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:
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
==Writing guidelines==
==Writing guidelines==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''


==New features==
==New features==
''None at the moment.''
===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 [[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?
 
I have several pitches for you.
 
<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>
 
''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.''
 
<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.)
 
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.
 
<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.
 
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.
 
<big>'''''OPTION THREE'''''</big><br>
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 [[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.
 
''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.''


==Removals==
<big>'''''OPTION FOUR'''''</big><br>
''None at the moment.''
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.


==Changes==
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.
===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)|''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 (Nintendo Switch)|''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.)
'''Proposer''': {{User|Ahemtoday}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 18, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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.
====Option Zero====
#{{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.  


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 ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land|Kirby's Return to Dream Land]]'' and ''[[wikirby:Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe|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.
====Option One====
#{{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.


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.
====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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|DryKirby64}}<br>
====Option Three====
'''Deadline''': <s>June 17, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>Extended to June 24, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 1, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{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|DryKirby64}} As proposer.
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} I agree with this proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} This is a great idea.


====Oppose====
====Option Four====
#{{User|Nintendo101}} 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.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Opposing this particular solution, but agreeing that a solution to inadequate remake pages should be found.
#{{user|MegaBowser64}} Per all.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} I don't think WiKirby is a good example -- of anything. I would be interested in something else to improve the remake pages though.
#{{User|Arend}} 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.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Comments====
====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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 18:51, June 10, 2024 (EDT)
{{@|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)
: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. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk: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. {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 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. {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 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. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 17:34, June 13, 2024 (EDT)
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)


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. [[User:DandelionSprout|DandelionSprout]] ([[User talk:DandelionSprout|talk]]) 17:00, June 15, 2024 (EDT)
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)


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). {{User:Ray Trace/sig}} 12:50, June 16, 2024 (EDT)
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)
: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)


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). {{User:Scrooge200/sig}} 23:45, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


===Split ''Wario Land: Shake It!'' bosses into boss levels===
==Changes==
This proposal is similar to [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/41#Create separate articles for DKC series and DKL series boss levels|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)|''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.
===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.


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


*[[Rollanratl]] → [[Rollanratl Battle]]
''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.
*[[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''': {{User|Scrooge200}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 30, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer''': {{User|GuntherBayBeee}} (banned)<br>
====Support (Bring Us One Degree of Separation Closer to Jimmy Neutron)====
'''Deadline''': <s>June 25, 2024, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to July 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT
#{{User|Scrooge200}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Makes sense to us; with how many cross references there are both ways, it seems only fair.
#{{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.


====Support====
====Oppose (No More Megalovania, Please)====
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess this makes sense for consistency with coverage of other games, so per proposal.
#{{User|Super Mario RPG}} I don't think this should even have to go through a proposal. All the other boss levels have their own pages.
#{{User|Scrooge200}} 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.)
#{{user|Arend}} I suppose that makes sense. Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all
<s>#{{User|GuntherBayBeee}} Per proposal</s>


====Oppose====
====Comments' Perfect Math Class====
{{@|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)


====Comments====
===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.===
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? {{User:DrBaskerville/sig}} 22:16, June 19, 2024 (EDT)
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]])
:Looking at "[[Special:ShortPages|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. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 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. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 04:11, June 20, 2024 (EDT)
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:
 
*[[Shell dash]] ([[Shell Mario]])
*[[Dive]] (Claw dives of [[Cat Mario]])
*[[Drill Spin]] ([[Propeller Mario]])
 
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 [[Luiginoid Formation#Ball|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 <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.


===Standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles===
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.
I have been attempting to standardize the game articles for the ''[[Super Mario (series)|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 (series)|Yoshi's Island]]'' and ''[[Donkey Kong Country (series)|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.
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.  


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


'''Characters''': living/sapient/friendly/neutral subjects that do not cause harm
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.
* '''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.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Salmancer}}<br>
'''Deadline''': March 31, 2025, 23:59 GMT


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, [[Super Mario Galaxy#Enemies|like so]]. It keeps related enemy species next to each other regardless of whether they're new.
====Merge moves and Listify Fly: Merge moves to forms, and convert [[Fly]] into a list====
#{{User|Salmancer}} Per proposal.


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


I offer four options.
====Clip Fly's wings: Do not merge moves to forms, change Fly from an article to a list====


#'''Support: I like this! Let's do it''' (if this passes, this sectioning arrangement will be integrated into the remaining ''Super Mario'' game articles)
====Oppose: Status quo====
#'''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)
#[[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?
#'''Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy''' (this option is basically the "do nothing" option)
#{{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.
#'''Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed'''
#{{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.


'''Proposer''': {{User|Nintendo101}}<br>
====Comments (Merge moves of forms to forms even if they are non-unique and replace Fly with a list)====
'''Deadline''': July 3rd, 2024, 23:59 GMT
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)


====Support: I like this! Let's do it====
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|Nintendo101}} Per proposal.
: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|Super Mario RPG}} Consistency is never a bad thing.
#{{User|SolemnStormcloud}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Hewer}} I guess if this ought to be a proposal, then sure, per proposal.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per proposal
#{{User|Big Super Mario Fan}} Per proposal.
#{{User|DrBaskerville}} Per all. Consistency is good.
#{{User|RetroNintendo2008}} Per all.
#{{User|Jazama}} Per all


====Support: I like some of this, but I would lay out things a little differently====
{{@|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)


====Oppose: The sectioning seems fine, but I would rather we not adopt this as strict policy====
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..
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk: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.
<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]]
#{{User|FanOfYoshi}} Per Doc von Schmeltwick.
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)


====Oppose: I do not like this sectioning at all, and want to see the articles where it's used changed====
"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)


====Comments on standardize sectioning for ''Super Mario'' series game articles====
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)
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." {{User:Hewer/sig}} 19:39, June 26, 2024 (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.
:I originally did not plan on doing so, but {{User|EvieMaybe}} recommended I raise one. I supposed it was a good way to assess how other folks think game articles should be organized. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:45, June 26, 2024 (EDT)
:<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)


==Miscellaneous==
==Miscellaneous==
''None at the moment.''
''None at the moment.''

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

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Wednesday, March 19th, 03:14 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"