MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<table style="background:#fefffe;color:black;-moz-border-radius:8px;border:2px solid black;padding:4px" width=100%><tr><td>
{{/Header}}
<div class="proposal">
==Writing guidelines==
<center>http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/9/9/17/f_propcopym_9045f2d.png</center>
===Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"===
<br clear="all">
As we all know, many wikis (including the Super Mario Wiki), like to simply say "British English". But I think this just isn't right. It has been like this for long, even though we know that, unlike American English (which spelling really is exclusive to America, or people like me who prefer it over Commonwealth English most of the time), Commonwealth English spelling isn't exclusive to the United Kingdom, and (as a more famous example) also used Oceania. So this proposal aims to change this to avoid making it look like this spelling is only used in the United Kingdom/Europe.
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
 
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
 
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
====Rename to "Commonwealth English"/"English (Commonwealth)"====
|}
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal.
A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code <nowiki>{{user|</nowiki>''User name''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>. '''Signing with the signature code <nowiki>~~~(~)</nowiki> is not allowed''' due to technical issues.
#{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} - I mean, I ''already'' write it as this.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu (Commonwealth)}} Per all.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} We don't see why not. Per proposal.
 
====Stay with "British English"/"English (United Kingdom)"====
#{{User|SmokedChili}} "British English" is fine, even "European English" would be better, because it's Nintendo of Europe who localized differently for the markets the NA versions don't reach. Making this  "Commonwealth English" would generalize and obscure this too much because that's the group the different non-American Englishes all fall into, and it's not all about spelling, the vocabularies also differ.
#{{User|Hewer}} Voting for this as a "do nothing" option. I've seen both terms used on the wiki and they're essentially interchangeable. I don't see the need to enforce a strict policy about which one to use when they're both commonly used terms that mean the same thing.
 
====Commonwealth Comments====
Just to be clear: British English is going bye-bye, but Australian English and Canadian English, also listed in the cite template's [[Template:Cite#Optional parameters|language codes]], remain intact? [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 05:45, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
:is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
::[[Heart Panel|Some]][[List of Tetris & Dr. Mario staff|time]]s. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
{{@|SmokedChili}} I understand your argument, but consider that, as I said; British English isn't only used in the ''United Kingdom'' or ''Europe''. Its spelling (which is the thing that matters in games), is also used in Australia (which is the reason PAL used to exist). That the vocabularies differ doesn't really matter, because the Australian versions is just identical to British version. Nintendo of Europe and Nintendo Australia localize the same, so bringing up Nintendo of America doesn't really seem to be needed. Also, yes that's right. Every country except America and Canada use the Commonwealth spelling, which is the reason it should be changed. It's really not exclusive to only '''''one''''' country. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 06:52, May 1, 2025 (EDT)
 
===Rework "References" sections===
As the ''Super Mario'' franchise is both massive and highly interconnected, one aspect of our coverage is listing all instances of a work referencing or being referenced by other works. This is accomplished through a pair of sections near the bottom of the article: "'''References to other games/media'''" and "'''References in other games/media'''", which list each applicable work as a bullet point on a list in chronological order, then list each reference in prose. While this format works well at smaller scales, certain games push this past its limit.  
 
Take a look at [https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Odyssey&oldid=4865428#References_to_other_games ''Super Mario Odyssey''{{'}}s "References to other games" section] at the time of writing. Certain games listed (such as ''Donkey Kong'', ''Super Mario 64'' or ''Super Mario Galaxy'') are so saturated that it's genuinely difficult to read. Because ''Super Mario'' games are constantly referencing past entries, this is a problem that will continue to grow until something is done about it. So, here's my pitch:
 
Instead of using bullet points for games, we use bullet points for individual references, while separating each title into subsections with <code><nowiki>;</nowiki></code>. This makes individual sections easier to parse, although they *do* take up a bit more space. An individual game listed would look like:
 
;''[[Mario Bros. (game)|Mario Bros.]]''
*There is a bonus game starring [[Luigi]] available on the title screen, called ''Luigi Bros.'' It is played similarly to this game, except both playable characters are Luigi.
*The big [[POW Block]] on the very top of [[The Great Tower of Bowser Land]] must be hit multiple times, getting flatter every time it's hit, just like it does in ''Mario Bros.''


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
I've created two drafts for what a full section would look like using this model, taking ''[[Super Mario 3D World]]'' as a sample:
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
*[[User:EvieMaybe/Sandbox of proposal examples#Referential Rework, type A|Draft A]] mantains the full chronological order our references sections currently use.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at:
*[[User:EvieMaybe/Sandbox of proposal examples#Referential Rework, type B|Draft B]] further divides the games into series for ease of reading, [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style#History|in the same manner as a History section]]. It is worth noting that [[List of references in The Super Mario Bros. Movie|List of references in ''The Super Mario Bros. Movie'']] and other split reference lists (such as the soon-to-be-merged list of references to ''Super Mario Bros.'') are sorted by series as well.
##Monday to Thursday: 17:00 (5pm)
*[https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=Super_Mario_3D_World&oldid=4864827#References_to_other_games ''Super Mario 3D World''{{'}}s "References to other games" section] at the time of writing, for comparison.
##Friday and Saturday: 20:00 (8pm)
##Sunday: 15:00 (3pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#At any time a vote may be rejected if at least '''three''' active users believe the vote truly has no merit or was cast in bad faith. However, there must be strong reasons supporting the invalidation.
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "[[Wikipedia:Quorum|NO QUORUM]]." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
#All proposals are archived. The original proposer must '''''take action''''' accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of a sysop, the proposer can ask for that help.
#There are two topics that cannot be decided on through a proposal: the first is sysop promotions and demotions, which are decided by [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].  Secondly, no proposals calling for the creation of Banjo, Conker or Sonic series articles are allowed (several proposals supporting them have failed in recent history).


The times are in EDT, and are set so that the user is more likely to be online at those times (after work/school, weekend nights).  If a proposal is added on Saturday night at 11:59 PM EDT, the deadline is the next Saturday night at 8:00 PM. If it is a minute later, the deadline is a day plus 15 hours (Sunday), as opposed to a day minus 4 hours.
If this proposal passes, these guidelines will be codified in [[MarioWiki:Manual of Style|our Manual of Style]] for posterity and slowly rolled out across articles, as we've been doing with Naming sections.


__TOC__
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 13, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{LOCALTIME}}, {{LOCALDAY}} {{LOCALMONTHNAME}} {{LOCALYEAR}} (EDT)'''</span></center>
====Support, type A (fully chronological)====
#{{User|Yoshi18}} It's a more organized version of what we have right now and I'm fine with what we have right now, but if it's more organized, it's always better if you ask me, and making it chronological makes it even more organized, so it's basically a win-win. Sub-sections are much better than simply putting "[game name]:". Adding the sub-sections makes reading it much easier.
#{{User|Hewer}} If the goal is to decrease clutter and improve readability, I think this solution is better than the other one that adds more unnecessary headers.
#{{User|Fakename123}} I have thought about proposing something similar myself.
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per proposal.


==New Features==
====Support, type B (sorted by series)====
===Featured Lists===
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} my preferred choice.
The discussion was going on over [[MarioWiki:Featured_Articles/N/List_of_Mario_Party_DS_Collection_Descriptions|here]] about making a Featured List. The List over there is generally 100% complete, however since the lack of the text count and rules of our normal FA doesn't meet that standard, it cannot become featured. So, we were thinking of making a Featured List, which could make some lists such as Allies and what not to also become Featured. Some lists are well off completed, but haven't been recognised by users, such as [[Trophy Descriptions (SSBM)]] I still don't know what the standards of a Featured List would be, I want to hear other users opinions as well. So, with all that said, what do you guys think? Yes or no?


'''Proposer''': {{User|Super-Yoshi}}<br>
====Oppose (reference sections are fine as is)====
'''Deadline''': November 4th, 2008, 22:00


====Create Featured Lists====
====Comments in other games====
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per myself.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - As long as an organized standards system that works in accordance ''on some level'' with current featured '''article''' rules, I believe this could be a wonderful addition to the MarioWiki. So, per S-Y and my comment below.
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per S-Y.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per S-Y. However, there aren't '''that''' many Feature-worthy lists out there, so perhaps the FLs should be an occasional substitute for FAs (i.e. 4 FAs and then an FL).


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


====Comments====
;The benefits of sorting talk page proposals:
Well, here's some standards you may like:
*Makes individual proposals easier to spot and parse by breaking up the list into easier to read chunks
*The lists must be 100% complete, containing all required descriptions and images in order to reach such a status.
*Groups similar proposals together
*The lists must be organized it a tidy manner, be it through a table, template, or any other means.
*Parity with main page proposals
*The lists must contain at least 1,000 bytes of information original to the MarioWiki, thus making the Super Mario Wiki seem more official. -- (In other words, so it doesn't look like we're just copying and pasting lists.)
*The lists must be composed in a well-written manner. Grammar must be as correct as possible.
*The lists must be of adequate size (10Kb?). In other words, a list pertaining to all the items in ''[[Paper Mario]]'' would be likely insufficient, but a list pertaining to all items in the ''[[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]]'' series would be sufficient, as long as said list were to meet all of the aforementioned requirements.


Just a thought. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
;The downsides of sorting talk page proposals:
:Sounds good. Just a little bit more, and this should be good to go. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
*The list stops being fully chronological
::Agreed. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
*I can't think of another downside
:::'''Walkazo''': That's actually a really good idea. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::::Yea, awesome idea. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
:::::Thanks! - {{User|Walkazo}}


==Removals==
As per [[User:PopitTart|PopitTart]] on the Discord server, the categories should be "Splits", "Merges", "Moves", and "Miscellaneous", since they're by far the most common reason folks make a talk page proposal.
''None at the moment.


==Splits & Merges==
'''Proposer''': {{User|EvieMaybe}}<br>
''None at the moment.
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Changes==
====Split the talk page proposals====
''None at the moment.''
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} ''Thank'' you. This is well overdue, as the TPP list has been kind of a rat's nest as of late; literally any organization is well worth it, in our opinion. Per proposal.
#{{User|OmegaRuby}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} This kind of feature parity is quite useful, especially when the list has a lot of proposals on it!
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per EvieMaybe.
#{{User|PopitTart}} Per proposal, and my own mockup on the Discord.


==Miscellaneous==
====Do not split the talk page proposals====
===Article Organization Standard===
For quite some time now, we have given guidelines as to article formatting, but we have not set a single standard.  This has caused many problems for the Wiki, including the conflicts over the formatting of the [[Mario]] and [[Daisy]] articles.  Our previous formatting ideas came from the idea that certain sources were of a higher canon than others and thus should be separated from lower canon sources in the articles.  This was detailed in [[MarioWiki:Canonicity]] prior to its recent rewrite which removed that speculation.  Unfortunately, that means that our primary article organization is based off of fanon.  For example, our section on video game appearances is called “Biography,” implying that none of the sports spin-offs and alternate media sources “happened” in a character's life.  Whether we believe this to be true or not, it is not the Wiki's place to make such speculation.


This presents us with a unique opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: if we establish a standard for article organization that is not based on speculation, the speculation will be removed from our articles AND the argument as to how articles should be organized will be settled.
===="Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)====
What if a proposal falls into multiple categories? For instance, [[Talk:List of Smash Taunt characters#Doing something about this page|this]] was both a merge and move proposal, [[Talk:Cheep Cheep (bird)#Move back to Cheep Cheep (bird) and/or split Puncher|this]] was both a move and split proposal, [[Talk:Bad Luck Space#Remerge with Unlucky Space, take two|this]] is both a merge and split proposal... {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:08, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
:either "Miscellaneous" or whatever the most relevant category is, same way as if a main page proposal fell into multiple categories. up to the proposer's discretion. {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 13:20, April 21, 2025 (EDT)


I propose that we give each individual source a section of its own.  Then, each section would be placed within its respective medium.  We would have a separate section for video games, television shows, comics, the movie, etc.  Furthermore, each of these sections would have subsections for each series.  The central ''[[Mario (series)|Mario]]'' platforming series would have a section, as would ''[[Mario Kart (series)|Mario Kart]]'', ''[[Paper Mario (series)|Paper Mario]]'', etc.  For titles that do not fall into a series, they would be placed in a section called "Individual Titles" or some equivalent.  Each of these sections and sub-sections will be organized by release date.  So, for Mario, you would first have the video game section, which starts with the ''[[Donkey Kong (series)|Donkey Kong]]'' series, then moves to the ''Mario'' series, and so on and so forth. However, when the events of a title has ''explicitly'' occurred prior to those released earlier in its section, such as ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' in the ''Mario'' section, it can be listed earlier.  Another example would be ''[[Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins]]'', which can be listed just after ''[[Super Mario Land]]''.
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


For those who are confused, I am willing to make a mock-up of this concept.  For those who still want to see the video game sources lined up in the way they currently are, please remember that [[MarioWiki:Chronology]] was designed just for you.
==Changes==
===Split lists of changes from remakes' articles===
(OK, it has been like ten years since I last made a Proposal, so forgive me if something is wrong.)<br>


Why does this idea benefit the Wiki?
It has come to my attention, from '''trying''' to browse the [[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch)|TTYD Switch remake]] article, not as an editor, but as a player looking for specific information, just how awfully nightmarish it is to navigate it when 80%+ of the content is a massive list of changes that, while interesting, should definitely not be the focus of four fifths of the article (nor the first proper section in it, but that's not the focus of this Proposal), particularly when many people searching for the article have possibly only played the remake and as such this information would be mostly irrelevant at best. We already split glitches, staff, beta elements, etc... Why not this?<br>
#Removes speculation: Organizing by media and series is an objective concept that Nintendo often uses itself.  Compare this to our current method: trying to organize events in the order that WE believe them to have happened, something that Nintendo has never done.
#Creates a standard: now that MarioWiki:Canonicity has been rewritten, we need a new standard.  I also want us to have a standard that we all agree on, not one that a sysop back from the early days of the Wiki created before we had the proposals page.
#Frees us from having to connect storylines.  If each appearance has a different section, we do not need to speculate and claim that "After doing this, the character did that," or worry about balancing the inconsistencies such as those between ''Yoshi's Island'', ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' and the [[Nintendo Comics System]].
#Allows for expansion of alternate media appearances, such as those from ''The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!''  It is very difficult to write about the entire series in a paragraph of a subsection in the alternate media sections as our current organization has us doing.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Stumpers}} (with input from Cobold, Blitzwing, Ghost Jam, and Rooben Stooben among others.)<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}}<br>
'''Deadline:''' November 3rd, 17:00
'''Deadline''': May 5, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
====Support====
#{{User|Stumpers}} - My reasons are detailed above.
#{{User|Henry Tucayo Clay}} - Per proposal
#{{User|Cobold}} - I think that the current way the articles are structured is rather random and not really official. The change is necessary.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Stumpers, all the way. This should finally help get articles in order &ndash; the way they should always be.
#{{User|Blitzwing}} - Per Stumpers.
#{{User|Tucayo}} - Per Stumpers, he got inspired
#{{User|Booster}} - Per all. This seems like a really good idea.
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per Stumpers. Less arguements and stuff are going to happen this way, and our wiki will be much neater and organized.
#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per all.
#{{User|RAP}} - Per all, per all, per all. ''Period.'' The wiki will be greatly cleaned up with easy to access information when this proposal will be effect.
#{{User|3DD}}Per Stumpers.


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


====Comments====
====Comments====
Thanks, Tucayo, but I gotta give credit to the other sysops as well - it was really a group effort. I just nailed down the specifics. {{User|Stumpers}}
@YoYo: If you are specifically looking for changes from the original to the remake, wouldn't a dedicated article make more sense, then? --{{User:Henry Tucayo Clay/sig}} 13:33, April 21, 2025 (EDT)
:What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. {{User:LadySophie17/sig}} 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)


I still think dividing the video games by individual series is too much. Yes, those of us who do want to see the strictly chronological order ''can'' look on [[MarioWiki:Chronology]], but you could just as easily say the people who want to see the series' history can look on the Series' Pages (i.e. [[Mario & Luigi (series)]]). Plus, casual Users and Guests may not know enough to go searching the MarioWiki pages; whereas the Series Pages are mainspace and (should be) linked to on the articles themselves. Even then, all the Chronology page gives us is a list, and if we want to find out about what Mario does from game to game, we'd have to go from game to game; whereas the Series Pages offer a bit more up front. Plus, it's not rocket science to figure out ''[[Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door]]'' is the sequel to ''[[Paper Mario]]''; so if someone did want to find out what Mario did in respects to the [[Paper Mario (series)|''Paper Mario'' series]] only, they'd just have to scroll down the chronologically-organized biography looking for the "Paper Mario" titles. But it doesn't go both ways: as they are now, most biography sections don't include dates; and even if they do in the future, it's harder to look around for the first thing to come after "September 1993" than the next 3-D "Super Mario...". True, that's when you'd whip out MW:Chronology; but it seems like too much hassle for half of us just to spare the other half a fraction of the time and frustration. What I'm trying to say is that we ''already have'' the option to read history by series, and we always will, so what ''need'' is there for this extra step? I agree with the proposal otherwise, so I'm not voting against it - the Wiki needs change, just not '''that''' much. - {{User|Walkazo}}
===Rename "List of (game) staff" articles to "(game) credits" and include what happens in credits sequences===
:Something that I was considering while writing this proposal was that, even if this isn't the ultimate fix we find, it's a good one for right now.  If you can think of a better way, please, PLEASE make a proposal.  We've been banging our heads trying to figure out how to not follow any fanon while still acknowledging the fact that the overall Mario series does appear to have a continuity within it, just not a very well defined one. {{User|Stumpers}}
"Credits" is generally the proper term when listing staff in media. As for the latter part, while we do have an article about ending [[Parade]]s, I think it couldn't hurt to mention what happens while the credits roll in the article opener. e.g for ''Super Paper Mario''{{'}}s article: "During the credits, images of scenes throughout the game are shown". Listing the staff itself will remain unchanged.
::That's one thing that poses a big problem: Nintendo has confirmed absolutely ''no'' chronological order to their different types of media. This is one of the few tasks the MarioWiki that we have do to completely from scratch. I for one, think it's well worth it, despite any obstacles we may run across. {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
:::By organizing by series, we can free ourselves of any conjecture we previously had to make when we clumped all the video games together.  Another method would be to list appearances by release date.  However, the downside of that is that you can't place past events from later released appearances earlier in the article.  For example, we know that ''Yoshi's Island'' came before ''Super Mario Bros.'', but we don't know how ''Yoshi's Island'' relates to ''Yoshi Touch & Go''. Is it before, after, during, or an alternate timeline?  By dividing into ''Mario'' and ''Yoshi'' series, we free ourselves up from that. {{User|Stumpers}}
::::MW:Chronology has already established that games explicitly set at certain points in time are exempt from the release-date-order (such as ''[[Super Mario Land 2: Six Golden Coins]]'' coming immediately after ''[[Super Mario Land]]''; and ''[[Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island]]'' being set before all other games), so couldn't that be carried over to the articles? As for the muddled [[Yoshi (series)|''Yoshi'' series]], I don't think organizing by series would make it any easier than by date (for example, ''SMW2: Yoshi's Island'' is as closely elated to ''[[Super Mario World]]'' as it is to the later ''Yoshi'' titles, which confuses things further: where does one series end and the next begin?). ''[[Yoshi Touch & Go]]'' has no plot, but what can be gleaned from the gameplay suggests it is a "retelling" of ''Yoshi's Island'', and can therefore be listed alongside said game, like how ''[[Super Mario 64 DS]]'' is incorporated with ''[[Super Mario 64]]'' in MW:Chronology. Lumping the games together by series is invoking as much conjecture as going by release dates; and considering all the cross-series references and carry-overs, it would seem more likely Nintendo did not mean to divide the games like this. For instance, Bowser's crush for Peach was introduced in ''Paper Mario'' and then incorporated into subsequent games such as ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]'', which is part of the 3-D series begun '''before''' ''Paper Mario'' was released. For this reason, listing ''SMS'' before ''PM'' would be confusing, but necessary according to ordering by series and their seniority. ''[[Super Paper Mario]]'' also references series that come after ''Paper Mario'' started (i.e. the Sammer Guy [[List of Sammer Guys#Mustard of Doom|Mustard of Doom]] named after Fawful of ''[[Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga]]''); though you ''could'' argue these are merely jokes for the player's amusement, and not as consequential as actual plot elements. - {{User|Walkazo}}
:::Actually, Bowser's love for Peach was introduced in ''[[The Great Mission to Save Princess Peach]]'' and then in ''[[Super Mario Adventures]]'' (it could also be argued that  ''[[The Super Mario Bros. Super Show!]]'' also used this concept when Bowser wanted to marry Peach, but it was largely for political reasons).  Examples of video games taking ideas from earlier alternate media are numerous, even when it comes to references and jokes for the player: the [[Pal Pills]] were a reference back to an item from ''[[Super Mario World (TV series)|Super Mario World]]'' television show episode "[[Rock TV]]" for example, and Nintendo of America openly embraced the idea of Mario coming from Brooklyn even after ''Yoshi's Island'' contradicted the ''Super Show's'' backstory.  However, since many users (including yourself) argued against the merging of video games and alternate media sources into one big appearances section, myself and the other sysops had to think of another solution.  You're arguing that video games should be blended together because each series is not presented as its own separate continuity with different characters, locations, and themes.  Yet, I can and have argued that video games and alternate media sources should be merged for the same reasons.  Remember when I implemented that idea into [[Mario]] and his [[Mario and Luigi's Parents|parents]]' articles?  As you pointed out and I agreed, it was a mess of speculation.  You also forgot something about ''[[MarioWiki:Chronology]]'': it's designed for users to ''speculate'' on how the sources fit together.  So, here's my and the other sysops' logic: if placing sources together in a chronological order requires speculation (for example, can you cite me specific proof that says ''[[Paper Mario]]'' came after ''[[Super Mario 64]]''?), then why should we do it?  We're here to write about official Nintendo material rather than to speculate about it, right?  So, how can we ''not'' speculate?  We must sort by an objective standard rather than a subjective one.  We must be able to clearly say, "This source fits this real world, non-fanon condition(s)."  Rather than, as you said, base our organization on what we "gleaned from gameplay suggests,"  One early idea of mine was to sort sources by date exclusively, and making the articles clearly historical from the point of the real world?  That was one of my first ideas, but it was denied.  What the sysops and I cooked up and I am now proposing is objective criteria, and it will organize those ridiculously long appearance pages. {{User|Stumpers}}
::::I just wanted to apologize in case my above message seemed harsh or irksome.  I reread it now, and it does seem a little arm-twisty. So, anyone who read it, know that yes, I do believe what I said, but no, it wasn't fair to say it the way I did.  I'd like to give Walkazo credit for standing up for the removal of fanon with the Mario's parents article, and I'm very grateful for it.  Otherwise, I'd probably still be pounding away at articles, speculating like crazy trying to put all the pieces together.  So, thanks, Walkazo and I hope you weren't offended in any way! {{User|Stumpers}}


This Proposal is like quantum physics - it's too confusing for me. If I understood it properly, I'd have my say in this. I am extremely dumb, but it's mainly because Stumpers is too smart... {{User|Dom}}
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nightwicked Bowser}}<br>
:You, good sir, are much too kind!  But, if you can't understand it that means I wrote it badly.  Is there anything in particular you'd like me to clarify?  Is it just the reasoning for the change or would you like me to make a mock-up to show what the change will be? {{User|Stumpers}}
'''Deadline''': May 7, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:::::Going back to the above conversation; to be honest, I did feel like I was being scolded for stubbornly arguing against your idea, Stumpers, but your apology was really nice - thank you! Anyway, I did find specific proof that there is some sort of inter-series continuum: [[FLUDD]]'s video analysis of Mario at the beginning of ''[[Super Mario Sunshine]]''. It first shows him jumping over [[Bowser]] in ''[[Super Mario Bros.]]'', then battling [[Iggy Koopa]] in ''[[Super Mario World]]'', and finally him swinging Bowser around by his tail in ''[[Super Mario 64]]''. I can't guarantee FLUDD showed the videos in the order that they occurred in the Marioverse, but it would make the most sense if it did, as computers use pretty standard organization principals (the other option would be alphabetical order, but in that case, ''SM64'' would come '''before''' ''SM World''); speculation aside, it ''still'' proves the three series coexist. And unlike most cross-series references, this is an actual plot device: it shows how FLUDD identifies Mario as a Koopa-fighting crusader worthy of its assistance. - {{User|Walkazo}}
::::Aw... thanks for not being mad at me (I deserve it if you are).  I've been pretty stressed out this week, so just know that I didn't mean to scold you, and that NO one, especially NOT you deserves that.  Again, I'm really sorry about that!  I'm nearly certain we can confirm that the main ''Mario'' series is definitely in a straight-shot continuity, with the two exceptions ''Yoshi's Island'' and ''Super Mario Land 2''.  Reasons like the ones you mentioned and the continuity between the titles is pretty blatant.  Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) directly connected itself to be after Super Mario Bros. 1.  Super Mario Land would have taken place next by release date (and thus SML2 would come right after), which then explains ''Super Mario Bros. 3'''s storyline, stating that Bowser had been unactive for a very long time.  I'm not sure how official it is, but many users have told me that ''Super Mario World'' is apparently the bros. going on a vacation to celebrate the returned peace in the Mushroom World.  You can see, there's no down time in the story, really.  Then, after that they brought in the spin-off ''Super Mario Kart'' and the explanation of Mario's birth in ''Yoshi's Island''.  A lot more spin-offs ''and'' real world time passed before we got our mitts on ''Super Mario 64''.  It's between ''World'' and ''64'' we first start getting this messy video game continuity: the games with a storyline come out with much greater time between them and more spin-offs happen, none of which connect themselves ''directly'' with the plot of the others (but you should know, I totally think they are part of the continuity personally).  So, what I'm saying is this: the part of the continuity we KNOW is set in stone is the main series video games.  Their storylines always spell out the context, even if it's just connecting back in various ways (''Sunshine'' showed that Mario remembered ''Luigi's Mansion'' and that F.L.U.D.D. knew of his past exploits.)  And, I would further argue that the RPG series is married at the hip as well, which itself is a straight shot continuity between SMRPG, Paper Mario, M&L, PM2, etc. as well.  Elements have spilled over greatly, and have established that they are part of the main series continuity (Kamek remembers Baby Mario and Luigi, Beanish characters in PM2, etc.).
::::So, what my message here is this: I myself am of the theory that MarioWiki:Chronology is the closest thing we can get to a continuity, and I stand by it.  I would like to stress that article organization and continuity don't necessarily have to go together.  We may find it more advantageous to sort by series, we might not.  In any case, if this doesn't work out as well, rest assured the sysops and myself will keep trying to find a better way, and I'll be looking to you, Walkazo.  Thanks for all your help on the Wiki! {{User|Stumpers}}
'''Response to Stumpers, from Dom:''' Well, one thing that makes it confusing is that this is the biggest, wordiest proposal I've ever seen - there's so much to try and take in. And the huge amount of comments here proves it must be pretty complicated. I think I would get this if you made a mock-up of what the changes would be - I am a visual learner so yeah. Although I'll admit that I still look at the Proposal and it goes over my head. It would be great if you could demonstrate the changes... <small> Man, I feel really dumb. </small> {{User|Dom}}
:::::Sure, I'll work on it.  I'm not sure if I'll be able to get it to you before the weekend is over, though, because I'm super busy from the Saturday morning on. :O {{User|Stumpers}}
::::::In that case, I'm going to wait until I see the mock-up before I say anything else; a picture's worth a thousand words, after all. One thing is bugging me, though: italicization. So far, the game, show and movie titles are being italicized, but not the comics, which, according to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(titles)#Italics|this]], is wrong. If we're already going to be reworking most articles for the new policy, I think it would be a good opportunity to address these sorts of trivialities as well. Anyway, pertaining to your earlier response, Stumpers, you're being ''far'' to kind; we all make mistakes and holding you to one slip-up you immediately apologized for would be wrong. - {{User|Walkazo}}
&nbsp;


=== Poll Requirements ===
====Both====
Well, I love to see all the creativity with the polls, but what bothers me is how poor some can be. A lot have extremely poor grammar and too few of choices. Others are a bit innapropriate or don't involve complete Mario-related ideas. So what I'm saying here is to stengthen the rules for poll suggestions, to make sure pointless polls are prevented. I've come up with a few sample rules to start:
#{{User|Nightwicked Bowser}} Per proposal
#The poll must relate entirely to the Mario or other related series. (DK, Yoshi, SSB, etc.)
#{{User|Rykitu|Rykitu credits}} Per proposal
#Polls must have at least 3-10 choices.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I'm all in for using the more famous term "credits". Per proposal!
#Nothing innapropriate or what others might consider offensive
.....And so on. So, who's with me on this?


'''Proposer''': {{user|Luigi001}}
====Only rename articles====


'''Deadline''': November 6th, 5:00 EST


====Support====
====Only include credits sequence information====
#{{user|Luigi001}} My reasons above and below.
 
#{{User|Dom}} - See my Comments below.
 
#{{User|Mateus 23}} - Per Luigi001 and Dom's comment below.
====Neither====
#{{user|iggykoopa}} Per all
#{{user|Storm Warrior}} Per all.


====Oppose====
#{{User|Super-Yoshi}} - Per my comment below
#{{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}} Per S-Y coment below.


====Comments====
====Comments====
Um I thought the Porplemontage controls the poll page and the rules. {{User|Princess Grapes Butterfly}}
Would this also apply to games that don't have a credits roll, like [[Super Mario Bros.]]? I think it would be misleading to refer to the [[List of Super Mario Bros. staff|list of staff]] as "credits" if so. {{User:Dive Rocket Launcher/sig}} 08:06, April 24, 2025 (EDT)
:Well, not exactly. I mean he has more control over everything, being the founder and all. But we as users get a say in what goes in and out, otherwise this wiki would be more like a dictatorship. There's been proposals on adding/changing rules before, so I don't see the difference. {{user|Luigi001}}
 
::Yea but Steve set it up, and nothing bad is going on with the polls rite now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Once some polls tart becoming spammy, then we should have some rules, but everything's going fine right now. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
===Make a guideline for covering generic subjects that have a recurring and recognizable design in the ''Mario'' series===
:::That "If it's not broken" saying doesn't exactly apply to this. I'm not saying it's broken or what not. I've seen some polls that actually ''do'' seem a bit like just spam or such, or just a way to get noticed on the wiki. I don't mean rules, more so "Guidlines" to creating a poll. Just so that spam polls and pointless ones are prevented in the near future. {{user|Luigi001}}
{{Early notice|May 4, 2025}}
{|class=wikitable style=float:right;width:25%
!colspan=4|Know the difference!
|-
|width=15%|[[File:SMG Penguin Artwork.png|100px]]
|width=35%|'''''Eudyptula mariosixtyfourus'':'''<br>stubby, "chibi" build; generally blue-feathered; capable of speech; can man a vehicle
|width=15%|[[File:Pinball Penguin.gif|50px]][[File:Penguin MIMCD.png|50px]]
|width=35%|Who?
|-
|[[File:MK8 Asset Model Snowman.png|100px]]
|Wears a scarf and a blue, tilted bucket for a hat. Number one cause of car accidents during snowfall. Might be sentient.
|[[File:SnowmanDKJB.png|50px]] [[File:SPP Snowman.png|40px]]
|Little Timmy's first snowpeople.
|}
A [[Talk:Penguin#Scope|discussion at Talk:Penguin]] began over the structure and scope of the wiki's [[Penguin]] article. The article focuses almost exclusively on the blue-feathered, friendly race of creatures found throughout ''Mario'' games, while relegating information about other instances of non-specific penguins that do not fit this description to a brief Notes section. Some users believe that the article should be a catch-all for critters in the series that are called simply "penguins", resemble real penguins, and fill some role related to gameplay or plot. Others think that the current article is best reserved for the design unique to ''Mario'' and have suggested creating a different, dedicated space on the wiki for the penguins that do not use this design.
 
A similar issue arises with the page [[Snowman]]. Like penguins, snowmen appear in various shapes and sizes, some having features uncharacteristic of their real life counterparts (such as bananas for a mouth and arms). However, the ones in the ''Mario Kart'' series stand out as the most consistently designed--having a two-segmented body, a bucket for a hat (always tilted to the side), two oval beady eyes, a stumpy nose, a scarf, and, in latter appearances, a tiny smile. One such ''Mario Kart'' snowman is even a playable character in ''Mario Kart World'', cementing its kind as the ''Mario'' brand's de facto snowman look.
 
Insofar as English-language material is concerned, this situation is unique to Penguins and Snowmen in the ''Mario'' franchise. However, the franchise is no stranger to featuring generically identified things based on some kind of real life counterpart, such as [[crab]], [[frog]], and [[cheese]], as well as featuring creatures that are also based on a real world thing, but were given a distinctive ''Mario'' twist, such as [[Dolphin]] and [[Moo Moo]] (which I assume will soon be moved to Cow as per ''Mario Kart World''). The more these two categories grow, the more overlap there's bound to be, so I figured it's best we hashed out a guideline on how to manage their coverage. If no further instances of such an overlap is to emerge, then I suppose this proposal is ultimately still useful in sorting out the current Penguin/Snowman sitch.
 
The proposal centers on the two courses of action suggested in the Penguin discussion I linked above.
 
;Option 1
 
Separate a given generic subject between articles based on whether it follows a recurring, recognizable design in the ''Mario'' series.
*In this case, [[Penguin]] continues to focus on the race of blue penguins introduced in ''Super Mario 64'', while a different article is created to elaborate on all the other nondescript penguins in the series that may play some kind of role. Such an article would cover, for instance, the penguins in ''[[Pinball]]'', which [[Special:Diff/3772388|were removed from the parent article a while ago]] despite having a gameplay role, however minor. The penguins featured in "[[7 Continents for 7 Koopas]]" would also be mentioned here because they play a role in the episode's climax.
*Similarly, the [[Snowman]] page becomes exclusively focused on the ones that follow the ''Mario Kart'' design, while a separate page is made for all the other snowmen in the series, such as the ''Jungle Beat'', ''Galaxy'', ''Super Princess Peach'', and possibly the ''Mario Kart: Super Circuit'' ones.
 
As for the manner of disambiguating these articles, because I don't wish this proposal to become overly restrictive, I'll suggest something in the comments.
 
If two or more designs exist in the series for a real world thing and each is established and recurring in their own right (like the ''Super Mario 64'' Penguins), they are each given an article. This hasn't happened yet to my knowledge.
 
;Option 2
 
Cover all instances of a generic subject with a direct real world counterpart in one article and in due detail. In this scenario, the current Penguin article contains detailed information on all the penguins I've described above, sectioned accordingly. The same applies to the Snowman article, which would keep its current structure.
 
;Option 3
 
Only dedicate an article to the distinctive ''Mario'' subject and use a "Notes" section in that article to quickly go over instances of that subject that do not follow the same distinctive look. The Penguin article would remain the same as currently, and the Snowman article would be modified to reflect the former's structure.
 
'''The winning option is turned into a guideline at [[MarioWiki:Generic subjects]].'''
 
;Notes
#Whichever course of action is chosen to become a guideline, it is not to be taken as a rigid, one-size-fits-all policy linked solely to one specific design. If a given generic subject comes in multiple shapes and sizes, but these can collectively be tied to one concept peculiar to the ''Mario'' series rather than something strictly tied to the real world, the guideline would not be invoked as a reason to split those multiple variants of what is essentially the same thing. An example in the ''Mario'' series is [[Small bird]], signalled in the comments--its article describes a varied family of birds that fulfill the same gameplay role. The proposal offers users a coherent structure to follow on more clear-cut distinctions between a generic subject and a properly-defined ''Mario'' subject, but there will be enough flexibility to account for nuanced cases such as the Small bird's.
#The guideline will only apply to subjects that can clearly be construed as "generic" and non-derivative, and which have a long history of being referred to after their real life counterparts in multiple languages. This guideline is not to be enforced on subjects whose identity is contentious, or whose nature is significantly more based in fiction than real life.
#*If there is divergence on whether a subject is meant to be generic, e.g. [[Sidestepper]] (simply named "[[crab]]" in other languages) or [[Preying Mantas]] (mostly ever called "[[jellyfish]]"), a separate discussion is required.
#*The beer-throwing [[Penguin (enemy)|penguins]] in ''Wario Land II'' are out of the proposal's scope, because their appearance and behavior are too derivative of real life penguins, and they have not appeared often enough to make a compelling case either way.
#*Though there are many things named "[[Ghost]]" in the Mario franchise, their relevant articles on the wiki most often discuss particular characters that happen to have a generic name (like the [[Ghost (Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3)|boss in ''Wario Land 1'']] and [[Ghost (Wario Land II boss)|the one in ''Wario Land 2'']]), distinctive creatures with a tenuous connection to ghosts (the wispy, worm-like [[Ghost (Yoshi's Story)|things]] in ''Yoshi's Story'', the [[Ghost (Donkey Kong 64)|costumed Kremlings]] in ''Donkey Kong 64''), technical terms unrelated to supernatural apparitions, and a select enemy "species" encountered in the ''Luigi's Mansion'' series. The only two true instances of generic ghosts in the extended Mario franchise are [[Ghost (Wario Land II enemy)]] and [[Ghost (DK series)]], but because I foresee contention on whether these need to be covered on the same page, this proposal excludes them altogether.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Koopa con Carne}}<br>
'''Deadline''': May 11, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
====Option 1: Cover generic subjects based on how established their design is, collect information on non-recurrent, non-established designs in a separate article====
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These smaller but still significant appearances of generically named subjects are still important! That said, subjects like the Mario 64 penguins feel strange to even regard as generic given how well-established and uniquely designed they are; it seems to me that these are more like Mario-original subjects that just lack a unique name.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Especially given the remark in the comments about giving these more generic appearances the (generic) label in the comments. This helps create a rather clear divide from "Mario-ified version of a real-world thing" and "a generic real-world thing", and the alternative of eventually having to mention [[Community Service]] on the [[Moo Moo|"Cow"]] page once ''[[Mario Kart World]]'' releases does not appeal to us one bit; better to get ahead of the curve when it comes to preventing weird WikiJank™.
#{{User|Exiled.Serenity}} It does seem to us that things like these penguins are usually presented as 'the Mario character from that game' so it makes sense to give it its own space. Still worth documenting the others, but also important not to imply the Blue Penguin From Mario is just another incidental generic penguin.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per proposal. Having a more generic article for the generic depictions feels way better than lumping them with the more stylized depictions the ''Mario series'' occasionally creates.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} tentative support, assuming "design" is not restricted to just visual appearance. Some subjects can have radically different appearances between titles but have the same behaviors, roles, and mechanical tactileness between them, and those can be indicative of continuity and shared, ontological identity as much as a shared visual appearance. Personally, I am not invested in having an article for unrelated subjects that happen to be based on real-world penguins. None of them really appear in any context that would make an article on them particularly robust or earnestly accurate, in my view, because none of them have substantial roles or were conceived by the same people. They just happen to be realistic penguins. However, others express interest in that type of documentation, and I do not want to be the reason why they can't.
#{{User|Kirby the Formling}} both generic and stylised creatures articles have good reasons to exists, so per all.
#{{User|Mister Wu}} If small birds and Cow are of any indication, it might be worth it to provide coverage for recurring designs of otherwise generic subjects or objects.
#{{User|Biggestman}} Per all.
#{{User|DryBonesBandit}} Per all.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I greatly support the idea of descriptions based on design. I feel like design changes are really important to see how the enemy has involved over the years, instead of just only covering the current design, and acting like the subject has never acted different before
#{{User|DesaMatt}} Per all.
#{{User|Blinker}} Per Nintendo101.
 
====Option 2: Cover all instances of a generic subject on one article, whether its design is established or not====
#[[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) - A lot of these are subject to series' legacy-based art direction; ie, snowmen in the ''Mario Kart'' games tend to (though not always) have a design based on the MKDS take on the MK64 ones, but they're still just as much snowmen as any of the others. With that said, I think "[[small bird]]" can stay separate with the ''Odyssey'' section's multiple designs, if only because ''Odyssey'' also concurrently features [[Bird (traveling)|larger birds]].
#{{User|Nintendo101}} alternatively, perhaps articles like that for the penguin, cow/moo moo, snowman, etc. can be restructured conceptually where all of the information is housed together under one article, but emphasis is put on the recurring, more ubiquitous ''Mario'' designs in how the article is written. Perhaps info on penguins in ''Mario is Missing'' and ''WarioWare'' can be included in ''the'' penguin article if these one-off looks are not treated with the same weight as the more prolific design that debuted in ''Super Mario 64''.
 
====Option 3: Only afford a page to the generic subject with an established design, note other instances succinctly in one section of that page====
 
====Do nothing (generic subjects)====
 
====Comments (generic subjects)====
Regarding option 1, maybe give the page for non-established designs of penguins and snowmen the "(generic)" identifier. Open to better suggestions. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 06:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
I feel like there should be a fourth option for whatever [[Earth]] is up to. TLDR: There's a section for the Earth of the real world and a section for Earth-y fictional planets. Basically Option 3 without the shortening. It's a bad option, since those should just be separate articles, but it is an answer to this that is currently on the wiki. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
Do WarioWare Gold's [[coin]]s get caught up in this? They don't have a design in the middle like every Mario-ian coin. The WarioWare: Get it Together coins do, and match Mario-ian coins at that. It does suggest a risk of option 1 splitting design histories between multiple pages, which I don't care about but some people do. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 06:58, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:Very good observation. I always found the scope of the [[Coin]] article to be rather messy, and I'd prefer if it followed a guideline akin to what is proposed here. In other words, should option 1 or 3 garner majority in this proposal, the coins in ''Wario Land 4'' and ''WarioWare Gold'' (among other instances) are distinguished accordingly from the established design that appears to be stamped with the Roman numeral "'''I'''" ([[File:CoinMK8.png|20px]]). That said, some coins seen throughout the franchise do not have the same design as the ''Super Mario Bros.'' coin, but are clearly derivative of it, namely:
:*The star-minted coins in ''Super Mario 64'' and ''Super Mario Pinball''. ([[File:SM64 Yellow Coin art.jpg|20px]])
:*The Yoshi-themed coins in the ''Yoshi'' platformers. ([[File:YIDS Coin.jpg|30px]])
:Without careful consideration, guideline 1 and 3 would sweep these up as well. How to handle these? My suggestion is to use the parent "Coin" article for instances of yellow/gold coins that pertain to the larger, established ''Mario'' "currency" that comprises [[Red Coin]]s and [[Blue Coin]]s. There is a clear hierarchical connection between the ''64''/''Pinball''/''Yoshi'' coins and these that the ''Wario Land 4'' coins, for instance, do not have (in fact, you can construe those as a different currency altogether [[File:WL4-Coins.png|40px]]). {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 10:53, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
I think this proposal would benefit from greater clarification on what constitutes as "generic" and what qualifies as a "recurring design." Because to me, something based on a real-world in appearance but has pretty consistent mechanical utility in-game is a recurring attribute of the subject, like [[fish]] or [[flower (environmental object)|flower]]. Similarly, I think the [[T-Rex]] from ''Super Mario Odyssey'' and ''Mario Kart World'' make sense in the same article despite one looking more realistic than the other. However, there are subjects with generic names in the language of the people that created them, like [[Maw-Ray]], but I would not support turning that article into one for any and all moray eels in the ''Super Mario'' franchise. That seems unhelpful and diluting. The [[Dolphin]]s, which are not even supposed to be generic dolphin animals in Japanese, also should not be an article for any dolphins in the ''Super Mario'' franchise.
 
To me, I do not think it is accurate to consider penguins to be generic subjects. They are as discrete to me as Toads or Gearmos, and I think it is in-part because they are typically speaking characters with cultures. I think to elevate realistic animal penguins from ''Pinball'', ''Mario is Missing'' or ''Jungle Beat'', which appear very infrequently and to which the blue talking birds have no relation to within the context of creative works, would be diluting and inaccurate. I'm not even sure the realistic-looking animal info is helpful/accurate to even have in the penguin article, as opposed to simply covering those subjects on their respective game and level articles where relevant. They are not the same subjects, in my view. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:14, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:I'm fully aware that the terminology used in the proposal can be confusing depending on how you look at it, but that wasn't by design. I just couldn't find less unwieldy terminology to work with. To be clear, I completely agree with the notion that the ''Super Mario 64'' Penguins, the "Lifton" Dolphins, and the "Moo Moo" Cows are ad hoc ''Mario'' species, just like Goombas and Toads. However, "generic" can also describe any of the Goombas you stomp in games, relative to individuals like [[Goombario]] and [[Goombella]], and by that definition, your Moo Moos and Liftons are also rather generic, which makes them even more painful to distinguish from a "generic ''generic''" entity like the cow in the [[Community Service]] microgame. I could have used the term "non-generic generic" for those ''Mario'' species, but that's... obtuse. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 11:39, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
::For clarity, I didn't at all think the lack of clarity was intentional or anything like this. I agree this franchise makes this a difficult topic to discuss all on its own. But thank you for the other examples - they are helpful. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 11:43, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
::The ''Mario Kart'' cows were stylized based on what they could make for a simple pre-render on the Nintendo 64. I don't see anything that distinguishes them from standard cartoon cows, while Toads and Goombas are obviously more fantastical as sapient fungus. [[User:Doc von Schmeltwick|Doc von Schmeltwick]] ([[User talk:Doc von Schmeltwick|talk]]) 13:56, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:::I'm not sure the underlying reasons why the cows look the way they do makes them more generic than Toads or Goombas, especially since this same design has been exercised for these cows for multiple decades. There are many different ways one can design a cartoon cow - only [[:File:MK8 Wii Moo Moo Meadows Course Icon.png|one way]] to design the ones from Moo Moo Meadows, or at least since 2005. While organizationally inconvenient for some, or at least on this wiki, I am not sure why this cow is not a discrete ''Mario'' subject on par with the likes of [[Maw-Ray]], which is simply referred to as a "moray eel" in Japanese. Perhaps I am missing something. - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 19:06, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
 
Out of curiosity, with regards to [[Small bird]]s, what would happen if option 1 won? There's definitely a recurring type of small birds since ''Super Mario 3D Land'' that even had gameplay relevance in ''Mario Sports Superstars'' and then was put among the many other small bird species introduced in ''Super Mario Odyssey''.--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 20:02, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:''Super Mario Odyssey'' achieves its tactile diversity by have many of the same objects appear in each kingdom with a unique look that matches the regional topography, and I think small birds are part of the same design philosophy. Given this, as well as the fact that ''The Art of Super Mario Odyssey'' refers to nearly all of these birds as 小鳥 and this is also the Japanese name for the white birds of the Mushroom Kingdom, I think it would be a better reflection of the same to keep them in the same article together - as stylistic renditions of the same subject. This is in part why I was resistant to the idea that physical appearance was the only criterion to qualify "design." - [[User:Nintendo101|Nintendo101]] ([[User talk:Nintendo101|talk]]) 20:16, April 27, 2025 (EDT)
:{{@|Mister Wu}}, I view the Small Bird family similarly to ''Mario''{{'}}s blue Penguins. Each has a common, base variant with different offshoots. We know that the ''Mario'' race of Penguins most commonly have a blue-and-white plumage and a consistent, ''chibi''-like body ratio ([[File:MP9 Asset Model Penguin.png|20px]]), but members of this race exist, such as [[Penguru]], the [[Coach (Super Mario Galaxy)|Coach]], and the multi-colored [[Penguin Racers]], who embody different traits while still visibly pertaining to the same collective. The Small Bird was introduced as a plain white-feathered bird ([[File:Little Bird SMO render.png|20px]]) which continues to serve as the defining member of its own group, but the creatures in ''Mario Odyssey'' that embody the same model--small, fast-fleeing birds--can also be viewed as part of this group. So, to answer your question: as long as the wiki's stance on the Small Bird remains that these tiny variations are nothing more than aesthetic adaptations of the same fictional concept introduced in ''Super Mario 3D Land'', I don't think Option 1 would apply, i.e. those tiny variations wouldn't be split. Perhaps the choice to specifically tie these proposed guidelines to a subject's visual design lacks due precision given how nuanced the situation is, but then again, it's that visual design that acts as the most straightforward, unifying aspect of a given ''Mario'' race and the most convenient reference point to convey the need for those proposed changes. The proposal aims to introduce a guideline rather than a policy, because a more complex case such as Coin or even Small Bird wouldn't benefit from an overly rigid framework; these guidelines are meant to provide flexibility within a coherent structure, and aren't meant to pre-empt discussions on what users can or cannot recognize as a "Small Bird". {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:04, April 28, 2025 (EDT), edited 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
Depending on what name ''Mario Kart World'' goes for, the Mario Kart Snowman could be retitled "Snowperson" (given that was the name given to it in ''Tour'').<br>btw, will this affect [[Fruit (Yoshi food)]] and [[Fruit]] in any way? {{User:Arend/sig}} 12:43, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:It's already [https://youtu.be/V9tJ471FyM4?t=15m29s confirmed] to be called "Snowman". {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:33, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:RE Fruit: Names shouldn't be the sole factor of a merge or split in this proposal's terms. If that were the case, something like [[Penguin (enemy)]] would be merged into [[Penguin]] given Option 2, and I argued in the proposal's body why that shouldn't happen. The basic "Fruit" article is much more encompassing than a concept like "penguin" or "snowman" and is currently the parent article of multiple individual pages on specific fruit, both based in real life ([[Apple]], [[Grape]], [[Strawberry]]) or fiction ([[Bomb Berry]] or, indeed, the Yoshi fruit). At any rate, Fruit (Yoshi food) doesn't really have a counterpart in real life; it kinda looks like apples, but grows in bushes or on the ground, and is sometimes called "berry". It lacks the kind of real life ubiquity, or "genericness", that entails a subject based on a very tangible concept, like [[Penguin]] or [[Snowman]]. Even if Option 2 were to win, I think there'd be some serious pushback on whether these two fruit-related topics deserve to be merged. {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:13, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
====Edit to the proposal (18:48, April 28, 2025)====
I [[Special:Diff/4866780|edited]] the proposal to add a note where I address certain questions among these comments. This is a reasonably complex topic to tackle given the nuances, and I'm unsure if I'm doing it coherently. If there are inconsistencies that emerge with this edit, please signal them. I'll ping current voters to let them know of this edit to the proposal, hope I'm not being annoying. <div class="contentbox mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"data-expandtext="show pings"data-collapsetext="hide pings">{{@|Pseudo}}{{@|Camwoodstock}}{{@|Exiled.Serenity}}{{@|Tails777}}{{@|Waluigi Time}}{{@|Nintendo101}}{{@|Kirby the Formling}}{{@|Mister Wu}}{{@|Biggestman}}{{@|DryBonesBandit}}{{@|Doc von Schmeltwick}}</div> {{User:Koopa con Carne/Sig}} 18:54, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
:Seen, and the notes are still all fine with us. Our example of preventing something like the cow in [[Community Service]] from being in the [[Moo Moo|"Cow"]] page hasn't been impacted by this, and so long as we don't encroach on that being possible, we're fine. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 19:07, April 28, 2025 (EDT)
 
==Miscellaneous==
===What is a game?===
Per {{@|Camwoodstock}}'s comments on the ongoing [[Talk:List of games#A location for the water games, pocket pinball machines, Water Teaser, and other similar items|electronic water-related proposal on the list of games]]. The way that a game is considered a game is currently arbitrary, with board games being split to one list, card games being relegated elsewhere, [[Play Nintendo]] getting its own list, and [[Nintendo Today!]] quizzes all being merged into the app's article. This proposal aims to decide what gets on the [[list of games]] article, since there isn't anything on that page that explicitly states that the games listed have to be video games (minus the text "organized by video game system", but this can be changed). To note, this proposal is not suggesting that anything should be removed from the list, the goal of this proposal is to figure out whether or not anything should be added to the list of games.
 
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}
 
====Do board games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|7-10|Do not add board games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments; this feels like kind of a no-brainer, and we're surprised these have been excluded from the Games list for as long as they have been. Board games are like, a known concept, they've been around for millennia, and heck, games like [[Mario Party-e]] exist as a hybrid board game/video game. Excluding board games feels very arbitrary, just because they aren't "video" games, but we've included the ''Game & Watch'' titles for forever, with basically no contention whatsoever, despite those not technically meeting the definition of being a "video" game.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} The article is titled the "list of games," not the "list of ''VIDEO'' games." It'd be nice if this page just covered every game of every type, especially seeing how I consider board games (or anything of the sort) to be closer to games than merchandise. Besides, they are called board ''GAMES'', so why shouldn't they be included on the "list of ''GAMES''"?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock. While I understand Nintendo101's point about board games often being promotional tie-in products, they are still Mario franchise media in their own right, and a kind of game at that.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. As a big Mario Party fan. I feel like board games fit to the category of games
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} This is not to disparage board games or other types of media of this nature, but I think it would be healthier for our site to have distinction between a "video game" and "promotional tie-in media and products." I do not think being interactive is enough for it count as a "game" within the context of a video game-oriented franchise, in the same way I would not include instruction booklets in a list of books because they have readable text. This kind of stuff should be supported on the site, but not here.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} per Nintendo101. There are a lot of different mediums for games in this world, but it's indisputable that the Mario franchise manifests itself most often in video games, and I believe this specific list is better off focusing on those, with an appropriate move to "List of ''video'' games". I can see the appeal and use of a page for Mario games that are not video games, though, and I support creating that. The wiki currently considers these games to be "merchandise", which I consider apt for some (like the shampoo bottles) but something of a stretch for others (board games).
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Koopa con Carne. I'm not denying that board games are games, but they're not ''video'' games, and I think "List of video games" would be a more useful page for this wiki about a primarily video game franchise than "List of games".
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all. I would rather the wiki not mix the core media of the Mario franchise (video games) with miscellaneous pieces of merchandise such as board games.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per Koopa con Carne
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do card games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|6-10|Do not add card games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the same rationale behind board games. Sure, it's not a "video" game, but this is List of Games, not List of Video Games.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock again.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per Camwoodstock and my above vote for board games.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|7-10|Do not add party games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. This is gonna be appearing a few more times...
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock yet again.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Also per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Also a mere semantic distinction between party games like this and board games, in my view.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Things like Jenga are such family games, like ''Mario Party''. I have the feeling they should've already been classified as games long ago.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. (You also do not italicize Jenga.)
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the card game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Do physical games (i.e. ''Barrel of Monkeys''-style things with physical characters and pieces) move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|6-10|Do not add physical games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock once more.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Yet again per my board game vote.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per my other "yes" votes.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Same as the party game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
 
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-10|Do not add ''Super Mario Ride'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It is currently listed under "Other Super Mario-themed games" on the [[list of merchandise]].
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I'm a maximal inclusivist when it comes to these things, so I think anything anyone could plausibly conceptualize as "a game" ought to be classified as a game for navigational purposes.
 
;No
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} From the looks of it, those are toy cars; those are toys, not games. Them being listed as "other Super Mario-themed games" feels like a bit of a misnomer.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote above.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Rides are not games.
#{{User|Pseudo}} If it's a toy and not a game, it probably shouldn't count. This is a slightly different category of item.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|passed|9-0|Add ''Play Nintendo'' games to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. There's a dedicated HTML section now.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} With an HTML section in tow, we feel it's only fair.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Sure.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} We have other browser games on the list, why not these?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. Even if the term we were using was "video game" instead of just "game" I would think these should count.
#{{User|Pseudo}} These seems like games as much as a typical Flash game of old, [[List of games#Adobe Flash|which we already include in the list of games]], so this seems more clear cut than any of the others.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per Nelsonic and Camwoodstock.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
;No
 
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-11|Do not add ''Nintendo Today!'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It has many interactive elements, such as quizzes.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal. I understand everyone else's hesitation, but Nelsonic has a point!
 
;No
#{{User|1468z}} The only thing that comes the closest to the definition of game and is related to ''Mario'' is the silhouette quizzes, which despite their name are actually just articles with a profile of a character without any interactive elements. It's not that different from something you would find on Nintendo's website.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} To be honest, we're a bit on the fence, but we're leaning on this for now. Maybe if there were more active game elements to them, but as it stands, these are ''just'' articles at the moment with no real interactive elements aside from. Clicking it and reading it.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Hewer}} Per Shinya Takahashi ("[https://www.youtube.com/live/9OqoRxXUjGA?t=34m58s <nowiki>[Nintendo Today]</nowiki> is something a little different that's not a game]").
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all. If you really think about it, if we count Nintendo Today as a game, that would mean the Super Mario Wiki would be considered a game.
#{{User|Pseudo}} This seems like not so much of a game to me as a platform for games (in addition to other media); at most, I'd support adding this app's individual included games to the list.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all. ''Nintendo Today!'' is basically just a daily newspaper (similar to ''[[The 'Shroom:Main Page|The 'Shroom]]'').
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Does ''[[Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land]]'' move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|passed|8-2|Add ''Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land'' to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} By our own definition of it being an "interactive game", yes, even if it's just a VHS analogue to those Play Nintendo quizzes, you can get a question wrong and stuff will still happen.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Eh, more or less? It's sort of an edge case but it's still primarily intended as interactive, just in an unusual format. It is definitely a "game" that relies on "video" for displaying its contents.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Checks both the "video" and the "game" parts of "video game". As long as {{wp|Dragon's Lair (1983 video game)|''Dragon's Lair''}} is considered a video game, this should too.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} I have mixed feelings  about this one, but I'm turning more to the "No" side. I just don't feel like interactive cartoons can be considered games.
 
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
{{Proposal outcome|failed|2-9|Do not add rides to the list}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. They were made by [[Banpresto]], usable in arcades, and required money to play.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal, and per my ''Super Mario Ride'' vote.
 
;No
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} You don't really interact with it aside from sitting on it; if there was a more game-ified aspect to it, kinda like Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car, maybe? But as it stands, this is a little too non-interactive.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Once again, rides are not games. Except ''[[Būbū Mario]]''. That is a game.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Seems like not so much a game as an automated experience; games require interactivity of some kind, I'd think.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Once again per Camwoodstock and Rykitu.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
 
====Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': <s>April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> <s>April 26, 2025, 23:59 GMT</s> Extended to May 3, 2025, 23:59 GMT
 
;Yes
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original proposal's comments; they are interactive games with a blatant physical, mechanical element to them. The lack of "video" isn't a hurdle so long as the ''Game & Watch'' games exist.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock twice more.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Yeah, it's pretty much a type of game. Per Camwoodstock's comparison to Game & Watch.
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per all.
 
;No
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
#{{User|Koopa con Carne}} Per Nintendo 101 and my board game vote.
#{{User|SGoW}} Per all.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
#{{User|YoYo}} Per all.
#{{User|Platform}} Per all.
#{{User|SmokedChili}} Per all.
#{{User|LadySophie17}} Per Nintendo101.
 
====The Comment Games====
{{@|Nintendo101}}, unless us and everyone we know has been using it ''very'' wrong, we don't really see how the board game vote applies to [[Nintendo Today!]]... ;P <s>not that it matters, as we agree that Nintendo Today! would be overkill to include either way unless they were more interactive, but y'know,</s> {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 20:23, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
:Also, Wikipedia does italicise ''{{wp|Jenga}}''. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:30, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
 
If we decide to keep the non-video games off the list of games, I feel like a name change to "List of video games" might be a good idea (though the link on the main page can keep it shortened to "Games" for simplicity if need be). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 20:43, April 5, 2025 (EDT)
 
:{{@|Hewer}} I have an idea. Could we add a new header on the list of games (underneath the iOS stuff and the ''LEGO Super Mario'' Roku/Sky Italia games) for "physical games" or "non-electronic games", thus keeping the base list intact up to said section? [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 13:21, April 8, 2025 (EDT)
::I suppose that'd work too. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 13:25, April 9, 2025 (EDT)
 
If [[Play Nintendo]] is added to the list, would we include every game in the "Play" category or will we also include the quizzes, polls, puzzles, matching and painting games? If that is the case, I am warning you that there are hundreds of those and would probably take like 75% of the whole page. {{User:Rykitu/sig}}
 
:{{@|Rykitu}} I was thinking that for the duplicates, we could link to a handful of the most relevant ones and then stick something along the lines of "''For a complete list of [[Play Nintendo]] quizzes, see [[list of Play Nintendo skill quizzes]]''" underneath the segment. [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 13:11, April 9, 2025 (EDT)
::Ok, that works! {{User:Rykitu/sig}}
 
@JanMisali: I think Nelsonic was mistaken about the amount of interactivity in Nintendo Today. The misleadingly named "quizzes" are just pages that describe a character, with no more interactivity than [https://mario.nintendo.com/characters/ the websites that the descriptions come from]. At that point, what piece of software ''wouldn't'' you consider a game? Is [[Nintendo Music]] a game? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:17, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:I fully sincerely believe anything with any amount of interactivity at all can be considered a game. Websites, apps, web browsers, activity books, DVD menus, and pretty much all software. I think it's better to cast a wide net and include things that 99% of people would say aren't games than it is to be too narrow and exclude things 1% of people would say are games. {{User:JanMisali/sig}} 10:27, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
::That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)


OK, I can see what Luigi001 is on about. Many of the poll suggestions are pathetic. The types of suggestion which should be banned are the recurring ones we've been seeing that go on the pattern of "Do you think there's gonna be...", as these sound very unprofessional, and what's the point of asking a bunch of people if they ''think'' something should or will happen? It makes no difference what people think will happen in the future, it's better to ask what they think of things that ''are'' confirmed or happening. Also the ones that go "Who's your favourite character in [insert game] ?" - They're much less beneficial than asking which character is most popular in general, as they are very restricted, and they should be replace with "Which character in [insert game] is the most useful?" or something. Also, polls with bad spelling/grammar should be deleted unless the idea behind them is worth considering. {{User|Dom}}
At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)
:Well L001, if a poll seems spammy or somewhat, then don't vote for it. That's why Steve put the voting thing on there, so favourite polls get selected. If something that you don't like is on there, but something I like is on there, it's kinda unfair rite? If the "spammy" poll doesn't get voted on, then there's no need to put rules on it. Just don't vote on it. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}
:{{@|Hewer}} Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). [[User:Nelsonic|Nelsonic]] ([[User talk:Nelsonic|talk]]) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)
::Well, I'm not saying bring one-sided rules to the poll selections, I want the users to agree on some guidlines to making an appropriate poll. Those were just some samples I thought, maybe, people would agree on. But I'm no expert rule maker, so all opinions should be included. {{User|Luigi001}}
:::Perhaps with a little more clarification on the rules, you'd have more supporters. Would you like me to help create some more guidelines? {{User|Stooben Rooben}}
::::Oh, yes please, Stoobs! Those were just 3 I thought were good, but I thought that the comments would be used for edited/added rules. {{user|Luigi001}}
:::::Yea, that would help alot St00by. {{User|Super-Yoshi}}

Latest revision as of 07:53, May 1, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Thursday, May 1st, 17:55 GMT
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
  • Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
  • Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
  • All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
  • For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

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

How to

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

Rules

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

Basic proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll proposal formatting

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

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

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

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

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

;Oppose

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

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

Talk page proposals

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

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

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

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

Talk page proposals

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

Writing guidelines

Change "British English" to "Commonwealth English"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commonwealth Comments

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

Australian English can indeed go bye-bye, because British and Australian English are basically the same (aka "Commonwealth English") in terms of spelling. Canadian English is a special case though, since it mixes both American and Commonwealth English. Even though that, a majority of Canadian English uses the Commonwealth English and only some words actually use the American English spelling. We might have to think a little more about to what side Canadian English sides to more. Pink Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 19:20, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
is the Canadian English template used anywhere, anyways? — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 20:47, April 30, 2025 (EDT)
Sometimes. LinkTheLefty (talk) 22:18, April 30, 2025 (EDT)

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

Rework "References" sections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support, type A (fully chronological)

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

Support, type B (sorted by series)

  1. EvieMaybe (talk) my preferred choice.

Oppose (reference sections are fine as is)

Comments in other games

New features

Split the list of ongoing talk page proposals into sections

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

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

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

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

Split the talk page proposals

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

Do not split the talk page proposals

"Talk the proposal split" page (Comments)

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

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

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Split lists of changes from remakes' articles

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

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

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

Support

  1. Henry Tucayo Clay (talk) - Per proposal

Oppose

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

Comments

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

What else would you look for in a remake's page other than the changes? If you're looking for original info, you go to the original game's page. If you're looking for what the remake added/changed/removed, you go to the remake's page. — Lady Sophie Wiggler Sophie.png (T|C) 18:34, April 21, 2025 (EDT)

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

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

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

Both

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

Only rename articles

Only include credits sequence information

Neither

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option 1

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

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

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

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

Option 2

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

Option 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do nothing (generic subjects)

Comments (generic subjects)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miscellaneous

What is a game?

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

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)

Do board games move to the list?

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

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

Do card games move to the list?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Super Mario Ride move to the list?

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

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

Do Play Nintendo games move to the list?

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

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

Does Nintendo Today! move to the list?

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

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

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

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

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

Do rides move to the list?

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

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

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

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

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

The Comment Games

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

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

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

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

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

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

@JanMisali: I think Nelsonic was mistaken about the amount of interactivity in Nintendo Today. The misleadingly named "quizzes" are just pages that describe a character, with no more interactivity than the websites that the descriptions come from. At that point, what piece of software wouldn't you consider a game? Is Nintendo Music a game? Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:17, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

I fully sincerely believe anything with any amount of interactivity at all can be considered a game. Websites, apps, web browsers, activity books, DVD menus, and pretty much all software. I think it's better to cast a wide net and include things that 99% of people would say aren't games than it is to be too narrow and exclude things 1% of people would say are games. jan Misali (talk · contributions) 10:27, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
That's how you make a definition so broad that it's useless. Hewer A Hamburger in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

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

@Hewer Electronic water games are usually defined as a game with both plastic and electronic components (with the electronic components usually eing more minor, such as the game requiring batteries or including lights, a timer, or sounds) that requires the playing field to be filled with water in order to play. The current "electronic water games" section on the list includes both normal water games and the electronic variety, however, as I do not believe some of them have electronic components (unless they require batteries). Nelsonic (talk) 10:10, April 19, 2025 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4871178"