MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Monday, November 18th, 09:07 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. Any user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so (not, e.g., "I like this idea!"). All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

A proposal section works like a discussion page: comments are brought up and replied to using indents (colons, such as : or ::::) and all edits are signed using the code {{User|User name}}.

How to

Rules

1. If users have an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with the other users, who will then vote about whether or not they think the idea should be used. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a link to the draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
2. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals and talk page proposals. While only autoconfirmed users can comment on proposals, anyone is free to comment on talk page proposals.
3. Proposals end at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times GMT).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 GMT.
4. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available.
5. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is accepted (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
6. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
7. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(banned)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
8. No proposal can overturn the decision of a previous proposal that is less than 4 weeks (28 days) old.
9. 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.
10. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
11. 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 the {{proposal check}} tool to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
12. 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 can only be re-proposed after four weeks (at the earliest).
13. 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.
14. If the wiki staff 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.
15. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first six 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.
16. 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.
17. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
18. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
19. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

Basic proposal and support/oppose format

This is an example of what your proposal must look like, if you want it to be acknowledged. If you are inexperienced or unsure how to set up this format, simply copy the following and paste it into the fitting section. Then replace the [subject] - variables with information to customize your proposal, so it says what you wish. If you insert the information, be sure to replace the whole variable including the squared brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information", not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but what each voting section is supporting must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

---

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|[enter your username here]}}<br>
'''Deadline''': [insert a deadline here, 14 days after the proposal was created, at 23:59 GMT, in the format: "November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT"]

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

====Oppose====

====Comments====

---

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

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

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

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

Rules

1. All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{TPP discuss}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links. Place {{TPP}} under the section's header, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}.
2. All rules for talk page proposals are the same as for proposals (see the "How to" section above), with the exceptions made by the additional rules below:
3. The talk page proposal must pertain to the subject page of the talk page it is posted on.
4. When a talk page proposal passes, it should be removed from this list and included in the list under the "Unimplemented proposals" section until the proposed changes have been enacted.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

• Merge Mushroom, Dash Mushroom, and most of Super Mushroom (discuss) Deadline: November 18, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Expand and rename List of characters by game (discuss) Deadline: November 20, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Decide whether to create articles for Ashita ni Nattara and Banana Tengoku and/or include them on List of Donkey Kong Country (television series) songs (discuss) Deadline: November 23, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Determine how to handle the Tattle Log images from Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door (Nintendo Switch) (discuss) Deadline: November 30, 2024, 23:59 GMT
• Merge False Character and the Fighting Polygon/Wireframe/Alloy/Mii Teams to List of Super Smash Bros. series bosses (discuss) Deadline: December 2, 2024, 23:59 GMT

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, Super Mario Run, and Super Mario Bros. Wonder.

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)

Add film and television ratings to Template:Ratings, TheUndescribableGhost (ended October 1, 2024)

Use the classic and classic-link templates when discussing classic courses in Mario Kart Tour, YoYo (ended October 2, 2024)

Split articles for the alternate-named reskins from All Night Nippon: Super Mario Bros., Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 3, 2024)

Clarify coverage of the Super Smash Bros. series, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended October 17, 2024)

Remove all subpage and redirect links from all navigational templates, JanMisali (ended October 31, 2024)

Prioritize MESEN/NEStopia palette for NES sprites and screenshots, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended November 3, 2024)

Stop considering reused voice clips as references (usually), Waluigi Time (ended November 8, 2024)

Allow English names from closed captions, Koopa con Carne (ended November 12, 2024)

^ NOTE: A number of names coming from closed captions are listed here.

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)

Split Banana Peel from Banana, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 18, 2024)

Merge Spiked Thwomp with Thwomp, Blinker (ended November 2, 2024)

Merge specified orbs with item counterparts from prior games, Pseudo (ended November 14, 2024)

^ NOTE: Done for Cursed Mushroom Orb and Mushroom Orb, but not for other Orbs yet.

Create articles for specified special buildings in Super Mario Run, Salmancer (ended November 15, 2024)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

None at the moment.

Removals

None at the moment.

Changes

Merge or delete Super Smash Bros. series general technique articles

We currently have articles on multiple general techniques used by fighters in Smash. Namely:

• Air Dodge (note that we do not have an article on spot dodging, another Smash dodging technique)
• Footstool Jump
• Glide (used exclusively by non-Mario characters)
• Shield
• Tether recovery (note that we do not have an article on recovery in general, and none of the characters who have tether recoveries are from the Mario franchise)

I don't see a reason to keep these short and largely tangential articles, especially since we just passed a proposal to merge non-Mario items in Smash. There are a few ways we can deal with this.

Merge these articles into a list page: Self-explanatory. The list will also include general techniques we do not have articles for, such as the aforementioned spot dodging.

Delete these articles: No list will be created. Explanations of the universal techniques will be left to gameplay sections for the games, with glide and tether recovery being explained on the pages of the fighters who have them.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone: Unlike the other three, these aren't even usable by Mario characters, so they have zero relevance to the Mario franchise. We merged all the non-Mario characters' special moves (B moves) to their fighters' pages, so we should at least get rid of these.

Do nothing: Even glide and tether recovery get to stay, creating the inconsistency described above, so I don't recommend this.

The scopes of jump, roll, and taunt extend far beyond Smash, so these articles stay no matter what.

Proposer: 7feetunder (talk)
Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge these articles into a list page

1. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
2. Spectrogram (talk) Yeah, I don't think we can straight up remove Smash information in the first place, we still consider the series a crossover after all, so it is a subject to full coverage, just with MarioWiki characteristics. Otherwise I support the merge.
3. Somethingone (talk) Per proposal.
4. Waluigi Time (talk) I'd prefer the information didn't get removed entirely.
5. Mari0fan100 (talk) Users have worked hard on those articles, so it would be better to merge them instead of deleting them.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) My second, less preferred option.
7. Hewer (talk) I agree we could probably just put the tether recovery and glide information on the character pages like the non-Mario special moves, but per all otherwise since the other techniques are used by Mario characters.
8. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - per

Delete these articles

1. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.
2. Bazooka Mario (talk) I'm not too keen on technique lists since we don't keep lists of these moves from other crossover games.
3. WildWario (talk) Per proposal.
4. Spectrogram (talk) Second option.
5. RSM (talk) per proposal.
6. Archivist Toadette (talk) Per.
7. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
8. Power Flotzo (talk) These pages are only a few thousand bytes long, and since we merged all the non-Mario moves with their fighters, then surely we can do the same for these.
9. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Delete glide and tether recovery, but leave the other articles alone

1. 7feetunder (talk) Per proposal.

Decide what to do with Greenhouse

Good morning!

Recently, a proposal has passed, aiming to trim non-Mario Game & Watch coverage (and yes, I'm aware the changes have not yet been implemented). This proposal notably excluded Greenhouse, as despite not being a Mario game, it features a character Stanley the Bugman who later plays a major role in Donkey Kong 3, makes cameo appearances in WarioWare series, and Smash Bros. series. He also appears in the episode Greenhouse Gorilla.

Stanley did not appear in any other non-Mario media. So the way I see it, either Greenhouse is in or out. Here are three options:

1) Part of the Mario franchise. The wiki considers this game a part of the Mario series, which results in the game receiving full coverage.

2) Not a Mario game. The Greenhouse article gets the same treatment as all other Game & Watch titles, according to this proposal, resulting in the article getting trimmed.

3) Classify as "historically significant". Or as I call it, keep the status quo. The game gets classified as "historically significant", according to MarioWiki:Coverage#Historically significant. Greenhouse does not get full coverage, but the page itself will not be trimmed.

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: September 2, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Part of the franchise

#LinkTheLefty (talk) Second option. I just don't see a reason to cut it entirely from the wiki.

Historically significant

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) I'd say this counts at minimum. Not only did Stanley and his spray debut here, but the game also has a similar premise in effectively the same setting (minus Kong) and even includes Buzzbees and prototypical versions of Creepy and the Donkey Kong 3 flowers.
2. Spectrogram (talk) per proposal.
3. Platform (talk) per all.
4. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.

Comments

I have given this topic some thought of the past few months and came up with the same options. All three are valid in my opinion. I also came up with a more radical and perhaps controversial fourth option. There exists a Stanley franchise within the Mario franchise, which consists of only four games: Green House, DK3, its G&W counterpart, and Dai Gyakushū. Nintendo had some sort of plan to grow Stanley into a more prominent character but it was curtailed when DK3 flopped.--Platform (talk) 11:50, August 26, 2022 (EDT)

This might be reaching, but could Super Donkey have been evidence of a failed "Stanley" franchise? On a related note, Greenhouse should properly be "Green House" per its most recent release (I know the microgame is technically newer, but microgames are separate subjects and thus allowed to have their own titles, otherwise for game articles we'd be accepting "Mario Brothers", "Mario Adv.", "Zelda", etc). LinkTheLefty (talk) 12:23, August 26, 2022 (EDT)

The Super Donkey protagonist reminds me of Mr. You from Sky Skipper, who also fought gorillas.--Platform (talk) 13:30, August 26, 2022 (EDT)

Split Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP) and Bowser's Factory, as well as Castle Wall and Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX)

Okay, this has been bothering me for quite a while.

As you may or may not know, the base courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP DX use the same (or slightly redesigned) minimap layouts from the courses of the previous Arcade GP entries, Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP 2. However, the tracks have all new names, music, themes and aesthetics, so generally, the wiki considers these as different courses altogether.

That is, except for Bowser's Factory and the Arcade GP DX version of Bowser's Castle, which have been merged with the Arcade GP 1/2 version of Bowser's Castle and Castle Wall, respectively (which in turn have assumed the names of the AGPDX courses since).

This bothers me to no end, because even though they start similarly, and have the general Bowser's Castle theme, these courses still have completely different names and music, and the aesthetics are even quite different, especially after these courses' hairpin turns. For example, the throne room in AGP1's Bowser's Castle is completely gone in Bowser's Factory, as its corresponding section is now part of the factory half of the Bowser's Factory course (it's specifically been replaced by a Bob-omb factory section), which, as you might've guessed, AGP1's Bowser's Castle doesn't have. Half of the Castle Wall course also takes place on the, well, high castle wall, which is also completely absent in AGPDX's Bowser's Castle, replacing it with a curved path next to a giant Koopa Clown Car-like structure, a straight Glider section high above a (comparatively very low) rocky path surrounded by boiling lava, and another path inside with a Kamek hologram. Aside from the aesthetics, the courses also differ in obstacles and elevations. If it weren't for the beginning (which is also quite different, with the head of the Bowser statue at the gate being slanted over the gate), the courses would be nothing alike!

I get that these are all Bowser Cup courses, but with all these different songs, names, aesthetics, elevations and such, the only thing that is the same are the course maps – which are also altered in DX (most notably, the hairpin turn at the beginning is slanted in DX). All these differences essentially make them different courses altogether like the other courses of Arcade GP DX, and probably were intended to be considered different courses by Bandai Namco Games, so I believe the Wiki should consider them as different courses, too.

I also understand that classic courses may get heavy redesigns as of Mario Kart 8, but the problem is that Arcade GP DX not only is developed and published by a different team (and essentially aren't part of the mainline Mario Kart series), but AGPDX also came out before MK8 did, so the most recent title up to that point was still Mario Kart 7, which, aside from adding glider and underwater sections, still hadn't implemented heavy course redesigns yet. And the classic courses from Mario Kart 8 also kept their course names and had their songs remixed – all the Arcade GP DX had completely different names and brand new compositions that sounded nothing like the course music from the previous Arcade GP courses. Because of that, I believe the Wiki shouldn't consider this as a case of returning classic courses either.

What especially boggles my mind is that, while Bowser's Factory and Bowser Castle AGPDX are merged with Bowser's Castle AGP1 and Castle Wall (respectively), Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast are NOT merged with Mario Highway and Mario Beach (respectively) at all, despite it being the exact same case here with similar minimaps and theme (coastal Mario courses), but different names, aesthetics and songs. Heck, the beginning of these courses are ALSO similar to each other! So why are Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle AGPDX not getting the same treatment.

So here's what I propose: we split off the AGPDX Bowser courses from the AGP1 Bowser courses; treat them as different courses, like all the other courses from AGPDX. We first rename the articles back to Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP) and Castle Wall, since the articles originally started as such, then we make full articles of Bowser's Factory and Bowser's Castle (Mario Kart Arcade GP DX), moving the relevant info from the AGP1 articles to those pages. I found videos of these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX, in case you want to compare the courses yourself.

Alternatively, we could also merge Splash Circuit and Tropical Coast to Mario Highway and Mario Beach, respectively. If the Bowser courses are not allowed to be split off, then the Mario courses shouldn't either: it would only be fair. However, I'm personally not inclined to support this option and still prefer the Bowser courses to be split, because like the Bowser courses, the Mario courses also have their fair share of differences when it comes to music, names, aesthetics and elevations (e.g. you go into a wrecked ship in Tropical Coast, which is completely absent from Mario Beach). I also found videos for these courses in Mario Kart Arcade GP and Mario Kart Arcade GP DX for comparison.

I feel like the rest of the courses from Arcade GP DX should be left alone, as their only similarities really are the course minimaps and nothing else. We could merge them all together regardless, but that would be the same as merging all the enemy variants in Wario World back together.

Proposer: Arend (talk)
Deadline: September 3, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Split the Bowser courses, as proposed

1. Arend (talk) Per proposal.
2. RSM (talk) courses in other games that share similar layouts are always put in different articles (Mt. Dynamite Remix and Dynamite Run from Donkey Kong Barrel Blast, for example) just because the course uses the same road layout doesn't mean they're exactly the same. Their visuals, and music, aesthetics and so on are more than enough for it to be a different course, thus it needs a different page. This is very different from the Mario Kart Tour city-courses, which all share the same model, music, name, etc. I support splitting.
3. Archivist Toadette (talk) Per RSM.
4. Ray Trace (talk) Per all.
5. ThePowerPlayer (talk) Per all.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.

Merging Smash Bros. objects: Round 2!

Good day!

My recent proposal aimed at merging unrelated to Mario items and objects has passed, however, as it turned out, the list wasn't full -- there are still objects that should have been merged. So, why don't we finish what we started? As established earlier, cameo appearances do not justify keeping an article.

If you find more objects/items that I've missed, leave a comment so I can add them in the list.

List N

The following entries will be merged with the rest of Smash Bros. objects:

1. Great Fox
2. Gunship
3. Subspace Gunship
4. Unira (will be merged with items)
5. Wolfen

Now the question is, should F-Zero Racer also be merged? Is it cameo appearance or not?

Proposer: Spectrogram (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Merge only the List N entries

1. Spectrogram (talk) F-Zero Racer seems to play a major-enough role.
2. Somethingone (talk) Per proposal.
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per proposal.

Comments

I am a bit iffy on Unira since early appearances of Urchin were treated as either them themselves or at least a derivative (though granted Octorok has a ton of variants in Mario and we no longer have a page on it...) Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 21:44, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

Move Flying Goomba (Super Mario World) to Paragaloomba, Para-Goomba (Super Mario World) to Parachute Galoomba, Parabomb to Parachute Bob-Omb

The Super Mario World section of the Japanese Mario Portal calls the Flying Goomba "Paragaloomba" and the Para-Goomba "Parachute Galoomba". These names should take priority over their current names as they are more recent, more accurate to the original Japanese and also help clear up a currently very counter-intuitive group of pages.

Firstly, Galoombas were separate enemies from the Goombas since their inception, being called kuribon as opposed to kuribō. Secondly, a well established pattern in both English and Japanese dictates that winged variants of enemies receive a Para- or Pata- prefix, respectively (Paragoombas being Patakuribō, Para-Biddybuds being Patatenten, Para-Beetles being Patametto, Parabones being Patakaron, etc). "Flying Goombas" are called Patakuri in Japanese, and were accordingly named "Paragaloombas" in the new website. "Para-goomba", on the other hand, are called Parakuri in Japanese (coincidently the same prefix as the English word, despite having different meanings) and were thus named "Parachute Galoombas" in the new website. Their new names fix both of those inconsistencies, and would make the pages more intuitive to understand. Parabomb would also be moved as to be consistent with the new Parachute Galoomba name.

Proposer: LadySophie17 (talk)
Deadline: September 5, 2022, 23:59 GMT

Move all pages

1. LadySophie17 (talk) I love any effort to fix janky old localization choices.
2. Hewer (talk) Per proposal.
3. Seandwalsh (talk) My second choice, per proposal.
4. Spectrogram (talk) per proposal :D
5. Platform (talk) Per all.
6. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal
7. Arend (talk) Secondary choice. The new names for these aerial Galoombas are more consistent with the other winged enemies (it was honestly inconsistent even back when they were regarded the same as regular Goombas), and the same would apply for Parachute Bob-omb if it weren't for the fact that its old name of Parabomb is still in use in more recent titles.

Move Flying Goomba and Para-Goomba, but not Parabomb

1. Seandwalsh (talk) My first choice, per LinkTheLefty's comments.
2. Somethingone (talk) I feel like the fact that the name "Parabomb" has been used consistently every time they had an in-game name is enough to leave it as is. Also, unlike the Flying/Parachute G(al)oombas, Parabomb wasn't given the English name of an already existing enemy for years :P
3. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.
4. Arend (talk) Primary choice. As LinkTheLefty stated, Parabomb has made a handful of frequent reappearances in the past decade (unlike Paragaloomba and Parachute Galoomba), and still used the Parabomb name for something as recent as Dr. Mario World. We're not moving Banzai Bill to Boomer Bill because of the LEGO Mario sets, or Bomber Bill because of the Mario Portal as well, either. I feel like we have to wait and see if Parabomb reappears in future titles with the new Parachute Bob-omb moniker (and in turn, if we get winged Bob-omb appearances outside of Mario Maker in the future, and if those are called Para-Bob-omb).
5. LinkTheLefty (talk) Per per.
6. Waluigi Time (talk) Until we have further discussion on it, I don't think we should be overriding other names with Mario Portal names without a really good reason. While the Galoomba moves make sense, since it's pretty confusing in its current state, I don't really feel compelled to move Parabomb right now. Parabomb is also a name used (very recently!) in-game so I don't like the massive jump in source priority here.
7. Hewer (talk) Second choice, per all.
8. RSM (talk) per all.
9. Spectrogram (talk) second option.
10. Swallow (talk) Per all

Comments

The Para-Goomba (Mario Clash) page would unfortunately remain unchanged, as Mario Clash was not featured in the new website. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C)

Could there be an option to move the Galoombas only? While Parabomb could be renamed, I'd rather we wait until a new game uses Parachute Bob-omb before moving that one, like how Boomer/Bomber Bill is being approached. (And if we really wanted to, we could just use "Para-Goombah" for the Mario Clash Para-Goomba. It'd be a silly way to remove an identifier, but I think we can work with it.) LinkTheLefty (talk) 23:08, August 29, 2022 (EDT)

The same reasoning applies partially to the Parabomb page: the name Parachute Bob-Omb would be consistent with the name Parachute Galoomba, and would avoid confusion as it's not the same thing as other "Para-" enemies, which is what the Japanese name already does anyway. If we're moving one I see no reason not to move the other. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C)

The difference is that the Galoombas appear infrequently and moving them would match their actual parent species, whereas Parabombs are having a decent run and have appeared as late as Dr. Mario World under that name (winged Bob-ombs are also exclusive to Super Mario Maker, and previous proposals concluded to leave those enemies as one-offs until they officially appear outside that series). LinkTheLefty (talk) 09:01, August 30, 2022 (EDT)

Alright. I thought about it and I'll concede that, despite not being as accurate as Parachute Bob-Ombs, the name Parabombs is still technically the most accurate name used in-game for the enemy over the years, so I have added an option to not move that page. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.