MarioWiki:Proposals: Difference between revisions

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<center>http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r149/Deadringerforlove/dessert1.jpg</center>
{{/Header}}
<br clear="all">
==Writing guidelines==
{| align="center" style="width: 85%; background-color: #f1f1de; border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px; color:black"
''None at the moment.''
|'''Proposals''' can be new features (such as an extension), removal of a previously added feature that has tired out, or new policies that must be approved via [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] before any action(s) are done.
 
*Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so, not, e.g., "I like this idea!"
==New features==
*"Vote" periods last for one week.
===Noting the Switch 2 Editions===
*All past proposals are [[/Archive|archived]].
I have seen that it's kind of a mystery how we should note the [[Nintendo Switch 2#Nintendo Switch 2 Edition games|Switch 2 Edition of a game]]. This question caused some controversy when I asked it in [[Talk:Super Mario Party Jamboree]], so I have decided to involve the whole community in this to see what everyone thinks and so we all know what we should do in the future, when more Switch 2 Editions will follow.
|}
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>.


This page observes the [[MarioWiki:No-Signature Policy|No-Signature Policy]].
'''Proposer''': {{User|Yoshi18}}<br>
'''Deadline''': April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT


<h2 style="color:black">How To</h2>
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles====
#Actions that users feel are appropriate to have community approval first can be added by anyone, but they must have a strong argument.
#{{User|memoryman3}} Switch 2 Editions are unique game builds that Nintendo gives you the option to upgrade to, and as such should be treated as unique games. Determining whether a game deserves a separate article should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to other reissues. This would be no different from distinguishing a game like [[Luigi's Mansion 2 HD]] or [[Donkey Kong Country Returns HD]] as unique titles, unless the changes are so minimal that the games are classified as ports.
#Users then vote and discuss on the issue during that week. The "deadline" for the proposal is one week from posting at: ('''All times GMT''')
#*Monday to Thursday: 23:00 (11pm)
#*Friday and Saturday: 2:00 (2 am) of the next day. A proposal posted on a Friday ends the following Saturday morning; a proposal posted on a Saturday ends the following Sunday morning.
#*Sunday: 21:00 (9pm)
#Every vote should have a reason accompanying it.
#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. The voter can remove or rewrite their own vote at any time, but the final decision to remove another User's vote lies solely with the [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Administrators]].
#"<nowiki>#&nbsp;</nowiki>" should be added under the last vote of each support/oppose section to show another blank line.
#All proposals that end up in a tie will be extended for another week.
#If a proposal has more than ten votes, it can only pass or fail by a margin of '''three''' votes. If a proposal reaches the deadline and the total number of votes for each option differ by two or less votes, the deadline will be extended for another week.
#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.
#No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than '''4 weeks''' ('''28 days''') old.
#Proposals can only be rewritten or deleted by their proposer within the first three days of their creation. However, the proposer can request that their proposal be deleted by a [[MarioWiki:Administrators|Sysop]] at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it.
#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 shouldn't be proposals about creating articles on a underrepresented or completely absent subject, unless there is major disagreement about whether the content should be included. To organize efforts about completing articles on missing subjects, try creating a [[MarioWiki:PipeProject|PipeProject]].
#Proposals cannot be made about [[MarioWiki:Administrators|System Operator]] promotions and demotions. Sysops can only be promoted and demoted by the will of [[MarioWiki:Bureaucrats|Bureaucrats]].
#If the Sysops deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to remove it at any time.
#No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters, and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.


The times are in [[wikipedia:GMT|GMT]], 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 Monday night at 11:59 PM GMT, the deadline is the next Monday night at 11:00 PM. If it is posted a minute later, the deadline is a week Tuesday, since midnight is considered to be part of the next day, as 00:00 AM.
====We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article====
#{{User|CarlosYoshiBoi}} I’m in for this one.


===Basic Proposal and Support/Oppose Format===
====We make a Switch 2 Edition page where the Switch 2 Editions have their own respective sections====
This is an example how your proposal should look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to <u>replace the whole variable including the squared brackets</u>, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]".
-----
<nowiki>===[insert a title for your Proposal here]===</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[describe what you want this Proposal to be like, what changes you would suggest and what this is about]</nowiki>


<nowiki>'''Proposer:''' {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br></nowiki><br>
====Propose in the games' talk page based on what the Switch 2 Edition adds====
<nowiki>'''Deadline:''' [insert a deadline here, f.e. "5 January, 2010, 17:00". Rule 2 above explains how to determine a deadline]</nowiki>


<nowiki>====Support====</nowiki>
====Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2====
#{{User|LinkTheLefty}} Ideally, we should wait until after launch since there's still much we don't know. From what I understand, they don't even have their own physical versions when seemingly everything else does (literally just the original Switch copy with a one-time download-code, or for all intents and purposes, DLC). If these "upgrade packs" act just like DLC does on previous consoles, then I think we should treat them as such, but that's to be determined at a later time.
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Yeah, no, we should definitely wait on this until the Switch 2 releases. Otherwise, we might end up pre-emptively codifying a ton of articles with nothing substantial to them beyond "It's exactly the same as Switch 1, the gameplay functions, visuals, text, audio, and everything are all the same, but it just runs smoother." We'd like to refer to the PC-88 and Sharp X1 versions of ''[[Super Mario Bros. Special]]'', not just because it's fresh on our mind, but it is genuinely relevant to the subject; that is a game that very expressly has a performance-related different release on another platform, but outside of the very obvious audiovisual elements, there just isn't enough to warrant splitting on the gameplay side. We could very easily see the Switch 2 Editions being similar to this, where the gameplay is entirely intact with no unique mechanics or mild substitutions due to hardware improvements, but the vast majority of the differences are just "uh, it looks different and runs smoother", which is not particularly substantial.
#{{User|Tails777}} Per all. Too early at this point.
#{{User|EvieMaybe}} per all, and per my comment below
#{{User|Yoshi18}} Per proposal and all.
#{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per everyone. No need to jump the shark.


<nowiki>====Oppose====</nowiki>
====Comments====
We know so little about what a Switch 2 Edition will mean that I don't think a decision can be made right now. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 12:05, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
:Seconding this--wouldn't it be better to just wait for the Switch 2 to actually release to see how the Switch 2 editions actually work? We're highly skeptical they would actually feature exclusive content in the first place, mind you, but without a Switch 2 edition having actually released, we're kind of voting in the dark here. {{User:Camwoodstock/sig}} 12:07, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
::i want to point out the "Switch 2 Edition" moniker is specifically reserved for versions which have actual content changes (ie, not what Odyssey is getting, which is just a free compatibility update). however, i still think we should wait more before deciding what to do, and that it might be better to case-by-case it {{User:EvieMaybe/sig}} 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)


<nowiki>====Comments====</nowiki>
Case-by-case where we only split ones with significant new content might be the way to go. This reminds me of how ''[[New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat]]'' is split while ''[[New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis]]'' isn't. As for determining which ones have enough new content, it seems like the titles can help with that - so far, ones that are mainly just graphical improvements are just called "''Game – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition''", while ones that have more content added have another bit on the end of the title after a "＋" (like ''Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition ＋ Jamboree TV''). I guess the option closest to this is the fourth one, except I'd rather not strictly require a proposal to determine it in cases where it's obvious (though of course we'd be allowed to have one if it's not). {{User:Hewer/sig}} 16:50, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
-----
Users will now be able to vote on your Proposal, until the set deadline is reached. Remember, you are a user as well, so you can vote on your own Proposal just like the others.


To support, or oppose, just insert "<nowiki>#{{User|[add your username here]}}</nowiki> 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 anoother user's Proposal. If you are voting on your own Proposal, you can just say "Per my Proposal".
I understand everyone's argument about this but I feel like we already know enough about the Switch 2 Edition of Jamboree to make this proposal. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)


__TOC__
It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)
:I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
:Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. [[User:LinkTheLefty|LinkTheLefty]] ([[User talk:LinkTheLefty|talk]]) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Hey guys, I have a question. When this proposal ends, which color do I have to give it in the [[MarioWiki:Proposal/Archive|proposal archive]] page? Because it doesn’t seem like any of those fit. Should I color it Grey/Gray? {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 07:14, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:I'd say red, assuming the last option passes. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 10:05, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
But this'll get re-proposed when the Switch 2 (or the first Switch 2 Edition releases) so doesn’t that technically mean it passed, because the option that passed is that we'll discuss it later. Because if it didn't pass, no change would've been made, ever. But this time there will be a change made. Just not now, but like, it'll still happen this year. {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 11:25, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
:It'd be red because the option that passed was to not take action yet. If a later proposal decides on a change then the change is attributed to that proposal and this one could switch to the blue colour. {{User:Hewer/sig}} 11:38, April 15, 2025 (EDT)
That's actually not a bad idea! {{User:Yoshi18/sig}} 18:13, April 15, 2025 (EDT)


<!--<center><span style="font-size:200%">CURRENTLY: '''{{#time: H:i, d M Y}} (GMT)'''</span></center>-->
==Removals==
''None at the moment.''


==Changes==
''None at the moment.''


==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.


<br>
'''Proposer''': {{User|Nelsonic}}


==Talk Page Proposals==
====Do board games move to the list?====
All proposals dealing with a single article or a specific group of articles are held on the talk page of one of the articles in question. Proposals dealing with massive amounts of splits, merges or deletions across the Wiki should still be held on this page.
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


===How To===
;Yes
#All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom). All pages effected must be mentioned in the ''brief'' description, with the talk page housing the discussion linked to directly via "({{fakelink|Discuss}})". If the proposal involved a page that is not yet made, use {{tem|fakelink}} to communicate its title. The '''Deadline''' must also be included in the entry. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{tem|TPP}} under the heading.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
#All rules for talk page proposals are the same as mainspace proposals (see the "How To" section above), with the exceptions made by Rules 3, 4 and 5, as follows:
#{{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.
#Voting in talk page proposals will be open for two weeks, not one.  
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock.
#Talk page proposals may closed by the proposer if both the support ''and'' the oppose sides each have fewer than five votes.
#{{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''"?
#After two weeks, a clear majority of three votes is required. Without the majority, the talk page proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM".
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Board games are pretty unambiguously "games".
#The talk page proposal '''must''' pertain to the article it is posted on.
#{{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


===List of Talk Page Proposals===
;No
*Merge information pertaining to generic Blue and Yellow Toads into [[Toad (species)]] and [[Toad Brigade]], leaving the separate [[Blue Toad]] and [[Yellow Toad]] pages for the specific Toad characters that appeared in ''New Super Mario Bros. Wii''. Whether or not these pages will be named "{{fakelink|Blue Toad (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)}}" and "{{fakelink|Yellow Toad (New Super Mario Bros. Wii)}}" or "{{fakelink|Bucken-Berry}}" and "{{fakelink|Ala-Gold}}" is also being voted on. ([[Talk:Yellow Toad|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{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.
*Merge [[Nintendo GameCube Microphone]] into [[Nintendo GameCube]]. ([[Talk:Nintendo GameCube Microphone|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{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).
*Merge [[Banana Bunch]] into [[Banana]]. ([[Talk:Banana Bunch|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{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".
*Merge [[Special Kit 1]] and [[Special Kit 2]] into [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]. ([[Talk:Special Kit 1|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{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.
*Split [[SSX on Tour]] from [[Video game references]]. ([[Talk:SSX on Tour|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} Per all.
*Merge [[Whip Shuri]] into [[Shuri]]. ([[Talk:Whip Shuri|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
#{{User|Waluigi Time}} Per all.
*Merge [[Triple Bananas]] and [[Giant Banana]] into [[Banana]]. ([[Talk:Banana|Discuss]]) '''Passed''' 
*Split [[Mushroom]] (Super Mario RPG info) into [[Mushroom]] and {{Fakelink|Mushroom (Status effect)}} ([[Talk:Mushroom|Discuss]]) '''Passed'''
*Merge [[M]] into [[Graffiti]]. ([[Talk:M|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 23 February 2010, 17:00
*Merge [[Mushroom]] (SMRPG info), [[Bad Mushroom]], [[Mid Mushroom]], [[Max Mushroom]] onto one page. ([[Talk:Mushroom|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 25 February 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Standard Bike M]], [[Standard Bike L]], and [[Standard Bike S]] into [[Bike]]. ([[Talk:Standard Bike M|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 25 February 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Standard Kart S]], [[Standard Kart M]], and [[Standard Kart L]] into [[Kart]]. ([[Talk:Standard Kart M|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 25 February 2010, 20:00
*Merge [[Entei]] and similar pages, where characters appear as stage trophies into {{fakelink|List of Stage Trophies}}. ([[Talk: Entei|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 4 March 2010, 23:00
*Merge [[Turtle (Super Smash Bros.)]] into [[Trophy Descriptions (Super Smash Bros. Melee) ]] ([[Talk:Turtle (Super Smash Bros.)|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 6 March 2010, 2:00
*Merge [[King Bulblin and Lord Bullbo]] into [[Bridge of Eldin]] ([[Talk:King Bulblin and Lord Bullbo|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 6 March 2010, 2:00
*Merge [[Special Kit 3]] into [[Mario vs. Donkey Kong 2: March of the Minis]]. ([[Talk:Special Kit 3|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 7 March 2010, 2:00
*Split [[Dark Koopa]] into [[Dark Koopa]] and {{fakelink|Dark Koopa (Super Paper Mario)}}. ([[Talk:Dark Koopa|Discuss]]) '''Deadline:''' 2 March 2010, 22:00


==New Features==
====Do card games move to the list?====
===Table Button On Editing Screen===
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


You know that making tables is a hard thing to do? Well, I was thinking on that bar on the top of the edit screen? I think that we should add a table button to this, so when clicked, a box will pop up like the one in Microsoft Word, and you can choose how many rows and columns. Then the table appears in the edit box, and all you have to do is change the colour and content. Easy as pie (although not the Pie Button!) I beleive this will save ages trying to remember how to make a table, and new users will find this helpful for their first contributions. [[User:LucariosAura|LucariosAura (used to be specialk)]] 13:30, 22 February 2010 (EST)
;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.


====Support====
;No
#[[User:LucariosAura|LucariosAura (used to be specialk)]] 13:30, 22 February 2010 (EST)
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
====Oppose====
#{{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.


=====Comments=====
====Do party games (i.e. Jenga) move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


==Removals==
;Yes
===Non-''Mario'' Appearances in Infoboxes===
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
In infoboxes (the boxes that appear in the top right corner of many articles) e.g. for characters there is information about the first and latest appearances of the characters. While this is fine in my opinion, I propose to get rid of any information about appearances of the characters in question outside of the Marioverse (for lack of a better term; with "Marioverse" I mean all sources and appearances our wiki covers). For example, look at [[Bomberman (character)]]. He first appeared in a non-''Mario'' game and it's mentioned in the infobox. This kind of information is completely irrelevant to our wiki and just clutters up the infobox. It ''can'' be mentioned in an introductory sentence to the article, though, but there's no need to put it in the infobox. It's even worse with the "latest appearance"; there's really no need to keep track of each new appearance of a character outside the Marioverse.
#{{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.


Thus, I propose to only put relevant ''Mario'' information (including ''Yoshi'', ''Donkey Kong'', ''Super Smash Bros.'' and so on) in the infoboxes and get rid of sources that are irrelevant to the MarioWiki. This applies to every kind of infobox, not only those for characters.
;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.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Time Q}}<br>
====Do physical games (i.e. ''Barrel of Monkeys''-style things with physical characters and pieces) move to the list?====
'''Deadline:''' February 22, 2010, 23:00
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Support====
;Yes
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per the reasons given above.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.  
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per Time Q again, I mean this wiki is the Super '''Mario''' Wiki not the Metroid Wiki, Zelda Wiki, Pokémon Wiki...
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} Per ourselves in the original comments, and the rationale behind board games. You get it, right?
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Time Q.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per Camwoodstock once more.
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Yet again per my board game vote.
#{{User|Grandy02}} Per Time Q, especially because of the latest appearance. Why would we have to keep track of the latest ''Bomberman'' game, for example?
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per proposal.
#{{User|King Bean}} - Of course. Per all above me.
#{{User|Pseudo}} Per my other "yes" votes.
#{{User|4DJONG}} Well, this is the Super '''Mario''' not one of those Zelda Wikis, or Metroid Wikis.
#{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} We can link them to the wikipedia article or to the article in their wikis or wikias.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per all.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Time Q and Grandy.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per all.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - I've seen those things around the wiki, they provide no useful knowledge as people who want to read about Mario will not be truly eager to read about Link's first Zelda appearance. I doubt Zelda fans (wishing to read about Zelda characters) will come to the ''Mario'' wiki as much as I doubt Mario fans (wishing to read about Mario characters) will go to a ''Zelda'' wiki. With the recent establishment of the NIWA, users will be much more at leisure to just find another wiki on the nintendo game that they want to read about and be happy and contribute to that wiki. I would even go as far as to suggest that if they want to have a wiki about zelda and mario, they use wikia or wikkii to create it.


====Oppose====
;No
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! It's not like we give information of every game that charactered appeared, so it won't hurt just to leave it as: Mario characters: first appearence and latest appearence and if they appeared on a 3rd-party game then put that in also as a latest appearence with the name of the game in paraentheses. Third party characters: first actual appearence, then Mario game appearence; latest appearence, then latest Mario game appearence or vice versa. Zero signing out.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Pie Shroom}} Per Zero. A little bit of coverage won't hurt.
#{{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.


====Comments====
====Does ''Super Mario Ride'' move to the list?====
I don't think it'll work out right. Does this include Kirby, Ike, Meta Knight, and others for the first appearance thing being irrelevant. {{User|Gamefreak75}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:None of those characters you mentioned has those infoboxes I'm talking about. But if they had them, we'd put a ''SSB'' game as their first appearance rather than a ''Kirby'' or ''Fire Emblem'' game. Those original appearances can be mentioned in the article itself (for example: "Ike is a character who first appeared in the game ''Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance''..."). {{User|Time Q}}
::Oh, okay, that sounds better. {{User|Gamefreak75}}
::But would that not be equally irrelevant? --{{User|Garlic Man}}
:::I think it ''is'' interesting to know where a character originated from. It's the same as with introductory sentences such as [[Link|"Link is the protagonist of ''The Legend of Zelda'' series"]]. Even though we don't cover ''The Legend of Zelda'' series: it's simply good information to introduce a character. However, there's no reason to clutter up the infobox with this piece of information. And this is especially true for "latest appearances". Why should MarioWiki readers care when and where Link last appeared outside of the Marioverse? {{User|Time Q}}
::::I'm with you on the "latest appearance" thing(in fact, I think that thing should disappear altogether, but) I don't think that the first appearance really "clutters up" the infobox. Perhaps a better way to do it would be to mention what series the character originates from, rather than first appearance.(for non-Mario characters, that is) --{{User|Garlic Man}}
@Reversinator: Well yes, the reason we don't cover the information is because it's completely irrelevant here. We can still link to the Wikipedia article about the original appearance outside the Marioverse in the introductory sentence. No need to clutter up the infobox with it. {{User|Time Q}}


@Zero777: Since you just per'd Reversinator, please read my comment above. ''No'' relevant information will be lost if this proposal passes. {{User|Time Q}}
;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.


@King Bean: See above. Seriously, what is your reason for opposing? {{User|Time Q}}
;No
:Sorry, I didn't understand the proposal correctly. {{User|King Bean}}
#{{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.


Question: Are Banjo and Conker games also to be excluded from the infobox? --{{User|Garlic Man}}
====Do ''Play Nintendo'' games move to the list?====
:I'd say no, since we do cover those games (even though there are only articles about [[Banjo (series)|the]] [[Conker (series)|series]]). {{User|Time Q}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


@Time Q: Alright, sorry for the delay. I really don't see how it's cluttering up the infobox. There's my big reply. {{User|Reversinator}}
;Yes
:Okay, this is a matter of opinion. Yet I don't think your vote is valid. The only reason you gave is that with the information in the infobox, we can link to those appearances. But we could do exactly the same if we removed that kind of info (''from the infobox''). In no way do I propose to get rid of the links, so your reasoning doesn't really fit to what I'm proposing. {{User|Time Q}}
#{{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.


===Another Proposal on removing the FI===
;No
We voted to keep the FI via this old proposal - [http://www.mariowiki.com/MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive#Remove_Featured_Images_From_Main_Page]. The FI is like idle and most of the pictures that are there are kind of bad (pixelly, logo everywhere, too small, etc.).  and Per the reasons of the old proposal.


An alternative is to reuse old pictures like the Featured Articles, as said in the old proposal.
====Does ''Nintendo Today!'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Red Shell 68066vr}}<br>
;Yes
'''Deadline:''' February 25, 2010, 23:00
#{{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!


====Remove the FI====
;No
#{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} Per proposal.
#{{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|Time Q}}: Per my reasoning on the old proposal. I don't think the main problem is running out of images. I think the main problem is that the concept of FIs is rubbish. Unlike articles, images are not our work. Also see my comment below.
#{{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|Bloc Partier}} -- Per all.
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Time Q.
#{{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.


====Reuse old pictures====
====Does ''[[Super Mario World: Mario to Yoshi no Bōken Land]]'' move to the list?====
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


====Keep as it is====
;Yes
#{{User|King Bean}} - There are still a lot of images that deserves to be featured. We haven't ran out of them yet.
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal. It was an interactive VHS tape that required the user to press buttons at certain points.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} If you keep a sharp eye out for images, you eventually find a nice one. And of course SMG2 doesn't have any artwork yet, it doesn't even have a release date yet! I think we'll have enough images for quite a while, though.
#{{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|Reversinator}} There's no release date of SMG2, and you're expecting artwork from that game to just fall from the sky? Per all.
#{{User|Rykitu}} Per all.
#{{User|4DJONG}} As I said before, the wiki still has plenty of images worthy of being featured. Images might not be our work but they give a break from all the writing on the main page, If we get rid of them there wont be any thing but writing on the main page.
#{{User|Kaptain Skurvy}} Per all.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per all.
#{{User|JanMisali}} Per all. Somewhat surprised it wasn't already being considered a game.
#{{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}} They're still Mario stuff, even if it wasn't our own work. Besides, Featured Images give color and touch to the main page. Come on, think of main page with just two images and the rest are text. Plus, not everyone would look at the 'Shroom anyway.
#{{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|Gamefreak75}} How many times is this proposal gonna come up? Per all. And what do you mean it's been a week and no pics of SMG2? >_>' And like everyone said, who's gonna want to read a main page full of text. The pitures give it personality and color instead of reading text after text.
#{{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|Baby Mario Bloops}} - As I said in the last proposal of this, and the fact that your impatient and too literal to realize that SMG2 won't be out in a week, so give it time and enjoy the great images we have around the wiki.
#{{User|Zero777}} I am Zero! Per all. Zero signing out.
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} Per King Bean.
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} If the last proposal failed, why make another one? Besides, the FIs give a nice, colorful touch to the page. I hate looking at text all day. And Mario technically isn't our work either.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - The FI adds an artistic touch to the wiki. We can't have everyone thinking that we are a boring place that nobody wants to be at. We need to do two things to keep the wiki a ''happy'' place for some users. 1. Have images as well as articles. 2. Keep [[Mariowiki:The 'Shroom|The 'Shroom]] running. This may as well be a proposal to remove the 'shroom as the 'shroom does not include any factual information or help the wiki knowledge in any way. The 'Shroom is simply a community project that many users like and have fun with, as are FIs - while they are very disorganized and very illogical in some places, users still like them and they should stay to make users ''like'' the wiki.
#{{User|Pie Shroom}} Per all.


====Comments====
;No
First of all: ''Super Mario Galaxy 2'' has not been released yet. I don't know what you're talking about. Second: You can't just propose to "reuse old pictures", you should at least propose rules of when to do so. For example, if an image has less than 10 positive votes at the end of a week, reuse an old picture. Third: one of the reasons for opposing my old proposal was that the Main Page wouldn't be balanced anymore without the FIs. Look at our current Main Page. Since talk page proposals were added to it, it's not balanced anymore at all. Now if we remove the FIs and move the talk page proposals to the right, we could balance it out again. {{User|Time Q}}
#{{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.


About the "not our work" thing for the images. I would think of something like this to be going on the shroom', but what if we had some thing like FIs where we could have fan made Mario images made by us users? And the one with the most votes gets on the main page? Maybe? I'm not sure if this is a stupid idea or not so... {{User|Fawfulfury65}}
====Do [[Gallery:Miscellaneous_merchandise#Rides|rides]] move to the list?====
:I wouldn't recommend that. We only have official content on the wiki, no fanon articles etc., so we shouldn't encourage users to make images themselves. But of course we could have all that in the 'Shroom. Just like the FIs ;) {{User|Time Q}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


Everyone, I checked on a bunch of websites and it says that it comes out on February 11th, 2010. {{User|Red Shell 68066vr}}
;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.


You seriously think that it came out last week? Wow. {{User|Reversinator}}
;No
:Where did you hear that nonsense? It's supposed to come out around summer time...{{User|Gamefreak75}}
#{{User|Camwoodstock}} You don't really interact with it aside from sitting on it; if there was a more game-ified aspect to it, kinda like Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car, maybe? But as it stands, this is a little too non-interactive.
::''I'' checked a bunch a websites, and they all said "TBA 2010". And I look at the official ones. Gamefaqs, IGN, Gamespot, you know, what you should rely on. {{User|Reversinator}}
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote.
:::Same at the Nintendo website. Nintendo is the most official and exact one (obviously). {{User|Gamefreak75}}
#{{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.


Okay...<br>
====Do the remaining water games on the list of merchandise move to the list?====
But we still have to get rid of the FI. {{User|Red Shell 68066vr}}
'''Deadline''': April 19, 2025, 23:59 GMT


:No, we don't all text on the main page and what someone (I forgot who...) brought up on the first removal of FI was a very good point. What will we replace it with because we can't have a huge are of whitespace on the front page. {{User|Gamefreak75}}
;Yes
::There's a picture of Mario in the upper left corner and all the ads have pictures. {{User|Red Shell 68066vr}}
#{{User|Nelsonic}} Per proposal.
::: That Mario picture is not enough. And ads... I hate those things. They do not count as images in the main page since they are annoying and distracting. Besides, I use Firefox with Noscript and AdBlocker, which means I won't see those ads. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
#{{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.
::::I forgot. There is also the picture from the Featured Articles every article. {{User|Red Shell 68066vr}}
#{{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.


==Changes==
;No
===24-Hour Delay Before Voting on Proposals===
#{{User|Nintendo101}} per my board game vote. This is not comparable to Game & Watch.
I propose to introduce a 24-hour delay for each proposal after it is made before users can vote on it.
#{{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.


Currently, as soon as a proposal is put on this page, users are allowed to vote on it. This is a problem for the following reason: Sometimes, proposals are made that seem very worthy to support, and within few hours, many votes are added. This is bad for people who are not online during that time but who would like to discuss points of the proposal they don't agree with. When they come online after a few hours and already find dozens of votes, they have no change to argue against them, and some of the voters might not even visit the Proposals page anymore after they have voted. Also, during the 24-hour period the proposal can be discussed and, if needed, edited, before any overhasty votes are made.
====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 this proposal passes, the following changes will be made:
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)
*Additionally to the "proposer" and "deadline" lines, there will be a line "Voting start" which will be 24 hours after the proposal is made.
*The voting start time ''can'' be exactly 24 hours after the creation of the proposal, however in order to not make things too complicated, proposers can also round one hour up or down (e.g. if the proposal is created at 17:14, one may put 17:00, and if it's created at 17:33, one may put 18:00).
*The deadline will be one week after the voting start rather than after the creation of the proposal. The usual deadline rules apply (e.g. if voting time starts on a Monday at 18:00, the deadline will be next Monday at 23:00).


This proposal would ''not'' abolish the possibility for the proposer to support their own proposal right away.
:{{@|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)


'''Proposer:''' {{User|Time Q}}<br>
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}}
'''Deadline:''' February 22, 2010, 23:00


====Support====
:{{@|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)
#{{User|Time Q}}: Per the reasons given above.
::Ok, that works! {{User:Rykitu/sig}}
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} - Per Time Q, this is really necessary.
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} This sounds pretty good, so users can discuss it before voting right away.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per TimeQ. Many proposals get modified in that time-span, making it so that old votes may be inaccurate.
#{{user|Redstar}} - Per proposal
#{{User|Ralphfan}} &ndash; Per all!
#{{User|Red Shell 68066vr}} That's what exactly happened to the Second "Remove FI" Proposal above.
#{{User|4DJONG}} If people vote right away, well the proposal could be edited the votes could be disproven and become useless.
#{{User|Supermariofan14}} - Per TimeQ.
#{{User|Walkazo}} - Per Time Q.
#{{User|Ratfink43}} yeah, per all
#{{User|Gamefreak75}} Per Time Q.
#{{User|Stooben Rooben}} - Per Time Q.
#{{User|Cobold}} - as most voters do not have their own arguments, but just "per" somebody else, this will allow for a more controversial discussion of the subject in question.
#{{User|Mr bones}} - Per all.
#{{User|Pie Shroom}} Per all. Haste makes waste.


====Oppose====
@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)


====Comments====
At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? {{User:Hewer/sig}} 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)
How exactly would we regulate this? &ndash; {{User|Ralphfan}}
:By taking off votes that users put up before the 24-hour period is up. It would be quite simple. <s>My only question is this: would we allow comments during the 24-hour period? Being unable to comment would be counterproductive.</s> OOps, missed a line in the proposal. {{user|Bloc Partier}}


===Change Rules in Featured Images page===
===Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers===
If anybody had ever voted on the Featured Images page, he/she could see that some images have fan votes on them (e.g. luigi+ball=epic fail). One problem with fan votes is that they make our wiki biased and unprofessional. Second, we vote on images for quality, not if a character is in it. Third, unlike Featured Articles, fan votes really do make a difference in the Featured Images page since the support votes are subtracted by oppose votes. Also, some users are giving out bad or even no reasons why they oppose an image (e.g I don't like this picture).
For some infoboxes like [[Template:M&LSS enemy|RPG enemy infoboxes]] or [[Template:DKC TV episode infobox|show episode infoboxes]], the work is displayed in a header (like "''Paper Mario'' enemy" or "''Super Mario World'' episode"). Others, like the generic [[Template:Level infobox|level infobox]] (which has only "Level" in a header) and the [[Template:Minigame infobox|minigame]] infobox, indicate the game in a regular field.


I propose that we should change the rules in the Featured Image nomination. If this proposal passes, everyone will need to give a valid reason to support/oppose an image. If a person fails to give a valid reason for a vote, then a sysop can delete the vote. A user can report to a sysop if he/she finds a vote with an invalid reason.  
I propose all subject infoboxes with a "Game" field or similar (exceptions and specific details below) adopt the work-in-header-cell format (like "''Super Mario World'' level"), and the "Game" or "Appears in" field be changed to "Reappearances" (present only in cases where the subject reappears, like retro ''Mario Kart'' courses or returning ''WarioWare'' microgames).


This is my first proposal. If I make any mistakes, please correct it.
Why do that? In order to maintain consistency in the presentation of this type of info, and also because it makes more sense than having the work be indicated in a regular field, as the work is not an internal attribute of the subject (like a level's time or code, or an enemy's stats), but part of its context. Also, making work identification more clear is useful when the same infoboxes are widely used for subjects belonging to different games and series.


'''Proposer:''' {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}<br>
That would affect every infobox that has a "Game" field currently, the [[Template:Course infobox|course infobox]], and infoboxes for specific games.
'''Deadline:''' February 28, 2010 21:00


====Support====
In the end, the infoboxes affected by this change would be:
#{{User|LeftyGreenMario}} If this proposal passes, then our nominated images won't get torn to pieces by fan votes or invalid votes. Like I said, fan votes or invalid reason actually DO harm to the featured images unlike the featured articles.
*[[Template:Board infobox]]
#{{User|Fawfulfury65}} Some votes are just really stupid, and you can't do anything about it, especially when the voter doesn't reply to you in the comments section or anything. I really think this would be good so... per proposal.
*[[Template:Course infobox]]
#{{User|King Bean}} - Like Fawfulfury said, the fan votes are just stupid. They aren't a reason. I have disliked this for long, and it should be fixed.
*[[Template:DDRMM song infobox]]
#{{User|Mr bones}} - I don't like fan votes because they don't  mean anything.So it should be removed.
*[[Template:DK64 level infobox]]
*[[Template:DKC level infobox]]
*[[Template:DKC3 world infobox]]
*[[Template:DKJB kingdom infobox]]
*[[Template:DKR course infobox]]
*[[Template:DLC infobox]]
*[[Template:Golf course infobox]]
*[[Template:Kart infobox]]
*[[Template:Level infobox]]
*[[Template:LM ghost infobox]]
*[[Template:LM portrait infobox]]
*[[Template:LM room infobox]]
*[[Template:Minigame infobox]]
*[[Template:Mission infobox]]
*[[Template:M&L attack infobox]]
*[[Template:M&S episode infobox]]
*[[Template:M&S event infobox]]
*[[Template:M+RSOH planet infobox]]
*[[Template:MKDD kart infobox]]
*[[Template:MSM court infobox]]
*[[Template:PM item infobox]]
*[[Template:PMCS location infobox]]
*[[Template:PMTOK location infobox]]
*[[Template:Power Shot infobox]]
*[[Template:Race course infobox]]
*[[Template:SMG boss infobox]]
*[[Template:Space infobox]]
*[[Template:Tennis court infobox]]
*[[Template:Tour infobox]]
*[[Template:World infobox]]


====Oppose====
(As for [[Template:Space infobox|spaces]], [[Template:Kart infobox|karts and kart parts]], [[Template:PM item infobox|''Paper Mario'' item]] and [[Template:Power Shot infobox|power shots]], which have an "Appears in" field, I suggest we indicate the ''series'' in the header instead (''Mario Party'', ''Mario Kart'', ''Paper Mario'' and ''Mario Tennis''), since they are not really "tied" to the game they debuted in, but are series-wide elements.)
#{{User|Time Q}}: How I dislike that "fan vote" discussion >.> Anyways, what we're talking about here is images. Whether you like an image or not is a totally subjective thing. There ARE no possible "valid" reasons if you just like an image. You can't force people to "reason" their personal taste, that's absurd. Really, if "fan votes" are such a problem to you, don't give reasons at all, like almost all users did when we started the FIs.
#{{User|KS3}} Instead of doing that, we should do the same as the new rules of Featured Articles. We should have this set of rules that determine when the quality of a picture is great enough so we can put it on the main page. We should also reuse old pictures like the FA. Or an alternative is to get rid of the FI altogether, getting a lot of stress off the Sysops backs.
#{{user|Tucayo}} - Per most Time Q said and per some things KS3 said.
#{{User|Garlic Man}} -- Per the "it's all opinion" argument that I've made in the past multiple times. I am sometimes compelled to support a nomination with the reason "This is awful!".
#{{User|MATEOELBACAN}} Per Time Q, the featured images supports/opposes depend of the thought of each person, you cannot say them to change of opinion.
#{{User|Marioguy1}} - Per all, the FI page, while it has some major problems with people putting oppose reasons in the support section, is all a matter of opinion. Somebody may think that the fact that (i.e.) an image has a logo in the corner is minor meanwhile others may think that it is a big problem. It depends on what you see is a problem. Sure some of the people have to change their frame of mind so that they actually put a support vote in the support section...but either way - people's opinions vary.
#{{User|Pie Shroom}} Per all.


====Comments====
'''Proposer''': {{User|Bro Hammer}}<br/>
Time Q: Yeah, I hate this fan vote discussion too. If this proposal passes, then we should never talk of this again. Anyway, a lot of great quality images are opposed because of these fan votes, and there was a proposal on deleting the FI, and one of the reasons was because of too many fan votes. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
'''Deadline''': April 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT
:Uhm, no, I made the proposal, and that was not one of my reasons. Anyway: be reasonable. As I said above, it's absurd to force users to reason their personal taste. {{User|Time Q}}
::And neither did the person named Red Shell 68066vr. {{User|KS3}}
::But some pictures look obvious such as that water picture and some other horrid pictures. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:::So what? Opposers can put a reason for those pictures. But users should not be ''forced'' to put reasons on ''every'' picture. {{User|Time Q}}
::::I just don't want a bad picture that ends up getting featured (Bowser Stirkers, anyone? There was a Luigi Strikers, but that got put down). {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}
:::::As you can see, a lot users like that Bowser picture. But that's not the point. How would this proposal prevent bad pictures getting featured? {{User|Time Q}}
::::::There was a single picture of a Yoshi eating a cookie. A lot of users supported it at first, but then, I (and others) came in and opposed. If we didn't oppose, then that would end up getting featured. {{User|BabyLuigiOnFire}}


If you don't like a picture and you can't find a decent reason for it, just don't vote. You are not forced to vote on an image. {{User|LeftyGreenMario}}
====Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell====
:Okay, let's put the rule to the test. Say, I don't consider your reason on the [[MarioWiki:Featured Images#Avalanche!|''Avalanche!'']] image valid. You just say it's "funny" and "has action". Now who would decide whether this is valid or not? Also, if a lot of users liked that Yoshi picture BLOF mentioned, then that means many people wanted to see that on the Main Page. You can't just say you're "more right" than them just because you don't liked it. {{User|Time Q}}
#{{User|Bro Hammer}} Per proposal.
#{{User|Ahemtoday}} I like uniformity.
#{{User|Salmancer}} I see the appeal.


==Miscellaneous==
====Oppose: do not change any infoboxes====
''None at the moment.''


<!-- Please do not remove, archive or place comments below this message. -->
====Comments (Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers)====
&nbsp;
My understanding is that Power Shots are exclusive to exactly two Mario Tennis games, ''[[Mario Power Tennis]]'' and ''[[Mario Tennis: Power Tour]]''. And of them, only twelve appear in both games. At that point, you might as well just have those twelve them say "Mario Power Tennis Power Shot" and say they reappear in ''Mario Tennis: Power Tour''. [[User:Salmancer|Salmancer]] ([[User talk:Salmancer|talk]]) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Latest revision as of 22:53, April 18, 2025

Image used as a banner for the Proposals page
Current time:
Saturday, April 19th, 07:40 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 off the Mario Kart Tour template(s), MightyMario (ended November 24, 2024)
Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)
Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)
Merge Chef Torte and Apprentice (Torte), Camwoodstock (ended February 3, 2025)
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
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)
Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) into Yoshi (series), PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)
Merge Mario Party 4 hosts with their species, Kirby the Formling (ended March 23, 2025)
Split the enemy/obstacle ice block of Yoshi's Woolly World from Ice Block, Sorbetti (ended March 29, 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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Noting the Switch 2 Editions

I have seen that it's kind of a mystery how we should note the Switch 2 Edition of a game. This question caused some controversy when I asked it in Talk:Super Mario Party Jamboree, so I have decided to involve the whole community in this to see what everyone thinks and so we all know what we should do in the future, when more Switch 2 Editions will follow.

Proposer: Yoshi18 (talk)
Deadline: April 20, 2025, 23:59 GMT

We give Switch 2 Editions their own articles

  1. memoryman3 (talk) Switch 2 Editions are unique game builds that Nintendo gives you the option to upgrade to, and as such should be treated as unique games. Determining whether a game deserves a separate article should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to other reissues. This would be no different from distinguishing a game like Luigi's Mansion 2 HD or Donkey Kong Country Returns HD as unique titles, unless the changes are so minimal that the games are classified as ports.

We give Switch 2 Editions their own section in their base games' article

  1. CarlosYoshiBoi (talk) I’m in for this one.

We make a Switch 2 Edition page where the Switch 2 Editions have their own respective sections

Propose in the games' talk page based on what the Switch 2 Edition adds

Re-propose this when we're closer to release of the Switch 2

  1. LinkTheLefty (talk) Ideally, we should wait until after launch since there's still much we don't know. From what I understand, they don't even have their own physical versions when seemingly everything else does (literally just the original Switch copy with a one-time download-code, or for all intents and purposes, DLC). If these "upgrade packs" act just like DLC does on previous consoles, then I think we should treat them as such, but that's to be determined at a later time.
  2. Camwoodstock (talk) Yeah, no, we should definitely wait on this until the Switch 2 releases. Otherwise, we might end up pre-emptively codifying a ton of articles with nothing substantial to them beyond "It's exactly the same as Switch 1, the gameplay functions, visuals, text, audio, and everything are all the same, but it just runs smoother." We'd like to refer to the PC-88 and Sharp X1 versions of Super Mario Bros. Special, not just because it's fresh on our mind, but it is genuinely relevant to the subject; that is a game that very expressly has a performance-related different release on another platform, but outside of the very obvious audiovisual elements, there just isn't enough to warrant splitting on the gameplay side. We could very easily see the Switch 2 Editions being similar to this, where the gameplay is entirely intact with no unique mechanics or mild substitutions due to hardware improvements, but the vast majority of the differences are just "uh, it looks different and runs smoother", which is not particularly substantial.
  3. Tails777 (talk) Per all. Too early at this point.
  4. EvieMaybe (talk) per all, and per my comment below
  5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal and all.
  6. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
  7. Nintendo101 (talk) per everyone. No need to jump the shark.

Comments

We know so little about what a Switch 2 Edition will mean that I don't think a decision can be made right now. Salmancer (talk) 12:05, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Seconding this--wouldn't it be better to just wait for the Switch 2 to actually release to see how the Switch 2 editions actually work? We're highly skeptical they would actually feature exclusive content in the first place, mind you, but without a Switch 2 edition having actually released, we're kind of voting in the dark here. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk • contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 12:07, April 6, 2025 (EDT)
i want to point out the "Switch 2 Edition" moniker is specifically reserved for versions which have actual content changes (ie, not what Odyssey is getting, which is just a free compatibility update). however, i still think we should wait more before deciding what to do, and that it might be better to case-by-case it — Super Leaf stamp from Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury.eviemaybe (talk / contributions) 14:12, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

Case-by-case where we only split ones with significant new content might be the way to go. This reminds me of how New Play Control! Donkey Kong Jungle Beat is split while New Play Control! Mario Power Tennis isn't. As for determining which ones have enough new content, it seems like the titles can help with that - so far, ones that are mainly just graphical improvements are just called "Game – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition", while ones that have more content added have another bit on the end of the title after a "＋" (like Super Mario Party Jamboree – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition ＋ Jamboree TV). I guess the option closest to this is the fourth one, except I'd rather not strictly require a proposal to determine it in cases where it's obvious (though of course we'd be allowed to have one if it's not). Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 16:50, April 6, 2025 (EDT)

I understand everyone's argument about this but I feel like we already know enough about the Switch 2 Edition of Jamboree to make this proposal. Blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 15:27, April 7, 2025 (EDT)

It is weird personally to have a "table this proposal" voting option when this wiki doesn't have a policy preventing it from being proposed again. A proposal being put up again after some time has passed is fairly normal. Well, there is the four week rule but surely no one would enforce that if the Switch 2 Edition games released within that window. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

I guess it's meant to be the equivalent of a "do nothing" option. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:59, April 12, 2025 (EDT)
Maybe it should have been "re-discuss" instead of "re-propose" so it doesn't have to have another proposal. Oh well. LinkTheLefty (talk) 08:20, April 12, 2025 (EDT)

Hey guys, I have a question. When this proposal ends, which color do I have to give it in the proposal archive page? Because it doesn’t seem like any of those fit. Should I color it Grey/Gray? Blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 07:14, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

I'd say red, assuming the last option passes. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 10:05, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

But this'll get re-proposed when the Switch 2 (or the first Switch 2 Edition releases) so doesn’t that technically mean it passed, because the option that passed is that we'll discuss it later. Because if it didn't pass, no change would've been made, ever. But this time there will be a change made. Just not now, but like, it'll still happen this year. Blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 11:25, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

It'd be red because the option that passed was to not take action yet. If a later proposal decides on a change then the change is attributed to that proposal and this one could switch to the blue colour. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:38, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

That's actually not a bad idea! Blue Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 18:13, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

None at the moment.

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?

Deadline: April 19, 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.

Do card games move to the list?

Deadline: April 19, 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.

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

Deadline: April 19, 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.

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

Deadline: April 19, 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.

Does Super Mario Ride move to the list?

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.

Do Play Nintendo games move to the list?

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.
No

Does Nintendo Today! move to the list?

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.

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

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.
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?

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.

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

Deadline: April 19, 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.

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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (talk · contributions · edit count) 11:11, April 15, 2025 (EDT)

At the risk of sounding dumb, what exactly are "(electronic) water games"? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 06:52, April 18, 2025 (EDT)

Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers

For some infoboxes like RPG enemy infoboxes or show episode infoboxes, the work is displayed in a header (like "Paper Mario enemy" or "Super Mario World episode"). Others, like the generic level infobox (which has only "Level" in a header) and the minigame infobox, indicate the game in a regular field.

I propose all subject infoboxes with a "Game" field or similar (exceptions and specific details below) adopt the work-in-header-cell format (like "Super Mario World level"), and the "Game" or "Appears in" field be changed to "Reappearances" (present only in cases where the subject reappears, like retro Mario Kart courses or returning WarioWare microgames).

Why do that? In order to maintain consistency in the presentation of this type of info, and also because it makes more sense than having the work be indicated in a regular field, as the work is not an internal attribute of the subject (like a level's time or code, or an enemy's stats), but part of its context. Also, making work identification more clear is useful when the same infoboxes are widely used for subjects belonging to different games and series.

That would affect every infobox that has a "Game" field currently, the course infobox, and infoboxes for specific games.

In the end, the infoboxes affected by this change would be:

(As for spaces, karts and kart parts, Paper Mario item and power shots, which have an "Appears in" field, I suggest we indicate the series in the header instead (Mario Party, Mario Kart, Paper Mario and Mario Tennis), since they are not really "tied" to the game they debuted in, but are series-wide elements.)

Proposer: Bro Hammer (talk)
Deadline: April 21, 2025, 23:59 GMT

Support: replace regular "Game" fields and similar in infoboxes with a header cell

  1. Bro Hammer (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Ahemtoday (talk) I like uniformity.
  3. Salmancer (talk) I see the appeal.

Oppose: do not change any infoboxes

Comments (Uniformly indicate subjects' work of origin in infobox headers)

My understanding is that Power Shots are exclusive to exactly two Mario Tennis games, Mario Power Tennis and Mario Tennis: Power Tour. And of them, only twelve appear in both games. At that point, you might as well just have those twelve them say "Mario Power Tennis Power Shot" and say they reappear in Mario Tennis: Power Tour. Salmancer (talk) 13:45, April 11, 2025 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.mariowiki.com/index.php?title=MarioWiki:Proposals&oldid=4848511"