[Orange Yoshi]], etc. into one article. I find it unnessacarry to have seperate articles on each color. We can easily merge each color and it's abilities into one article.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive ''and'' that the status of each one is visible on the page.
#{{User|Salmancer}} There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.


'''Proposer''': [[User:King Boo|King Boo]]
====Option Two====
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} See my note about Option One.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.


'''Deadline''': January 23, 2008, 17:00
====Option Three====
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.


====Support====
<s>#{{User|Jdtendo}} Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.</s>
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - Per myself.


====Oppose, each color should have it's own article====
====Option Four====
#{{User:Purple Yoshi/sig}}I don't see what the problem is. The articles aren't stubs, why should we merge them?
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} As it stands, I'm gonna say no b/c of differences in ''[[Super Mario World]]''.  I could change easily, though.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per all. We touched on this subject in that old [[Green Bird|Isle]] [[Yellow Bird|Delfino]] [[Red Bird|Birds]] [[Blue Bird|proposal]] (which hasn't been fulfilled yet...) and decided these Yoshi pages stay... However inconveniant it is to flick through them all.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|THE YOSHI ARTICLES HAVE TO STAY APART. per all.}}
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]] Per all.
#[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] Yeah, I thought about it, and they each have enough info to stay seperate. I agree with everyone.. and, there'd be no Orange Yoshi article (no article of me!)
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] Per all except for the last 2 comments of Orangeyoshi.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Can you expand on your reasoning a little more?  I'm not sure which way I want to go yet. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:31, 16 January 2008 (EST)
{{@|Camwoodstock}} — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)


We had this proposal before, it did not pass. {{User:Time Q/sig}} 01:41, 17 January 2008 (EST)
I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
::The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--[[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] ([[User talk:PopitTart|talk]]) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
:::So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)


BlueYoshter, I don't understand what you mean by "THEY MUST STAY." Could you elaborate, please? {{User:ChaosNinji/sig}} This did fail before.
I feel like [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals/Header&diff=prev&oldid=4772367 this] is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (''some'' change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list [https://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/70#Clarify_coverage_of_the_Super_Smash_Bros._series several things] to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --{{User:Porplemontage/sig}} 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)


===Merge of the same stages/courses into one article and split the the different ones===
On a vaguely related note, why do "tie" and "failed to reach consensus" have two separate colours in the proposal archive when the former is essentially a type of the latter? I don't really see the difference between them besides the fact that the wiki used to call them "ties". I also counted no more than four "tied" proposals in the entire archive, the last one having been in 2011, so it seems strange and confusing to still be using a separate colour for it. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:38, March 18, 2025 (EDT)
I propose to merge the various courses from the spin-off series that have their own articles. This also goes for those who have appeared in main games before, and ''only'' have changed layouts, with (almost) identical names. One great example of this is [[Bowser's Castle]] from the main-games which has individual pages for [[Bowser Castle|the stages named Bowser('s) Castle in ''Mario Kart'']] and even [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|the Bowser Castle stadium in ''Mario Superstar Baseball'']] while the Bowser Castle-stage for ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'' is STILL in the main-game's article of Bowser's Castle.
:This is something I noticed as well while making the proposal — I kind of considered addressing it, but the proposal was already a bit sprawling, so bundling in a change to that seemed like a poor decision. If someone were to make a separate proposal to axe the "tie" color, I'd back it. [[User:Ahemtoday|Ahemtoday]] ([[User talk:Ahemtoday|talk]]) 14:10, March 18, 2025 (EDT)


I also propose to split the pages that have two or more entirely different stages in the same article, mostly the [[Super Smash Bros. (series)|''Super Smash Bros.'' stages]], such as the article with [[Super Smash Bros.|the original's]] and [[Super Smash Bros. Melee|''Melee's'']] [[Mushroom Kingdom (stage)|Mushroom Kingdom]], two ENTIRELY different stages. Well, you may think "But they have the same name and design!" No, they don't. All stages based on ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'' would have that design and the Melee versions is called Mushroom''':''' Kingdom, with "'''Mushroom'''" being the stage location and "'''Kingdom'''" the name.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


(BTW, I is not neutral to English and this is the first time I porposes so if anything is spelled wrong or wrong in any other way, feel free to edit this.)
==Changes==
 
===Give ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' an article===
'''Proposer''': [[User:KingMario|KingMario]]
''Taiko no Tatsujin'' has had numerous crossovers with the ''Mario'' franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual ''Mario'' characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.
 
'''Deadline''': January 26, 2008, 20:00
 
'''EDIT 20/01''': Looks like i forgot the idea to add a category in which users can support one idea only.
 
====Support====
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] Per KingMario.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig|per KingM}}
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] Per King Mario.
 
====Oppose====
 
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|i have to oppose cause those are '''''completley''''' different places.}}
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I like your second idea, not so much the first.  I wouldn't think you'd want to combine an article about a race track in a city and the city itself, would you?  Bowser's Castle is larger than most cities in the Mario series, so...  I wouldn't think that you'd want to combine these based on the fact that they have the same name.  Oh, and remember that we have articles on individual rooms in Luigi's Mansion?  We've already combined the clearly different racetracks, so at this point it'd be like making the article about the individual Toad a sub-portion of the article about his species.  Remember, we even split the [[Mr. E]] article (two minor subjects w/ same name = two articles). Merging is only applicable when you have minor subjects with different names, not major subjects with the same name.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per Stumpers.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per Stumpers. Bowser's Castle isn't the same castle in most games, anyway. It is a place in ''Super Mario World'', a flying building in ''Paper Mario'' and a Bowser-Statue-formed Battleship in ''Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga''.
 
====Supporting ''one'' idea====
#Nay to the First, Yea to the second. Per Stupers, in other words. {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
 
====Comments====
Are you gonna vote, KM? {{User:Dodoman/sig}}
:I'm split. No to the first, yes to the second. Where do I put my vote? O_o {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
::If we're merging areas in the spin-off games with the main games, than shouldn't the same be done for ''Super Smash Bros.'' stages? Your argument about how they're different places is valid, however the same could be said for al the other spin-off places (i.e. [[Bowser Castle (Mario Superstar Baseball)|MSB's Bowser Castle stadium]] is certainly not the same as the [[Bowser's Castle|Castle]] he actually ''lives'' in). Also, the individual stages of most games (except more obscure games like the Japanese-only ''[[Itadaki Street DS]]'') already have articles and not all of them have corresponding main-game areas, so it's going to be difficult acting on this Proposal. Then there's the other option of cramming all these odd-ball stages together into lists of stages for each game, which would also have links to the main-game artciles for the stages that were merged in that fashion. It's a very big and daunting undertaking, but I still don't want to vote against it, since if it's done right it ''could'' be beneficial... [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
 
=== Snifit or Snufit? ===
''Note: Message is edited from [[Talk:Snufit]]''
 
So, um, according to TMK, these guys' Japanese names are exactly the same as a normal Snifit's. On top of that, i and u are right next to each other on most English keyboards. They look nearly identical (especially in the remake, which makes almost all enemies look more like their traditional forms), and, floating aside, act identical as well--and the originals could jump and hover for a short time anyway. And this very wiki says that they were "accidentally" referred to as Snifits in one of the MPs anyway.... Considering all that, can we really say that they're intended to be different enemies? I'd suggest a merge.
 
'''Proposer:''' [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] and [[User:Knife|Knife]]<br>
'''Deadline:''' 26 January, 2008, 20:00
 
==== Keep as Snufit ====
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See comment below.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per below.
#{{User:BlueYoshter/sig|PER ALL. A snifit has ''legs''. A snufit is like a ghost snifit, but theyre different :P}}
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Per everyone.
 
==== Merge to Snifit ====
#[[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] - Per above.  Per below.  Per common sense.  Per logic.  And, most importantly, per the designers' own designation!
 
==== Comments ====
They're different species, but I do see what you're getting at with your arguments on the talk page. I agree that it's strange how Koopa Troopas started out quardrupedial and are now totally different but retain the same name. If it were up to me, the 4-legged ones would be called [[Shellcreeper]]s and only the anthropormorphic turtles would be Troopas, but it's not up to me, it's up to ''Nintendo'', and they say they're all Koopa Troopas. It's the same case with the [[Paratroopa]]s: they're just [[Koopa Troopa]]s with wings, but they've been given different names so we have to say they're different species, and the same goes for [[Snifit]]s and [[Snufit]]s. Of course, I'd still want to list Paratroopas as their own species (or at least sub-species) anyway, since they look and act different from Koopa Troopas, which are the main criteria for determining species in biology (aside from genetics, which doesn't really apply here as this is the '''fictional''' ''[[Marioverse]]'' where DNA means squat and anything can happen, including a species getting its wings knocked off and ''magically'' turning into another species). Maybe Snifits and Snufits ''were'' meant to be the same thing, but they're not. They act and look different, just like the two kinds of Koopa Troopas, and just like Paratroopas and Troopas; but like the latter, they got seperate names. It doesn't matter if it was a typo, ''Nintendo'' has spoken and we're obligated to follow it. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


I just want to point out that if this proposal pass, we should also perhap split the [http://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Goomba&action=edit&section=5 Super Mario World Goomba] from the [[Goomba]] article since they act differently and haves a different name in the Japanese localisation, which is kinda the opposite of this "Snifit = Snufit?" deal. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 12:22, 20 January 2008 (EST)
*The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=870WLPGnnKs using imagery from the games].
*The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkcrnhCfrtw Super Mario Bros.]" Notably, the videos include [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO31iswKX84 actual characters and imagery from the game showing up]. The former has nearly every enemy from the original ''Super Mario Bros.''
*''Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version!'' has "[[Fever]]" from ''[[Dr. Mario]]''. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
*''Nintendo Switch Version!'' has "[[Jump Up, Super Star!]]" from ''[[Super Mario Odyssey]]''.
*The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from ''Dr. Mario''. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and [[Super Star]]s appear [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxXo0oHzZg when notes are hit].
*''Blue Version'' has [[Cappy]] has an equippable hat.
*''Rhythm Festival'' has a medley of music from ''Super Mario Bros.'', re-used from earlier games.


''Mario'' has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off ''[[Donkey Konga]]'' and [[Don-chan]] being a playable character in ''[[Mario Kart Arcade GP DX]]''. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think ''Taiko'' is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.


Exactly.  Whether NoA screwed up the localization or not, they were designed as the same characters (Snifit example) and different characters (Goomba example), and we should respect that.  I mean, come on--Bloopers were known as Bloobers in a few games, but we aren't rushing to make new pages for those!  You say it's up to Nintendo, Walkazo--well, Nintendo says they're the same.  Just because NoA typoed doesn't change that fact.  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:14, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
:Your Blooper example doesn't work: Blooper and Blooper look and act '''exactly''' the same way. Snufit and Snifit are obliviously different (If similar) creature, beside, we are an english-speaking wiki, I think it make sense to follow the American localisation. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 13:17, 20 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT


::Come on. The Japanese creators of a Japanese game say they're the same species. The American translators change one easily-typoed letter, be it by accident or otherwise, and redesign them even less drastically than others that remain the same species. They then proceed to call them by the "other species"'s name even in American publications. Where's the logic in saying they're different? There is not a single argument for keeping it Snufit that doesn't apply to dozens of other changes you never questioned. The American localization has screwed up in the past.  We don't follow those mistakes.  What makes this one different?  [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 13:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
====Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)====
:::The difference between this case and [[Pakkun Flower]] (which is a half-translated Piranha Plant), is that Snufits actually ''look different'' and have ''different abilities'' (flying). So as there is already an official name for this sub-species, we should use it. Because these are a sub-species, not regular Snifits. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:26, 20 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
::::NoJ says otherwise. [[User:Dazuro|Dazuro]] 15:19, 20 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
:::::I was not referring to the name, but the appearance. Check again. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 08:10, 21 January 2008 (EST)
#{{User|Hewer}} This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got [[Just Dance (series)]] a page. Now we just need to figure out whether [[Mametchi|Tamagotchi]] gets one...
#{{User|Killer Moth}} Per proposal.


==Changes==
====Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)====
===Citing Sources===
Around the wiki, we have always been quite lazy citing our sources. We do not have any system of giving references like at Wikipedia, and everyone just adds information he has taken from a random site. The best example for this is ''[[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]'', which got flooded with information from questionable sites, or the name of the site was not given at all. In order to save our credibility, I suggest that we start to quote our sources, as long as they are not the game (/comic/TV episode/Brawl Dojo) itself, either, if we can get it, by Wikipedia's reference system or by simply by adding an external link like this: [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals]. This should prevent further unsourced speculation in the articles, and also prevent random questionable Trivia items like on [[Princess Rosalina]], as currently, to quote the user, there is "no need to source".


'''Proposer:''' {{User:Cobold/sig}}<br>
====Comments' Perfect Math Class====
'''Deadline:''' January 22nd, 17:00 (EDT)
{{@|Scrooge200}}, have you considered waiting until the proposal [[#Introducing the crossover article|immediately above]] is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for ''Taiko no Tatsujin'' at all if it were to be pass. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
:Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just ''Zelda''. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::''Zelda'' is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
::{{@|Scrooge200}} By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on ''Super Mario''. [[User:Super Mario RPG|Super Mario RPG]] ([[User talk:Super Mario RPG|talk]]) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)


====Use Reference System====
===Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.===
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per above.
Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like [[Cape Mario|swinging a cape]], [[Flying Squirrel Mario|jumping in the air]], or even a slew of [[Link|Link’s moves]]! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding [[Tail whip]])
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}} - Per Cobold and it is illegal to get info from someone/where else and not say who/where you got it from.
#[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] I thought of doing a proposal about this matter, but Cobold beat me to it. Per Cobold.
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} I'm loving this.  Can we also start using the image infobox template to show which site we got it from in the "source" section rather than the game it is from?
#{{User:Ghost Jam/sig}} Haha, I always thought we had a reference system...we just didn't use it. But, yeah, it's needed.
#{{User:Knife/sig}} 17:35, 15 January 2008 (EST) A lot of effort but a lot of reward. Our wiki's credibility is  important.
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}}I certainly don't see why not, and it's not like it's very hard to cite sources.
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} Per Cobold. I'm so sick of this unsourced crap! We need to know WHERE you found the information.
#{{User:RAP/sig}} Per all. Does it include the images in this database that needed cite sources too?
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Per DP, wait that's per-ing Cobold
#[[User:King Boo|That Guy]] We should definitely cite the sources.
#{{User:MarioBros777/sig}}Of course we should have this, it has helped on many occasions when doing so on Wikipedia. Per all.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} I'm down with everything everyone said.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} It's a big job but it needs to be done.
#[[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:47, 18 January 2008 (EST) See comment below.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - Per All.


==== Use not ====
If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if [[Builder Mario]] had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if [[Mole Yoshi]] had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the [[Super Pickax]] had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)
#{{User:Peachycakes 3.14/sig}} Not only is it annoying for everyone to always have to cite they're sources, but why should your edits be reversed because of it. Yes, some of it might be spam, but most of it isn't, and if it looks suspicious you could ask them where they found it. Or even wait for the game to come out.  
#{{User:Glitchman/sig}} That's not a very good example, most if not all of the information on Brawl's page is from Dojo!, and there's already a link for that.  Peachycakes also has a point.
#{{User:Mewtwo49/sig}} Per Glitchman.


==== Comments ====
But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:
Alphaclaw11: It's only illegal when the author holds the right on it. For information about Nintendo video games, you may always use it as a part of press freedom (when new game), and because Nintendo does not mind (obviously). The sites like IGN don't own the right on Brawl information, for example. Only when you copy a text 1:1 (e.g. GameFAQs walkthrough), it's possibly a copyright violation without naming the author. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:05, 15 January 2008 (EST)


I know but arent you talking about non-oficail sites. [[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:09, 15 January 2008 (EST)
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
:IGN is an unofficial site. As long as the content we take from unofficial sites is about a Nintendo game, it's Nintendo's intellectual property, not the site's. And Nintendo game information/images are used on the whole wiki already under Nintendo's terms:
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
{{LLquote|All content on this website, including articles, artwork, screen shots, graphics, logos, digital downloads and other files, '''may not be used''' on any other web site, in any publications, in public performances, in connection with any product or service that is not Nintendo's, '''in any manner that is likely to cause confusion among customers, in any manner that disparages or discredits Nintendo, or in any manner that is otherwise exploitative for any commercial purpose or that otherwise infringes Nintendo's intellectual property rights'''.|Nintendo|[http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/index.html Smash Bros. DOJO!!]}}
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])
:So as long as these criteria are met and we quote or rephrase other sites, it's perfectly legal to take their information. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:15, 15 January 2008 (EST)


Okay[[User:Alphaclaw11|Alphaclaw11]] 12:20, 15 January 2008 (EST) but still, if it is from a non-offical site then you need to say where you got it in cause it was wrong
I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared two base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.
:Of course. That's what this is about. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:35, 15 January 2008 (EST)


Citation extensions literally cover MediaWiki.com on sub-pages galore, which I assume is Wikipedia's shortcut <nowiki><references></nowiki>. If we really want to go that far, it can be done. {{User:Wayoshi/sig}} 15:49, 15 January 2008 (EST)
Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would [[Mega Yoshi]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Would [[Penguin Mario]] be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? If we gave the field form of [[Luiginoid Formation#Ball|Luiginary Ball]] a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer?
:That would be great, clears the article from the links but also explains the page without the user having to click it. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)


Stumpers: The current rules of the {{tem|aboutfile}} template say that the source website should indeed be listed as "source". The problem is more that currently, older files didn't get the update, and we don't have a section for the game any more. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 16:56, 15 January 2008 (EST)
As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how [[Dash]] handles the [[Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga)]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4431004&oldid=4421941 Relevant Edit]) and the [[Spin Dash]] ([https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Dash&diff=4435629&oldid=4431024 Relevant Edit]). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.


What if we're drawing from our personal experiences, do we cite the games themselves? Cuz that might seem a bit redundant, ex: ''"In [[Super Paper Mario]], [[Mario]], [[Luigi]], [[Peach]] and [[Bowser]] are on a quest to stop [[Count Bleck]] from destroying all the dimensions [Super Paper Mario, 2007]."'' (I know it's not a  proper citation, but you get the point). Also, what if you see screenshots of a game on a website, which to you cite? - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on [[Spin Jump]], Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on [[Swim]], Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on [[Roll]], and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely [[Fireball]], [[Ice Ball]], [[Hammer]], and [[Bubble]]. Builder Boxes are [[Crate]]s, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with [[Superball Mario]] years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. [[Yoshi]]'s [[Swallow]], [[Egg Throw]], et al, [[Baby DK]]'s [[DK Dash Attack]], [[Diddy Kong]]'s [[Diddy Attack]] and [[Barrel Jet]], and [[Rambi]]'s [[Super move|Supercharge]] and [[Charge (Donkey Kong Country series)|Charge]] are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. [[SMB2 Mario]] is bizarre, but [[Crouching High Jump|charge jump]] is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in ''Super Mario Bros. 2'' proper, and the article doesn’t have a ''Super Mario Maker 2'' section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.
:IMO, what we should do is this: don't bother with siting a game on its own page and only site it once in its section in a bibliography. If you mention an event from the game in relationships, you should site it as well. But, let's see what the people who actually know what they're talking about think. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)
::Read above, I've mentioned it, of course you don't have to cite the games! This is mostly about unreleased games or other statements drawn from the internet. And even then, you don't have to mention the Smash Bros. Dojo 100,000 times in the Brawl article, it's okay when it is linked to only at the top. But [[Bob Hoskins]] could get a link to the Guardian interview which is avaiable on their website. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)


<nowiki>*</nowiki>AHEM* I have one problem with this proposal... Everyone looks at citing sources as just like on Wikipedia, but it's not really, we're about a series of video games, so the source could be the actual game itself. Everyone says things like "We need to know WHERE you FOUND the information" as if the internet is the only thing we have to find information about a ''series of video games''. I don't really see it being easy to just say "I played the game itself" on this place, seeing as how people seem to LOVE arguing about that kind of stuff, and it could be used to back up conjectural information for more minor video games. Of course, I don't really see how this would majorly effect citing sources much, since conjectural information is rarely placed on articles anyway... But, it may still cause conflicts, especially when it comes to obscure games. </pointless rant> {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut [[Fly]], an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a [[User:Salmancer/List of methods of flight|userpage]], based on the existing [[List of power-ups]]. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article.
:I thought you could site non-internet sources, though?  Maybe we could ask for people to say which chapter or something (for Paper Mario) or level (for SMG) they got the information from when they site their sources?  I dunno. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 22:31, 15 January 2008 (EST)


I think the sourcing system here (If this proposal pass) should perhap be less strict than Wikipedia. There, every bit of cretinous informations like "X organisation is the bad guy of the game" or "X character return from the previous game" require to be sourced, even if the information can be found in the game itself. I think only really obscure info (Like [[Nastasia]] having a crush on [[Count Bleck]]) or things like the crap about Rosalina being related to Peach in SMG beta should be sourced. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 06:55, 16 January 2008 (EST)
[[Tail whip]] was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into [[Raccoon Mario]] for 2D games and [[Tanooki Mario]] for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect.  While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of [[White Raccoon Mario]] and [[White Tanooki Mario]] to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. [[Tail]]s are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to [[Cape]], which used to compile [[Cape Mario]] and [[Superstar Mario]] into a listicle before this [[Talk:Cape#Clean up this article to include only information in the Super Smash Bros. series|proposal]] reduced it to the Smash Bros. attack.
:You're right, we shouldn't get on Wikipedia level. It's mostly about speculation here. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:20, 16 January 2008 (EST)


Peachycakes 3. 14:You know, we can alway use the (in)famous "citation needed" tag of Wikipedia if the information isn unsourced.  For what we know, the information added could be one of those "I heard somewhere that..." deal whose original meaning get warped over time. Sourcing mean we can verify the credibility of the infos. --[[User:Blitzwing|Blitzwing]] 18:16, 16 January 2008 (EST)
Oh yeah and I guess [[Strike of Intuition]] is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to [[Detective Peach]]. Given everything else, it gets merged too.


Alright, I too think we should cite. HOWEVER: I have done many things here that I just pulled out my DS and started looking for info. How the heck are we supposed to cite that? I never even go to other websites for info. I just look it up in the game or the guide. Another thing: how are we supposed to quote Official Guides? it's a bit hard... {{User:InfectedShroom/sig}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
:A "reference" isn't necessarily a link. It may as well be simply a text string which reads "Nintendo Power Official Super Mario *enter game name here* Guide, page XX". At least, that is what Wikipedia's reference system allows perfectly well. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 13:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Well, probably we could do like what Geographers do when the map maps.  They write "Field Work" so just replace it with "Own Source" or something... {{User:MarioBros777/sig}} Could work...
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.


:We need to know where we get our info. Before I posted a message on the talk page of shrowser, I didn't know the name was official because it didn't say where the name came from. If we don't give our sources, a lot of questions will be asked like mine. [[User:MarioGalaxy2433g5|MarioGalaxy2433g5]] 22:56, 18 January 2008 (EST)
====Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is====
::I've done that a lot, too.  Right now I'm trying to find where the term "Earth" was used to describe the "Real World" from the cartoon shows.  Could have saved me a lot of time if someone noted that. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 16:47, 19 January 2008 (EST)


== Miscellaneous ==
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list====
===Outside Info===
Recently, I've seen a very large amount of Super Smash Bros. content all over the wiki, which includes stages, items, and all sorts of other junk taken from all kinds of other series'. I'll put it plain and simple, I believe that we should removed this immense amount of uneeded Super Smash Bros. series stuff(Including cutting down on the insane page for the game, [[Super Smash Bros. Brawl]]), since we are the ''Super 'Mario' Wiki'', not the ''Super Smash Bros. Wiki'', and with the amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl content we could even be the ''Super Smash Bros. 'Brawl' Wiki''. I know that this is the exact opposite of a proposal I previously made, but things like this just seem totally wrong how we're doing it... Everyone said no to my last proposal, but after it was archived, the immense amount of Super Smash Bros. Brawl info continued to flow in, mostly about the stages, items, and character that where shown on ''Smash Bros DOJO!!'', and it almost seemed like everyone would have liked my proposal if it had instead been "Add more '''Super Smash Bros''' content to the wiki". If you havn't noticed from this whole thing, I am proposing that we shorten, merge, and delete pages relating only to the Super Smash Bros. series, or other series' that where introduced to the Mario Wiki through Super Smash Bros.


'''Proposer:''' [[User:Uniju :D|Uniju :D]]<br>
====Oppose: Status quo====
'''Deadline:''' January 22, 2008, 17:00
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, <s>so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate [[Mariowiki:Once and only once]]</s> {{color|purple|EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find}}. Furthermore, we do not merge ''character''-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-''Mario'' characters in the ''Super Smash Bros.'' series) - for instance, look at [[Scuttle]] and [[Flutter Jump]] - so why should we do so with forms?
#{{User|Nintendo101}} I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.


====Support, we are the Super ''Mario'' wiki====
====Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)====
#{{user:Crypt Raider/sig}} I get sick of this SBB being Marfio 100%  crap.
I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User:Uniju :D/sig}} Forgot this... Per myself.
#{{User:NintendoExpert89}} Mixing Mario with something else does not make it Mario related. Please see my "comment" below.


====Oppose====
Question; would this merge [[Fireball Punch]], and would this failing result in re-instating [[Talk:Dangan Mario|Dangan Mario]]? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} It features several Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong and Wario characters as major playable characters, and has several Mario-based items and stages, moreso than any other series, at least. I think it is worthy to be part of the extended Mario series.
:Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
#{{User:Master Crash/sig}} Per DP.
#[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - What if people want to know other stuff BESIDES the Mario content? We should cover EVERYTHING. It wouldn't be fair to only cover Mario content, in such an important series. I oppose this proposal. I am 100% against it.  
#{{User:Alphaclaw11/sig}}Per PDP
#{{User:Mr. Guy/sig}} Let's have everything SSB related, but let's keep it below information from other series (The trophy info is fine)
#{{User:Stumpers/sig}} Uniju, didn't you previously want a page for everything?  Merging is unpredictable: you do it once and more stuff follows. Will the Yoshi and DK series be next if we do this?
#[[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]Per DP! Although this is a MarioWiki, let's not pull a Wikipedia and cut down articles that give usefull infomation.
#{{User:Cobold/sig}} - Per all. Considering that your argument is that the Brawl article is too long, I wonder whether this is even a reason to qualify as a vote. Also, I've removed the tag of the "Oppose" header because while Smash Bros. can stay, it still doesn't mean that we need an article on NBA Street V3 which had Mario, Luigi and Peach as guest characters. That's a place for [[Game Sightings]] still.
#{{User:Xluidi/sig}} - Per all. And Uniju you're so inmature that you're leaving.
#[[User:huntercrunch|huntercrunch]] Per all. Also, might I add, SSB IS closely related to the Mario series.
#[[User:Booster|Booster]] Keep, but see my comment.
#[[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]] - See below comment.
#{{User:InfectedShroom/sig}} Super Mario Wiki we are, but who cares if we have SSB articles? Per all.
#{{User:Glitchman/sig2}} Per Booster and Walkazo.
#[[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] [[User:Paper Jorge|Paper Jorge]] [[Image:Paperjorgesp.png]] Per all, specially Cobold.
#{{User:Jdrowlands/sig}} Per all. We MUST keep all this.


====Comments====
{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}} for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Once_and_only_once&diff=4723954&oldid=4372233 retired]. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:Thanks, wish I'd known that before. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


DP & Crash(and the rest of the hoard coming to per him): I see where your coming from, but just because there's Mario stuff in it, that doesn't mean we should cover the whole thing. Do we cover all about the TV shows Mario cameos in? And, KingBoo, that's not what everyone said last time, everyone said that we should just link to other sites. Which I now see is the better way to do it. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the [[Luigi Cap]]. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..
:That's a cameo, its just minor, and has no significance. Smash Bros. features a major role for Mario and his friends. In fact, there's more Mario content in the game than any other series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} I'm just saying, Mario and his allies play a major role in Smash Bros.
<blockquote>After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies. </blockquote> - [[Penguin Mario]]
::Putting it that way, scroll up. Look at Banjo and Conker, who both have a large connection to the Mario Series are both being kicked off the wiki. It seems to me that your all simply biased towards Super Smash Bros. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}} I expect the only response to be "Your biased against it", so please give a VALID argument.
The system works! It's repeated for [[White Raccoon Mario]] in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for [[Power Squirrel Mario]] to [[Flying Squirrel Mario]], with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::I'm not gonna say that, Uni, so stop being so immature. Banjo and Conker only made minor appearances in one game, with them being kicked out in the remake. After that, their respective series never got linked to the Mario series again, or Donkey Kong, for that matter. They became their own unique series with no relation to DK or Mario, whereas Smash Bros. brings in attributes from the Mario, Yoshi, DK and Wario series. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}}
[[User:King Boo|King Boo]] - You just said it yourself, Uniju. We are the MARIO wiki. Therefore we should completely cover every game that has MARIO content.
::::If Super Smash Bros. has content from Mario, then we should cover the content from Mario. I don't see why we need to cover EVERYTHING ELSE. And I don't see why all the stages and such can't just be tossed into a table like a lot of things can. {{User:Uniju :D/sig}}
:::::Ya see, here's the problem. If we ONLY cover the Mario-based information from Smash Bros., then the Smash Bros. articles are worthless. What's the point of covering one side of the game, but not covering the other side? If it has Mario in it, we should at least mention it, right? But, the Smash Bros. articles would have no use if it did not tell you EVERYTHING that's in the game. {{User:Pokemon DP/sig}} If you get rid of Smash Bros., you must get rid of the Final Fantasy articles as well.
::::::On a related note, I DO think that the items don't deserve articles, or the moves. [[User:HyperToad|HyperToad]]
:::::::Could you explain why? Especially about the [[Final Smash]]es we have a lot to say, more than about [[Flutter Jump]]. Of course we shouldn't have articles on A attacks, but Special Moves and Items pages are created for the mainstream Mario articles as well, so I don't see a reason why not Smash Bros. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 12:24, 16 January 2008 (EST)
The proposal is right about one thing. A LOT of emphasis (too much?) goes into the Smash Bros. articles. If something appeared, or is going to appear in a Smash game, it's guaranteed to have proper coverage, and will never be in danger of being a poorly-written stub. Looking at the front page right now, all three news articles are about Brawl. The featured article? Melee. We ''do'' look like the Smash Wiki just from glancing at the front page. Too much attention is being given to the Smash Bros. games. I know they're uber popular and everything, but they shouldn't be the center of attention on the ''Mario'' Wiki. I'm not saying that we can't have all these articles, but that the people who write them should dip into other subjects when they get the chance. Look at [[Super Mario Bros.]] or [[Super Mario Bros. 3]]. Landmark games with lousy articles for what they are. -- [[User: Booster|Booster]]
:It wouldn't be got not to feature Super Smash Bros. Melee but instead Super Mario Bros. 3, simply because Super Mario Bros. 3 is quite a bad article. That's also something, and if you want to change it, you'd have to sit down yourself and work on the article. It's possible, most of the work on the Melee article was done by myself. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 17:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)
As long as we only give a brief background on non-Mario things like in the [[Link]] article these articles are fine (because it's still relevant to ''Mario''). As others have said already, these games are ''Mario'' games, just like ''[[Mario Hoops 3-on-3]]'', only instead of one crossover series there's several. The very name ''Super Mario '''Bros.''''' is homage to ''Mario'' and Mario being a playable character could make it more of a ''Mario'' game in some peoples' eyes than things like ''[[Donkey Kong Country]]'' or ''[[Wario Land 4]]'' that have no sign of Mario at all. Yes, ''Smash Bros.'' is a bit over-hyped, but its a good series and with a new instalation about to come out it's bound to get lots of attention. Step back and wait for the game to be released and all the information digested into the Wiki before deciding what should stay and what should be merged... But the proposal probably won't fly then either. - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]
::Kind of in line with what you were saying, we cover what we do on the Wiki because of the relation to the main Mario video games.  The movie wasn't in the same world or with the same characters (just the same names and general roles), but we still have it there because it's part of the history of the Mario series.  Smash Bros. is the same, so the question shouldn't be "Should we limit SSB articles" but "Should we limit articles on subjects that follow alternate storylines?" And then you get into a whole crudload of speculation. {{User:Stumpers/sig}} 21:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:::Too true, makes me think of that old expression: "leave well-enough alone." - [[User:Walkazo|Walkazo]]


----
"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think that these connections being made between series is getting a little far-fetched. I myself believe the amount of Smash content should be limited, and I have a reason why. I may have a tough time explaining (I might be sounding like I'm being contradicting here and there), so please don't fret if you cannot understand.


Alright, the Smash Bros series is closely related to Mario, as some of you argue. But "closely" is not the same as "directly": Smash series did not come straight from Mario. Smash is more like a salad of different Nintendo (and other) series blended together. Mario being mixed with everybody else does not make them all related to Mario. The Yoshi, Wario, and DK series are Mario related, because they stemmed directly from the Mario universe. Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and everyone else there is Mario related, because they are part of the DK series (stemming from Mario). But, characters like Conker and Banjo did not stem out from Mario, but from DK and thus became a whole different franchise altogether. From this we can conclude we should only cover characters and whatnot that are within the Mario universe  and those that stemmed directly from it. But now you all must be thinking "what about Sonic? He and Mario are in a game together!" ''Mario & Sonic'' is a Mario game to begin with but had allowed Sonic, a completely different character, to be a guest in the universe. So the Sonic characters that appeared there should be covered on the Wiki as they were directly put within or extremely near the Mario universe for at least a while. The Smash series differs from this situation in that it is several video game universes in one big collage, rather than a direct implementation of one universe into another. It doesn't focus directly at Mario, Sonic, Pokemon, or at Pikmin. All of them are in for it.
Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until ''Super Mario 3D Land'', despite it being usable by that form in ''Super Mario Bros. 3''? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine. <blockquote>In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, '''in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves''', making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario Bros. 3'' section.
:<blockquote>However, the form's mechanics are different from ''Super Mario Bros. 3'', as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing {{button|3ds|X}} or {{button|3ds|Y}}) and glide (now done by holding {{button|3ds|A}} or {{button|3ds|B}}, as with [[Cape Mario|Caped Mario]], rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay. </blockquote> - [[Tanooki Mario]], ''Super Mario 3D Land'' section.
:Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the ''3D Land'' text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat ''3D Land'', is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the [[Tanooki Mario]] page on Super Mario Wiki!"
:::In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on [[Tail whip]] to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
:::::I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is ''Mario Kart'' Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in ''Mario Kart Tour'' with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a ''Mario Kart'' series "sentence long section with a <nowiki>{{main}}</nowiki> link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.[[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
::::::IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)


So, back my first point: the Smash series is a big (mostly Nintendo) video game collage; the series doesn't solely take place in the Mario universe. Several franchises meet together, but doesn't make them related as they didn't originate from one another. Zelda did not come from Mario, and neither did Pokemon, Metroid, Star Fox, etc. Therefore the Mario Wiki is being cluttered with many articles that not even related to Mario: only because Mario is in the game. Sonic is a very loose exception, as he and Mario were the direct focus of the game mentioned earlier-- Well... look, I'm not saying we should simply throw out all things non-Mario, I'm saying that they should be controlled. I myself suggest that we do directly focus on primarily on the Mario components and gameplay of Brawl and Melee while giving mention to the other franchises within. I suggest links to non-Mario Smash articles (Link, Final Cutter, Smashville, End of Day) be replaced with links to those at Smash Wiki's. This way, I believe it does not ignore the majority of Smash itself, but rather lets more appropriate sources fill that void. I hope at least many of you were able to see what I'm saying. --[[User:NintendoExpert89|NintendoExpert89]] 02:07, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Miscellaneous==
:I cannot follow your reasons about ''Mario and Sonic'' being different to Smash Bros. Also, we will stay independent from SmashWiki, it's something completely different and not written in a neutral style. It does have nothing to do with the MarioWiki and will stay that way in the future. Same goes for "the Userpedia" and all that stuff. Second, it was initially decided to feature the Smash Bros. series on the wiki because the ''majority'' (not absolute, but relative) of its content is indeed featuring the Mario universe. Currently, removing the Smash Bros. content from the Wiki again would look like a foolish attempt which, in my opinion, is only triggered because the articles have been expanded that much. Long articles on Smash Bros. are not to be discriminated against by Mario articles of the same length, as per the [[MarioWiki:Importance Policy|Importance Policy]]. The Smash Bros. series is related to the Mario series enough to be featured in here, as are other crossovers like ''Mario & Sonic''. And this still doesn't mean that we should include Banjo or Conker or games were Mario made a cameo in. My vote is mainly because I don't want to lose all the work I put into the articles, that's true as well. In my opinion, if we hadn't wanted Smash on the Wiki, we should have decided it earlier, now you're too late. - {{User:Cobold/sig}} 15:34, 18 January 2008 (EST)
''None at the moment.''
::Wouldn't Smash Bros fall into the same category as the Wario & DK games in that they all stem back to the Mario series - Kamicciolo
[[User:Orangeyoshi|Orangeyoshi]] 17:18, 20 January 2008 (EST) Super Smash Bros. articles are fine. But I don't think those games should be considered part of the main Mario series. They're not even really Mario spin-offs-- they're more like general Nintendo character games. When I read the [[ESRB]] article, it said no Mario, Yoshi, Donkey Kong, or Yoshi game had ever been rated EC, M, or AO. That made me curious about what game was rated T. When I found out it was SSB Melee, I was like, "Oh, THAT game." On this wiki, it's considered to much as part of the series. The articles are fine. But that's what I have to say about this matter.

Latest revision as of 14:10, March 18, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, March 19th, 04:52 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. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
  3. 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.
  4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
  20. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
  21. 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 sub-issues that can be resolved independently of each other. In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and Support/Oppose subheadings. The rules above apply to each option as if it were a its a two-option proposal: users may vote Support or Oppose on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
^ NOTE: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
Create new sections for gallery pages to cover "unused/pre-release/prototype/etc." graphics separate from the ones that appear in the finalized games, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 2, 2024)
Use the classic and classic link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)
Split off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Implement crossover articles, Nintendo101 (ended March 17, 2025)
Add headings for first topics of talk pages that lack one, Jdtendo (ended March 17, 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 Toad wearing headphones off from Jammin' Toad, PrincessPeachFan (ended March 7, 2025)
Split Super Mario Maker helmets from Buzzy Shell and Spiny Shell (red), PopitTart (ended March 12, 2025)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Establish a format for poll proposals on the archive lists

Something that's slipped through the cracks when we invented poll proposals was what we do when we add them to these pages. We can't simply have one link to the poll proposal — the entire purpose of the format is that different parts of it can pass and fail independently of one another. What color do we put a proposal where one thing fails and another thing succeeds in?

I have several pitches for you.

OPTION ZERO
Do nothing. I'm putting this at the front because I want to leave room for any good-sounding solutions beyond the four I'm about to suggest. It's here on the proposal at all because I'm pretty sure I'm legally obligated to put it here, but I'll be honest — I'm not entirely sure what this winning would... mean. Our hand will eventually be forced when our first poll proposal fully resolves, so a format will be established one way or the other.

EDIT: It has been helpfully pointed out that there is a current policy — they are red if they all issues fail, gray if at least one passes and is unimplemented, and green if at least one passes and all issues are implemented. A "one issue changes the color" kind of rule. It's definitely not insensible, but I feel that we could be conveying more information. Still, even if this if the "fail option", we have a policy now, so I got what I wanted even if this one wins.

OPTION ONE
The different issues of a poll proposal share a number corresponding to when the first issue closes. They're listed separately, and distinguished from each other via letters. As an example, the three parts of the Brown Yoshi proposal would slot in at #83A, #83B, and #83C. (That would shove some other proposals down; we could also just append them to the end of the list like normal and brush off the inconsistency if y'all prefer.)

The Brown Yoshi proposal is also a handy demonstration of an edge case we have to contend with — if this proposal passed right now, we would list #83A as red and #83B as gray, but what would happen with #83C, which is still ongoing? This is the aspect on which Options One and Two differ. In Option One, issues are not added to the archive page until they close. The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later

I would like to note that the Brown Yoshi proposal is a remarkably well-behaved example. If the issues were ordered differently, we may at one point have #83A and #83C on the list with no #83B until later.

OPTION TWO
Option Two is identical to Option One except in how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals. In this option, they are added to the list alongside the other issues, and marked with a new color — let's say black.

This prevents the awkward gaps we would be susceptible to in Option One, but it is introducing a whole color for a temporary edge case.

OPTION THREE
Option Three is simpler. We create a new color in the archive for poll proposals — I guess let's say black again. Poll proposals get added to the archive when all issues on them are closed.

This saves space (the other options will have to give fourteen entries to this proposal, but it means the entry on the list doesn't reflect anything about any individual issue's status, such as whether it's been implemented or not.

EDIT: Camwoodstock's pitch below of using three colors (and, implicitly, adding the poll proposal to the archive when it has any closed issues) doesn't entirely eliminate that negative, but it does seem much more useful than just having the one color.

OPTION FOUR
Option Four is simpler still. Each issue is treated as if it were an entirely separate proposal. Each gets numbered and appended to the list when it closes regardless of what anything else in the poll proposal is up to.

The negative of this way of doing it is that the issues of a poll proposal may end up strewn about the list in a way that doesn't really reflect that they're a related thing.

Proposer: Ahemtoday (talk)
Deadline: March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Option Zero

  1. Jdtendo (talk) Per Porple "Steve" Montage in the comments.
  2. Waluigi Time (talk) Per Porple.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) perple montage
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Porple in the comments, though admittedly this is more of a secondary option to our more robust version of Option Three we pitched. Status quo isn't the worst thing in the world, and we do acknowledge our more robust solution of "dark colors" may be a bit harder to convey as we've been slowly rolling out... Well, a dark mode for the whole wiki. (If it was down to us, the poll proposals would use lighter colors in dark mode, before you ask; of course, if that option somehow wins, we'd be down to help fine-tune it.)
  5. Arend (talk) Per Porple.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per porplemontage.
  7. Salmancer (talk) Oh, huh. I suppose this is a solved problem then.

Option One

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) It's either this or Option Two for me — it's important to me that the issues end up next to each other on the archive and that the status of each one is visible on the page.
  2. Salmancer (talk) There's no rule saying a poll proposal has to be for small things, since part of the premise was reducing the need for large numbers of combination options. There could be poll proposals that have wide scopes, and as such I think we're going to have to stomach the poll proposals with 10+ proposals in them to make it easier to track policy without thumbing through old proposal pages. Also an archive is for the past, not the present.

Option Two

  1. Ahemtoday (talk) See my note about Option One.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Secondary option, but we do think darker shades of the colors (a-la our pitch for Option Three) would be nice. Helps distinguish at a glance what was a poll proposal.

Option Three

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) We would like to pitch a more sophisticated variant of this; 3 new colors. One for a poll that has concluded, one for one that's partially ongoing, and one for a poll that has been partially overturned by a future proposal. Maybe dark green, dark gray/maybe a de-saturated dark green a-la the Shroom Spotlight template, and a dark yellow? The darker colors, of course, to contrast with the non-poll proposals. (On dark mode, we'd probably make these lighter, rather than darker, provided we actually even add dark mode compatibility to the proposal archive colors.)
  2. Rykitu (talk) Per all.
  3. Ahemtoday (talk) I definitely see the appeal in having poll proposals under a singular listing, but I think they'd be better served by having one or multiple new colors rather than using the standard red and green.

#Jdtendo (talk) Listing every single poll would probably take a lot of space whereas the whole purpose of a poll proposal is bringing together many similar polls that would be too cumbersome to handle separately. I would prefer having a single proposal listed as "Determine what memes should be on the Internet references page" that users can click on to check the detailed results rather than cluttering the list with a dozen links.

Option Four

Comments

@Camwoodstock — I definitely think your pitch for Option Three is better than the version I was suggesting. I'm not really sure about the pitch for Option Two, though — the letters already distinguish them, and I feel like they'd seem more like separate states rather than a "modifier" on some of the existing ones. Not to mention, wouldn't we need a darker version of every single color just in case? That's a lot of changes to make, and we'd end up running into problems with dark blue, teal, and dark teal; or "dark white", gray, and dark gray. Ahemtoday (talk) 03:20, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I don't quite understand option one and two, as the above rules for poll proposals state "A poll proposal closes after all of its options have been settled, and no action is taken until then. If all options fail, then nothing will be done." --PopitTart (talk) 07:09, March 4, 2025 (EST)

Could you explain the contradiction in greater detail? I don't see what you mean. Ahemtoday (talk) 12:01, March 4, 2025 (EST)
The options say "The page would only contain #83A and #83B if the proposal passed right now, with #83C being added later" and "...how it handles open issues on partially closed poll proposals" there shouldn't be any instances of archiving partially closed poll proposals, they only close all at once when every entry has been resolved.--PopitTart (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2025 (EST)
So is your position that we should use the lettering scheme from Options One and Two, but only add poll proposals to the archive page when all of their issues are closed? I don't think I agree, but I can add that as Option Five if that's what you want to vote for. Ahemtoday (talk) 22:48, March 4, 2025 (EST)

I feel like this is fine. Either it's red (no change from the status quo so nothing needs to be done), gray (some change was established and there is work to do), or green (some change was established and it's all done). There are other proposals where people list several things to be done, it's not that different, it's just that now we have the ability to vote on each individual thing. But in either case you just click the link to read exactly what was approved. --Steve (talk) Get Firefox 10:56, March 7, 2025 (EST)

On a vaguely related note, why do "tie" and "failed to reach consensus" have two separate colours in the proposal archive when the former is essentially a type of the latter? I don't really see the difference between them besides the fact that the wiki used to call them "ties". I also counted no more than four "tied" proposals in the entire archive, the last one having been in 2011, so it seems strange and confusing to still be using a separate colour for it. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:38, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

This is something I noticed as well while making the proposal — I kind of considered addressing it, but the proposal was already a bit sprawling, so bundling in a change to that seemed like a poor decision. If someone were to make a separate proposal to axe the "tie" color, I'd back it. Ahemtoday (talk) 14:10, March 18, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Give Taiko no Tatsujin an article

Taiko no Tatsujin has had numerous crossovers with the Mario franchise throughout its history. This extends to not only the songs being playable, but actual Mario characters showing up and being animated in the accompanying videos in the earlier games.

  • The DS version has "Super Mario Bros." as a track, using imagery from the games.
  • The Wii version includes "New Super Mario Bros. Wii Medley." and "Super Mario Bros." Notably, the videos include actual characters and imagery from the game showing up. The former has nearly every enemy from the original Super Mario Bros.
  • Taiko no Tatsujin Wii U Version! has "Fever" from Dr. Mario. There are also Mario and Luigi costumes for Don-chan and Katsu-chan.
  • Nintendo Switch Version! has "Jump Up, Super Star!" from Super Mario Odyssey.
  • The 2020 version brings back "Super Mario Bros." and "Jump Up, Super Star!", also including a "Famicom Medley" track using "Fever" from Dr. Mario. These tracks are present in many of the arcade versions. Playing "Super Mario Bros." will have mushrooms and Super Stars appear when notes are hit.
  • Blue Version has Cappy has an equippable hat.
  • Rhythm Festival has a medley of music from Super Mario Bros., re-used from earlier games.

Mario has paid it back with the serial-numbers-filed-off Donkey Konga and Don-chan being a playable character in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX. Since there's overlap between the franchises, and they've had a decent history together, I think Taiko is deserving of its own article to cover all this in one place.

Proposer: Scrooge200 (talk)
Deadline: March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)

  1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
  3. Hewer (talk) This should probably be cancelled given the crossover article proposal but I'll support just in case. I previously wasn't sure whether it would get a page under that proposal because the only crossover I knew about was Don-chan being in Mario Kart (and his tiny Smash representation in one of Pac-Man's taunts), but all of this other stuff seems very comparable to what got Just Dance (series) a page. Now we just need to figure out whether Tamagotchi gets one...
  4. Killer Moth (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)

Comments' Perfect Math Class

@Scrooge200, have you considered waiting until the proposal immediately above is finished? You would not need to raise proposal for Taiko no Tatsujin at all if it were to be pass. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:23, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Oh, I noticed that, but figured it was more for just Zelda. I'm glad to see we're finally making it out of the Stone Age with our crossover coverage, though. Scrooge200 (talk) PMCS Mustard Cafe Sign.png 15:27, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
Zelda is just the example I worked with. The proposal itself applies to all manner of crossover. - Nintendo101 (talk) 15:30, March 16, 2025 (EDT)
@Scrooge200 By "stone age" I assume you mean it's one of the last steps to becoming a wiki centered completely on Super Mario. Super Mario RPG (talk) 15:38, March 16, 2025 (EDT)

Merge moves exclusive to forms with their respective forms, leaving main article links if they are part of another article. Also replace the Fly article with a list.

Mario’s many, many forms have granted him oh so many forms. These forms grant him many new moves, like swinging a cape, jumping in the air, or even a slew of Link’s moves! Now, how many of these have articles? (Excluding Tail whip)

If you guessed zero, +/- Tail whip, you’re right. This makes sense: If I go to an article on a form, then I want to see all of that form’s nuances. What good is it to have some parts of the benefits conferred by a power-up on a separate page? Imagine if Builder Mario had an article dedicated to swinging its hammer, a core portion of the abilities Builder Mario grants. Imagine if Mole Yoshi had an entire article dedicated to its ability to dig, despite that being the sole move it can do with a button press and digging being its entire point of existing. Imagine if operating the Super Pickax had an entire article separate from the Super Pickax, even though the player doesn’t even have the choice to hold a Super Pickax without using it. (Yes, the act of using a Super Pickax has a name!)

But we’re already doing this, just under the veneer of putting it under existing articles. These articles, for example:

I think this is a flawed line of thinking. For a much as shell dashing and Drill Spinning are moves that can be used by specific forms, they are also benefits conferred by specific forms and power-ups. We should be focusing efforts to improve coverage for such moves on the page for the power-up, as someone who wants to learn everything Shell Mario can do probably shouldn’t have to also check shell dash. Shell Mario should say that shell dashing enemies doesn’t start a point chain. Shell Mario should say if how many hits it takes to defeat a boss with the shell dash. Shell Mario should mention the unique movement opportunities/restrictions of the shell dash compared two base Mario. There shouldn’t be two different articles going into technical detail on a single topic if we can help it, not least because of the potential of a correction to one article not being applied to the other. And if we can only have one super detailed article, then it ought to be the form.

Imagine if we extended the current situation to other named moves of forms? Would Mega Yoshi be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Tail Swipe, on the basis of it having the technical detail of stalling Yoshi’s fall? Would Penguin Mario be a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Belly Slide? If we gave the field form of Luiginary Ball a page, would it be.a stronger article if there was a second article dedicated to Ball Hammer?

As such, this proposal aims to just move all the technical details of moves that can only be performed by power-up forms to the form’s page. The section remains, because it’s a part of the move’s conceptual history, using a {{main}} article link to move over to the form for the nitty gritty on how everything about that specific implementation works. For reference look at how Dash handles the Dash (Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga) (Relevant Edit) and the Spin Dash (Relevant Edit). Instead of restating the entire move but trying to be a little looser about the mechanics than the main article, it has a note saying “this exists and is a version of the thing this article is about”, and then sends the reader to the main article. It's a more efficient use of bits and our readers' time.

This does not affect moves of non-powered up characters that are modified by the power-up. Flying Squirrel Mario’s high Spin Jumps stay on Spin Jump, Frog Mario's and Penguin Mario’s swimming stay on Swim, Tanooki Mario’s Tail Spin stays on Roll, and so on. This is in addition to these modified versions of moves being written about on their form’s pages. (No, shell dash is not a modified dash. It's a new action that dashing happens to trigger, as indicated by the requirement of dashing and alternate method of crouching on a slope) This proposal does not affect projectiles whose existence is broader than their associated power-up, namely Fireball, Ice Ball, Hammer, and Bubble. Builder Boxes are Crates, so they fall into this bucket. (Superball would be included, but it was merged with Superball Mario years ago and is not included.) This also does not affect character/power-up hybrids. Yoshi's Swallow, Egg Throw, et al, Baby DK's DK Dash Attack, Diddy Kong's Diddy Attack and Barrel Jet, and Rambi's Supercharge and Charge are examples of these exclusions. This is because in some cases the character can use the move without being a power-up, usually because they are playable in a non-power-up capacity. While this isn’t true in every case, it makes sense to extend this grace to all character/power-up hybrids. SMB2 Mario is bizarre, but charge jump is ultimately unaffected. It’s a move of the normal player characters in Super Mario Bros. 2 proper, and the article doesn’t have a Super Mario Maker 2 section to cut down anyway. I’d advocate for adding more charge jump content to the SMB2 Mario article, but that’s not part of the proposal.

Perceptive readers probably realize that this policy would gut Fly, an article entirely about a recurring skill of certain forms/capability of items. An article consisting entirely of {{main}} templates would be bad, right? Au contraire, for this is by design. Fly is trapped in a purgatory where it can’t actually say anything meaningful because all of the data for each of the forms, abilities, and items it’s trying to cover should be on the articles for those things. So it’s a listicle of every game you can fly in with cliff notes about how they work. I guess its a directory for all of the flying skills, but having it be a traditional article makes using Fly as a directory inefficient. At this point, we should embrace the list structure and use it for something lists are good for, comparisons between games. I have compiled a list version of Fly on a userpage, based on the existing List of power-ups. It’s messy and incomplete but I think it’s better than the Fly article. Should this proposal pass, this list will replace the article.

Tail whip was created after I planned this proposal but before I proposed it. If this proposal passes, it gets merged into Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games. This policy devastates Tail Whip in the same way Fly is. Tail Whip can keep its categories as a redirect. While the move may be used by multiple forms, the most basic forms with the attack are more than capable of storing Tail whip's mechanics for the improved versions of White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario to refer to later. This matches how Penguin Mario defers to Ice Mario and Ice Ball. Tails are also on Tail Whip, but Tail handles using Tail and has no need to be listed on another article. Even if we wanted a complete list of games with with tail attacks, Raccoon Mario already mentions Tail. (The situation is also similar to Cape, which used to compile Cape Mario and Superstar Mario into a listicle before this proposal reduced it to the Smash Bros. attack.

Oh yeah and I guess Strike of Intuition is caught in the crosshairs of this since it is a move exclusive to Detective Peach. Given everything else, it gets merged too.

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert Fly into a list

  1. Salmancer (talk) Per proposal.

Merge moves, Fly is free: Merge moves to forms, but keep Fly as is

Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list

Oppose: Status quo

  1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Many of the moves in question are used by multiple forms, so attempting to merge them to all separately would violate Mariowiki:Once and only once EDIT: which makes determining appearances of the move across different games more difficult to find. Furthermore, we do not merge character-specific moves to their respective pages (other than non-Mario characters in the Super Smash Bros. series) - for instance, look at Scuttle and Flutter Jump - so why should we do so with forms?
  2. Nintendo101 (talk) I don't think we cover moves and other actions particularly well, and I would rather see what that looks like before proposing mergers. Moves are not strictly the same as the form itself (i.e. Flying Squirrel Mario, Power Squirrel Mario, and captured Glydon can all "glide"), and it would be nice to see detail on what the moves are in isolation. Sometimes different power-uped forms perform the same move. A quick look through the fly article indicates there are things lumped together there that really aren't the same thing.
  3. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. the current state of the wiki's move coverage just isn't good enough right now to determine whether this proposal would have any benefits. would love to see this proposal again in the future when we have more ground to stand on, but it's not the time right now.

Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)

I am sorry this proposal planned for a while is going to merge an article that was just made. It kind of jumped further up my list of priorities given I don't want people to put hard work into adding to Tail whip if I'm about to try to merge it. Salmancer (talk) 18:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Question; would this merge Fireball Punch, and would this failing result in re-instating Dangan Mario? These manga "forms" are kind of an edge case. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock (talk) 18:23, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Oh dear manga questions. From what I understand of things, I think nothing should happen either way. Dangan Mario was an article as a form, so unless it's getting reevaluated to be a named move it stays where it lies. Fireball Punch is tricky. The thing is that this proposal exists because of pressures from the medium of video games. Fireball Punch is from a linear narrative story, there's not really much of a benefit readers gain from merging Fireball Punch because odds are someone looking at Super Mario Wiki to read about Fireball Mario doesn't need to know what a Fireball Punch is soon after. They might not even be reading the fifth chapter of Volume 1, the only place with a Fireball Punch. You can hardly consider the Fireball Punch to be a core part of Fireball Mario like all of the moves involved in the proposal. Fireball Punch is free from this proposal, though someone else might think the lack of length means it should be merged into Fireball Mario given this proposal is merging many longer articles or sections of articles into their home forms. Salmancer (talk) 18:56, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

@Doc von Schmeltwick for your own sake, you should know "once and only once" as a strict policy has been retired. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:18, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Thanks, wish I'd known that before. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:30, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Characters aren't forms, so their moves are unaffected by this proposal, which means Scuttle isn't involved, Character/power-ups are unaffected, so Flutter Jump also isn't affected and you can't loophole abuse your way to merging Scuttle through the Luigi Cap. Forms that are improved versions of other forms already defer to the base form for unchanged abilities they inherit. Ice Mario has two paragraphs dedicated to using Ice Balls See example text of everything Penguin Mario has to say about Ice Balls..

After Mario has become this form, he can throw Ice Balls at enemies and freeze them. Mario can then use the frozen enemies as platforms or pick them up and throw them against the wall or other enemies.

- Penguin Mario

The system works! It's repeated for White Raccoon Mario in relation to Raccoon Mario, as per the line, "It gives the player Raccoon Mario's abilities, causes the P-Meter to charge more quickly, allows the player to run and stand on water (like Mini Mario), and grants invincibility for the stage". It's also done for Power Squirrel Mario to Flying Squirrel Mario, with "As Power Squirrel Mario, Mario has all of the abilities of Flying Squirrel Mario, though he never loses the ability to glide and can perform Flying Squirrel Jumps continuously without landing". Salmancer (talk) 19:35, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

"List of methods of flight" as a name for the userpage was designed to be aware that not everything on Fly is the same kind of move. (and also it managed to morph into a list of all ways to get from point A to point B if point B is higher than point A... and then an extra addendum for hovering over hazards.) Would it be better if it were placed in mainspace as "List of methods of flight"? Salmancer (talk) 19:47, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Regarding your saying that tail whip's info would be moved to Raccoon Mario for 2D games and Tanooki Mario for 3D games, would that not mean that Tanooki Mario's page would not discuss the tail whip until Super Mario 3D Land, despite it being usable by that form in Super Mario Bros. 3? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 19:53, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Tanooki Mario is already doing exactly that. I don't see anything that makes the article hard to follow, short of it going "there is mandatory reading before reading this article." Which White Raccoon Mario and White Tanooki Mario have been doing as well. It's fine.

In this form, he can turn into an invulnerable statue by holding +Control Pad down and pressing B Button at the same time, in addition to using Raccoon Mario's moves, making it an improved version of Raccoon Mario.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario Bros. 3 section.

However, the form's mechanics are different from Super Mario Bros. 3, as while Mario can still tail whip (by pressing X Button or Y Button) and glide (now done by holding A Button or B Button, as with Caped Mario, rather than tapping the buttons), he cannot fly during gameplay.

- Tanooki Mario, Super Mario 3D Land section.
Uh, filler text for sig. I guess I'm advocating for building the 3D Land text up more, since that game shouldn't be deferring to Raccoon Mario as it sort of does now. Salmancer (talk) 20:05, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
But how is it superior to do so compared to just having an article for the move? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:17, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
Hypothetical: "Wow! Tanooki Mario is so cool! What does he do?/I just beat 3D Land, is there any nuance to it I missed?/Are there any bugs in 3D Land I can exploit with it? I know, I'll go to the Tanooki Mario page on Super Mario Wiki!"
In the current wiki, the three hypothetical people with varying interest in Super Mario read both an article on Tanooki Mario and an article on Tail whip to find everything they want to know. This proposal wants to make all of them only read one article, Tanooki Mario. I think this is better because it saves them the additional click and additional loading time and appeals to lower attention spans. I value these hypothetical readers over the hypothetical reader who is a Mario historian who wants to see the evolution of Tail whip across every game of the franchise. Keep in mind, redirects exist so the earlier three hypotheticals can mostly get to the right page if they zig where I think they'd zag and search for a move name. Okay except for Tail whip in specific because of the 2D/3D split, oof moment. I guess disambiguation pages still let my example work since while there would still be two pages to look at the first of them would be short and quick to load because its a disambig and therefore still superior to having Tail whip as full article alongside Raccoon Mario and Tanooki Mario. Salmancer (talk) 20:59, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
"Gee, I wonder if that cool thing Tanooki Mario does appears in any other games for any other forms?" This is the more likely question that would be asked. Which is why the move page makes more sense. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:01, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
I think my system still lets that person get to the answers reasonably intuitively. Tanooki Mario says it's super duper Raccoon Mario, so navigating to that page seems reasonable if one wants more tail whipping action. From Raccoon Mario they'll hit Tail. The only odd one out is Mario Kart Super Leaf, which is exclusively covered on Super Leaf, except thanks to Tanooki Mario being playable in Mario Kart Tour with the Super Leaf as his special skill that hypothetical person should still hit Super Leaf. We could just add a Mario Kart series "sentence long section with a {{main}} link" to Raccoon Mario to patch that hole up, and maybe note that giving Tanooki Mario the Super Leaf as a special skill closely reflects the platforming video games, meaning we have all the links the Tail whip article would have without needing to make a Tail whip article.Salmancer (talk) 21:22, March 17, 2025 (EDT)
IMO this just sounds like a lot of confounding mental gymnastics to me and just having a page for the move removes most of the leaps of logic and assumptions on what people will and will not know. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 22:02, March 17, 2025 (EDT)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4788800"