MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, July 2nd, 04:06 GMT

Proposals can be new features (such as an extension), the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. "Vote" periods last for one week. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). 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.

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 using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have 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 the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. 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}}.
2. Only registered, autoconfirmed users can create, comment in, or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) one week after voting starts, except for writing guidelines and talk page proposals, which run for two weeks (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 one week later on Monday, August 8, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
5. 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 at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the administrators.
   • 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.
6. 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 "(banned)" 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.
7. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
8. 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.
9. All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week. Proposals with more than two options must also be extended another week if any single option does not have a majority support: i.e. more than half of the total number of voters must appear in a single voting option, rather than one option simply having more votes than the other options.
10. If a proposal with only two voting options has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail with a margin of at least three votes, otherwise the deadline will be extended for another week as if no majority was reached at all.
11. Proposals can only be extended up to three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, the proposal fails and can only be re-proposed after four weeks, at the earliest.
12. 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.
13. If the administrators deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
14. Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation (six days for talk page proposals). However, proposers can request that their proposal be deleted by an administrator at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived.
15. 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.
16. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Users can only be promoted and demoted by the will of the administration.
17. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
18. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting 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|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 7 days after the proposal was created (14 for writing guidelines and talk page proposals), at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

====Support====
#{{User|[enter your username here]}} [make a statement indicating that you support your proposal]

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

Users will now be able to vote on your proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

To support, or oppose, just insert "#{{User|[add 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 just say "Per my proposal".

Talk page proposals

All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

For a list of all settled talk page proposals, see MarioWiki:Proposals/TPP archive and Category:Settled talk page proposals.

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. 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. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3 and 4 as follows:
3. Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, it ends two weeks later on Monday, August 15, 2011, at 23:59 GMT.
4. The talk page proposal must pertain to the article it is posted on.
5. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Decide if Gallery:Ground should be deleted (discuss) Deadline: July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split the Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door bestiary into a separate article for the Nintendo Switch remake (discuss) Deadline: July 4, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move The Old Psychic Lady to The Old Psychic Lady with the Evil Eye Who Reads Fortunes and Knows Everything Before It Happens (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Bowser's Brother to Fake Bowser (Blue) (discuss) Deadline: July 7, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Keep the Mario & Luigi Clothing pages as list articles (discuss) Deadline: July 10, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Chancellor and Toad Minister (discuss) Deadline: July 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split Birdo and Birdo (species) (discuss) Deadline: July 12, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Split History of Bowser (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Consider Kaptain Skurvy to be a Kannon (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Move Princess Daisy to Daisy (discuss) Deadline: July 14, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Include Golf: Japan Course and Golf: U.S. Course in the Mario Golf series (discuss) Deadline: July 15, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Split Mario Kart Tour character variants into list articles, Tails777 (ended May 4, 2022)

Establish a standard for long course listings in articles for characters/enemies/items/etc., Koopa con Carne (ended June 8, 2023)

Remove profiles and certain other content related to the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia from the wiki, Koopa con Carne (ended April 30, 2024)

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)

Get rid of the "Subject origin" parameter on the species infobox, DrippingYellow (ended June 25, 2024)

Trim the list of Snake's codec conversations and list of Palutena's Guidance conversations, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended June 26, 2024)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

^ NOTE: Currently the subject of an active proposal.

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)

Remove non-Super Mario content from Super Smash Bros. series challenges articles, BMfan08 (ended May 3, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Include general game details on pages about remakes, and split "changes from the original" sections if necessary

An issue I've noticed with MarioWiki's coverage of remakes is that it doesn't explain much about the games themselves separate from the original games. This really concerns Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch), as its "Changes from the original game" section is very, very long (over three-quarters the page, by my count), while not really detailing anything about the game itself. I do understand the "once and only once" policy means that they shouldn't have to be exact duplicates of the original game's pages, but it also leaves the pages about remakes feeling somewhat barebones; if someone wants to learn about the TTYD remake in a general sense, should they have to go back to the original game's page to learn about it first and then go to the remake's page to dig through all the tiny changes to find out what's new?

I imagine this policy stems from early in the wiki's history for games like Super Mario All-Stars or Super Mario Advance, which makes sense, as those games are generally simple and don't need much explaining to get the gist of how they work (and the "changes" parts of those pages are generally much smaller). For games like the Super Mario RPG or TTYD remakes, however, it's pretty difficult to understand what the games are like without referencing the original game's pages, and in turn that leaves coverage on the remakes feeling somewhat incomplete. I actually feel like the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe page is a good example of how to handle this. It still lists differences from the original Mario Kart 8, but also explains the game's contents in a standalone manner well. (Maybe adding the rest of the new items and course elements would help, but it at least has the full cast, vehicle selection, and course roster.)

My proposal is essentially to have each remake page include general coverage of the game itself, rather than just a list of changes. From there, if each page is too long with general details and lists of changes included, then the list of changes can be split into a sub-page.

I don't think the remake pages need to be exact copies of what the pages for each original game say, but having them be a more general overview of how each game works (covering notable changes as well) before getting into the finer differences may be helpful. I represent WiKirby, and this is what we do for WiKirby's remake pages: for example, we have separate pages for Kirby's Return to Dream Land and Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe that both give a good idea of what the game is like without fully relying on each other to note differences between them. I think this is useful for not having to cross-reference both pages if you want to know the full picture of what the game is like.

This is my first proposal on this wiki, and in general I'm not good at proposals even on my "home" wiki, but I hope this explains what I mean. I think you can decide on a page-by-page basis whether "changes from the original" sections need to split into sub-pages (for instance, the very long TTYD section might, but something like Super Mario Advance could get by leaving it on), but I think having the remake's pages be more detailed and less reliant on the originals would only be beneficial to the quality of the wiki's coverage. This is admittedly just a suggestion, so if it's not ideal I'm fine if someone else wants to refine it into something more workable.

Proposer: DryKirby64 (talk)
Deadline: June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. DryKirby64 (talk) As proposer.
2. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) I agree with this proposal.
3. Super Mario RPG (talk) This is a great idea.

Oppose

1. Nintendo101 (talk) I'm unsure what the best approach is to covering rereleases or remakes, but I do not think we should adopt WiKirby's model of repeating most of the same information as the original game.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
3. MegaBowser64 (talk) Per all.
4. Scrooge200 (talk) I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
5. Arend (talk) I get the concern of this proposal, but I'm not sure if repeating much of the same information over and over is the ideal solution.
6. Jazama (talk) Per all

Comments

This is challenging. Whereas I agree with you that the TTYD remake page is basically just a list of changes (and that is something that should be addressed), I don't think that simply rewording most everything on the original TTYD page is the solution. When it comes to RPGs, its much more challenging to fully cover everything in the game because there's a long, detailed story and it would be senseless to reword what is on the original's page to include it on the remake's page. I presume that's what you mean by "general coverage of the game" anyway. This is a problem that should be addressed, but I don't know that either of these two options are the right solution. Dr. Baskerville 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Mmhm, that makes sense. Like I said, I don't think it should be an exact duplicate of the original page or a paraphrase of it either... Maybe there's a place where I could discuss this with other users to get a better idea of what others think should be done? I went to proposals first since that's what I'm most familiar with, but maybe it would be helpful to iron out the exact issue a bit more to get a better idea of what to do. DryKirby64 (talk) 19:21, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

It couldn't hurt to ask for some guidance from staff on the Discord / forums or research previous proposals to see if something similar has been discussed. You're right to identify this as an issue; I just wish I knew a better solution. Maybe someone will come along with a helpful comment, so I'd at least recommend leaving this proposal up to bring attention to the issue. Dr. Baskerville 19:28, June 10, 2024 (EDT)

Me personally, I'd repeat gameplay information because that's the thing that's actually changed, whereas story isn't touched at all afaik. Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:52, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

I think the case-by-case way we do it is fine. For instance, the SMA games and DKC remakes have enough changes both major and minor it makes the most sense to just list everything out again, which in the latters' case we do (thanks to a project of mine). But listing everything in Super Mario 3D All-Stars would be over-the-top when that's just a fidelity increase for three games. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)

In my eyes, the change list for Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is very massive, despite my occasional efforts to subcategorize its change list. I could continue to try to compress that page's list, but even I would not call that a gold standard for "Remake changes" lists. DandelionSprout (talk) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)

Just as someone who does go on other wikis to read up about remake information, I actually sometimes don't mind somewhat overlapping information than simply a list of changes (I don't like to hop back in between articles to read up information, especially if, say, the remake is the first time I'm ever experiencing the game). It's the reason I did sorta go all in in Mario Sports Superstars article (I wouldn't want to jump to two different pages to read mechanics about tennis and golf). I think a very brief summary of the gameplay for TTYD remake would do fine (basic battle system, hammers, jump, partners, that type of thing). Ray Trace^(T|C) 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)

Just for reference, the current size of the TTYD remake page is actually larger than the size of the original page (190,141 bytes vs. 185,302 bytes). Scrooge200 (talk) 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Split Wario Land: Shake It! bosses into boss levels

This proposal is similar to the one that passed. As you see, we have Motley Bossblob and Hisstocrat boss levels from Super Mario 3D World, the boss levels from the Donkey Kong Country series, even boss levels Yoshi's Crafted World where each boss guards a Dream Gem. Right now, you might be wondering how we can create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

According to the "<boss> → <boss level>" diagram, the following pages will be affected by the split:

• Rollanratl → Rollanratl Battle
• Hot Roderick → Hot Roderick Race
• Chortlebot → Chortlebot Challenge
• Bloomsday → Bloomsday Blowout
• Large Fry → Large Fry Cook-Off
• Shake King → VS the Shake King

Once this proposal passes, then we will be able to create separate articles for the Wario Land: Shake It! boss levels.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk) (banned)
Deadline: June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Hewer (talk) I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
3. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal; it makes navigation easier and lines up with how we already handle it for other games. (And for the record, short articles are fine: see Bowser's Sourpuss Bread, which succinctly explains its role rather than being padded out for length concerns.)
4. Arend (talk) I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
5. Jazama (talk) Per all

#GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per proposal

Oppose

1. DrBaskerville (talk) While there is precedence, I just don't see this as necessary given the information is currently detailed on the existing pages without overcrowding them.

Comments

Wouldn't this be creating a bunch of stub articles? Is there sufficient information for all of these characters outside of their battles to warrant separate pages from their battles? For some bosses, I think this makes sense and I also think its good for the wiki to be consistent, but are we solving one "problem" and then creating twelve more by making twelve stub articles? Dr. Baskerville 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Looking at "Short Pages, when it isn't being filled with small disambiguation articles, articles with imminent deletions, or Mario Kart Arcade GP items, even the shortest Wario articles don't really come close to the articles featured here. The shortest Wario-related article we could find isn't even as short as the recently-split Speed Mario Bros.. While we aren't personally voting (we'd like to see an example draft of what the split articles look like before voting conclusively), we don't feel like article length is a particularly strong reason to be afraid when Pesky Billboard is an article so small that you could fit its textual content in a floppy disk's boot sector. ~Camwoodstock (talk) 23:46, June 19, 2024 (EDT)

Also, "stub" doesn't mean "short page", it means "page with too little information". If there's not a lot to talk about, then it's perfectly fine for a page to be short and still be complete, so brevity doesn't automatically make it a stub. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)

Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the Super Mario series on and off for the past few years. I think presenting information in a shared, unified way is beneficial for readers and passively communicates that these games are part of a shared series, something I think is helpful for a franchise covering so many genres and series. Game articles in the Yoshi's Island and Donkey Kong Country series are similarly organized to one another. It is easy to jump from one article to another, information is where I'd expect it to be, and they look nice. Good stuff.

At present, some Super Mario game articles adopt different organizational structures than others even though they cover the same types of subjects. (As examples, compare Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins to New Super Mario Bros. U and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.) This proposal aims to standardize how they are all sectioned. I think it would be beneficial for their contents.

The sectioning I employ, in the order as laid out, is:

Characters: living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm

• Playable characters: characters controlled
• Non-playable characters: characters that aren’t controlled

Enemies and obstacles: subjects that damage or inhibit the player character

• Enemies: living, often multi-membered creatures that occupy the general environment
• Obstacles: abiotic and environmental subjects that cause damage or inhibit movement
• Bosses: subjects that often take multiple hits to defeat and are chiefly major barriers to progression

Items and objects: beneficial and neutral environmental subjects, mostly abiotic

• Items: subjects that are absorbable/collectible, holdable, or health-restoring
• Power-ups: items that transform the player character’s appearance and grant unique abilities
• Objects: interactable subjects in the environment that are not items

This sectioning arrangement has been integrated on the Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels, Super Mario Land, Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Mario 3D Land, Super Mario 3D World, and Super Mario Odyssey articles.

Because of the tactile nature of platformers, I like organizing subjects based on their mechanical relationship to the player character, so I keep bosses organized with enemies and obstacles because they all hurt the player. It is also thematically appropriate, because at least some bosses are usually rulers of an enemy species in the same section. I do not like using terms that have strong connotations outside of gaming like "cast" or "antagonist". (I particularly do not like using "antagonist" here because these platformers are not chiefly driven by narrative, so the fact that some bosses also serve antagonistic narrative roles is of lesser importance to their tactile roles as bosses.) "Characters" is more neutral, I think. I also do not separate "returning enemies" from "new ones". I'd rather delineate that information in one shared table, like so. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.

I don't envision this sectioning being applied rigidly, and this is apparent in some of the articles I linked to above. There aren't really enough items in Super Mario Land for them to be severed from power-ups, so I lumped them together in one table there. Both Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy 2 include a "rideable characters" section, and there is a "clothing" section between "Items" and "objects" in Super Mario Odyssey. Rather, I would like this sectioning to be a jumping off point, from which users can manipulate and change things as needed. No two games are exactly the same, after all.

I offer four options.

1. Support: I like this! Let's do it (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining Super Mario game articles)
2. Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently (if this one passes, a second proposal would be raised by the voters that outline their preferred organizational scheme)
3. Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
4. Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed

Proposer: Nintendo101 (talk)
Deadline: July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT

Support: I like this! Let's do it

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
2. Super Mario RPG (talk) Consistency is never a bad thing.
3. SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per proposal.
4. Hewer (talk) I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
6. Big Super Mario Fan (talk) Per proposal.
7. DrBaskerville (talk) Per all. Consistency is good.
8. RetroNintendo2008 (talk) Per all.
9. Jazama (talk) Per all
10. Scrooge200 (talk) Per all, makes it much easier when reading between game pages.

Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy

1. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I see page layouts as an organically changing thing, it's best to not create guidelines where they needn't exist. I'm fine with the pages being changed to follow this pattern, but it shouldn't require an additional proposal to change further.
2. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per Doc von Schmeltwick.

Comments on standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles

These sound like good ideas, but do they need a proposal? Proposal rule 15: "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." Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:39, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

I originally did not plan on doing so, but EvieMaybe (talk) recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - Nintendo101 (talk) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)

Allow colorful tables again

Recently, there's been an update to follow Help:Table that standardizes all the colorful tables into boring, white-and-gray ones. I personally don't like this: not only is it removing a bit of charm from the site, the colored boxes are legitimately helpful at a glance and make it easier to distinguish individual sections in these large chunks of data.

Take Rock-Candy Mines, a world from New Super Mario Bros. U and New Super Luigi U. Here are two versions of the level lists:

---

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

---

Level number	Level name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Fuzzy Clifftop	This is a clifftop level that features Yoshi, Fruits and Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Falls	Another cliff level over the water, where Porcupuffers attack. Many Urchins can be found, too.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Grinding-Stone Tower	The sixth and final tower where Boom Boom is the boss, the final instance he is fought. The main enemies in this tower are Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Waddlewing's Nest	This level features Chain Chomps, Waddlewings and tilting stands.

Level Number	Level Name	Description
Rock-Candy Mines-1	Mount Fuzzy	An overworld level with some Fuzzies.
Rock-Candy Mines-2	Porcupuffer Cavern	An underground level with low water level and a Porcupuffer.
Rock-Candy Mines-Tower	Smashing-Stone Tower	A tower full of blocks destroyable only by Grrrols.
Rock-Candy Mines-3	Spike's Seesaws	A level with tilting platforms attacked by Spikes.

The only concern I can see is that black-on-blue text might be a bit hard to read, but we can change the text color to white, like some articles already do. It's a lot easier to tell with the colored header. If someone is just scrolling through the article to find the levels, the blue and green will catch their eye and they can easily know which game is which. The specific blue and green are distinctly featured on the games' logos and boxes:

• 
• 

The standardization of the templates also really harms articles like Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island: compare the colored navbox revision to the current, and it looks more inconsistent because the levels section is still using a unique format and color. Also compare Pi'illo, an item list: colored revision vs. standardized revision. I don't mind that the colors aren't official wiki standard because they're not arbitrary: they clearly correspond to the area, and lists for this game use the same colors for the same areas. Even so, it's still useful to have different colors because you can scroll through the article and easily know when one list ends and another begins.

Some lists are also heavily dependent on color to distinguish areas with colors specifically used in-game, such as List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: The Origami King or List of ? Blocks in Paper Mario: Color Splash. Standardizing these would make them much less usable. I don't care if we need to make the colors specifically approved or consistent on a per-game basis, I just want them back. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:51, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

Support: Allow colors

1. Scrooge200 (talk) Per proposal.
2. DrBaskerville (talk) Per proposal. Not only is it more aesthetically pleasing, but it is also easier to read. I do, however, agree we should look into somehow standardizing colors, like what we do with MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal. Just because they weren't standardized heavily isn't a very good reason to default to "plain ol' gray". In addition, while this is admittedly an "us" issue, we do find it annoying how similar the two grays actually are when we're scrolling quickly--the higher contrast provided by the colors helps to quell that issue.
4. Pseudo (talk) Per proposal, and per all.
5. Tails777 (talk) I am a very simple man; I enjoy colorful things. But in all seriousness, I feel it helps make sections stand out and could make them easier to identify when reading. Per proposal.
6. Meester Tweester (talk) Per proposal.
7. Nintendo101 (talk) Fun and look nice. It's also nice to give users some breathing room with what they want to try integrating into the articles they work on.
8. Ahemtoday (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose: Prioritize gray

1. Super Mario RPG (talk) Colors are based on arbitrary choice and not by official merit. I think there can be a system where there are exceptions to allow for certain colored tables on a case by case basis, but allowing it in absolutely every single case is overdoing it.

Comments

@Super Mario RPG: Chestnut Valley, List_of_hidden_Toads_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, Not-Bottomless_Hole#Blue_Streamer, List_of_Collectible_Treasures_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer, List_of_?_Blocks_in_Paper_Mario:_The_Origami_King#Blue_streamer all use the exact same colors. And it's because this is a blue streamer area in game, so it makes logical sense; I will usually color pick directly from sprites to get the right color codes. I don't really see where the "arbitrary" part is coming from. Scrooge200 (talk) 21:14, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

To be fair, even the older revisions didn't acknowledge the color styling of the former table format, so that part wasn't erased to begin with. It's just the design, and colors work with the wikitable class as well (see here, for example). Super Mario RPG (talk) 21:50, July 1, 2024 (EDT)

I think I'd like a little standardization, just so we don't end up with complete chaos. Maybe standardize alternating-color cells of the same color as the header? And as for the colors themselves — outside of when they're used to separate levels, which is by necessity a case-by-case basis — maybe we could do something similar to or based on the standardized navbox color schemes?

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.