MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: May 15, 2026, 09:07 (UTC)

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 detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a 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 a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit 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 UTC).
   • 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 (UTC).
5. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
6. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
14. 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.
15. 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.
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. 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 should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.
18. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
19. All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.
20. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must provide a reason and wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
    • A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
21. Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a wiki staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
25. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

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 (UTC)

====[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. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and 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 (UTC)

;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 (UTC)

;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 (UTC)

;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, the proposal author(s), 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

Deletions

None at the moment.

Moves

• Move Luigi's Mansion organ game to "organ game" (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: May 18, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

• Split Scrap from Sticker (discuss) by Jdtendo; Deadline: May 20, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Split levels in Donkey Kong Country Barrel Maze into their own articles (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: May 21, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Split King Hisstocrat and Queen Hisstocrat (discuss) by Mariuigi Khed; Deadline: May 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Decide how to handle terminology regarding levels (discuss) by TheCatLover738; Deadline: May 17, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Reconsider Wavy Ride through the Magma Tube's primary power-up to be the Fire Flower (discuss) by TheCatLover738; Deadline: May 23, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

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.

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

Split major RPG appearances of recurring locations, EvieMaybe (ended December 16, 2024)

Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle

Retool the Names in other languages section into a more general etymology section, EvieMaybe (ended March 7, 2025)

Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)

Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Zing Zang Zote (ended May 31, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented for List of The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! songs

Overhaul sponsor pages, Seandwalsh (ended June 26, 2025)

Reorganize recurring theme articles to use history sections, Ahemtoday (ended July 2, 2025)

Revamp colorful tables, Camwoodstock (ended August 14, 2025)

Make articles for the licensed songs in The Super Mario Bros. Movie, Sargent Deez (ended September 17, 2025)

Note: Articles for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" and "Mr. Blue Sky" have not been created yet

Change game quote lists to game scripts, Scrooge200 (ended September 21, 2025)

Create an article for Gourmandise, Sargent Deez (ended October 4, 2025)

Stop using icon-based level names for Super Mario Bros. 3, PopitTart (ended October 21, 2025)

End the use of "new course" and "classic course" as universal definitions within the Mario Kart series, Polley001 (ended January 26, 2026)

Make all release dates use individual flags (if possible), Yoshi18 (ended February 8, 2026)

Create "recycled assets" sections for asset re-use, and move examples of asset re-use to those sections, Camwoodstock & Yoshi18 (ended March 5, 2026)

Prioritize whole integer upscaling for sprite displays, Scrooge200 (ended March 13, 2026)

Make an article for the New Super Mario Bros. series (Draft page), Yoshi18 & Sargent Deez (ended March 18, 2026)

Establish a consistent format for non-game enemy and obstacle lists, TheCatLover738 (ended March 22, 2026)

Allow screenshot in infobox for subjects with an updated design when no proper artworks exist, Brett (ended April 17, 2026)

Create articles for Toad Brigade Training Camp and Attraction variations of courses in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park, TheCatLover738 (ended April 23, 2026)

Use manga chapters rather than volumes for subjects' first and last appearances, Brett (ended May 9, 2026)

Decide if medias that mention a subject before their first appearance or after their last appearance should be included in their infobox, Brett (ended May 14, 2026)

Talk page proposals

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 (Draft page), Doc von Schmeltwick (ended August 3, 2024)

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

Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Red Bonus Game House, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.

Give the Cluck-A-Pop Prizes articles, Camwoodstock (ended January 31, 2025)

Split the Animal Crossing series (now Crossovers with Animal Crossing) (Draft page), Zing Zang Zote (ended February 12, 2025)

Restructure Yoshi's Island (series) article into Yoshi series, PopitTart (ended March 19, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented in articles that still use the Yoshi's Island series and still have separate Yoshi's Story, Yoshi's Woolly World, and Yoshi's Crafted World sections

Split Super Luigi subjects into a dedicated list article (Draft page), EvieMaybe (ended April 3, 2025)

Clean up Prohibited Command, PrincessPeachFan (ended May 13, 2025)

Determine which subjects belong in Category:Aliens, Technetium (ended June 14, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented for Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Galaxy 2 subjects.

Split A Magical Tour of Yoshi's Island from Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, Rykitu (ended July 9, 2025)

Decide how to handle hammer-based moves in Category:Hammers, SolemnStormcloud (ended July 21, 2025)

Treat Pyoro as a series, janMisali (ended September 1, 2025)

Determine whether a Final Smash is one of a fighter's special moves, Salmancer (ended September 13, 2025)

Split Challenge, VS. Game/You VS. Boo, the Album and the Toy Box + its individual toys from Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, Snessy (ended December 23, 2025)

Decide whether to use title case in English meanings of foreign names where applicable when not present in the source language, PaperSplash (ended December 26, 2025)

Treat courses that debuted in Mario Kart Tour and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe as Mario Kart Tour and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe courses respectively, Polterpup (ended January 1, 2026)

Consider "LUCKY" misses from the Paper Mario series to be a game mechanic, Pizza Master (ended January 13, 2026)

Move Wakkiki info to Akiki, FanOfYoshi (ended January 17, 2026)

Determine which clothing and other gear deserves individual articles, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended January 21, 2026)

Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back

Determine what qualifies as a game (and create appropriate categories in the process), SuperGamer18 (ended February 2, 2026)

Declare Super Smash Bros. - Gameplay & Quest for the amiibo! a guest appearance and delete Jack (Quest for the amiibo!), Salmancer (ended February 22, 2026)

Add music types to track tables (SSBU Sound Test), The Eggo55 (ended February 27, 2026)

Determine whether discontinued media counts as lost media, Pizza Master (ended February 28, 2026)

Make articles for the licensed songs in The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, SuperGamer18 (ended April 3, 2026)

Clean up the Mini Boo page, Sorbetti (ended April 25, 2026)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

Removals

Delete the individual Yoshi's Island enemy class pages

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on May 22, 2026 at 23:59 (UTC) and close the proposal if applicable.

This concerns the following category, and each of its pages, listed below for convenience:

• Category:Yoshi's Island enemy classes
  • Dudim Phreykunoutonthis
  • Edibilis Boringus
  • Harrassimentia Phlyoverus
  • Mostosti Vomitonus
  • Projectilia Ritebakatchia
  • Ucantia Defeatus

...In short, these are not anything specified by the game whatsoever. These are strictly sourced from the Nintendo Power Player's Guide for Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3, said "enemy classes" are strictly used as section headers rather than taken as being definitively about specific enemies, and even within the guide itself, it doesn't list a faux species for every enemy in the game. Pikmin, this certainly isn't; this is just kind of a joke that spans two pages, and yet somehow has six pages and a category. Imagine if every nickname Nintendo or affiliated sources have used for Shy Guys to promote the enemy-naming feature of Yoshi and the Mysterious Book, from "LL Shy G", to "Hanks", got their own not-redirect, fully-featured pages. That's roughly the level we're operating on here!

Obviously, this is kind of an absurd way to handle this, and giving this the scope we have is bordering on a nonsensical Lore™-brained extrapolation. This is the sort of thing we list as a note, or maybe at the end of the game's section on the enemy's page, not given its whole bespoke page... And if this passes, we'll see to it that that's what we do. Just mention these enemy classes on the enemies' pages, either in the section for Yoshi's Island, or in a Notes section if the enemy lacks a history section for one reason or another.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: May 29, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (It's no Mr. E!)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per our Democratius Websitius (own proposal).
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. It is worth mentioning on the enemy's pages and the game's page, but it doesn't deserve an entire article.
4. Robipedia (Japannica) Let's get rid of these wastes of pages and either use them to save the Amazon company rainforest or put actually important stuff in there.
5. Wanderia Florius (talk) Didn't we already decide this sometime ago? I thought the issue was just that nobody had gotten around to it yet. Regardless, per all.
6. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
7. Arend (talk) As the guy who started the whole discussion Camwoodstock mentioned in the comments , per all and per what I said back then (even if it would be pretty funny if we had a Mysterious Book article on Dave). None of these classes warrant an article, especially if the guide they're from don't have complete enemy lists that lead to a lot of speculation and even incorrect information (e.g. listing Lakitu under Projectilia Ritebakatchia instead of under Harrassimentia Phlyoverus (and Projectilia Ritebakatchia lists Wall Lakitu instead), listing Piranha Plant instead of Spear Guy under Ucantia Defeatus, listing all the games's bosses under Ucantia Defeatus when the guide never specified that, etc).
8. Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.

Comments (Joke about "taxonomy" and "Yoshi's tax fraud" here)

@Wandering Poplin - There was a discussion on the category talk page, but it still needed to be outright proposed before we could delete the pages and move the remaining information over to the enemies' pages. This is us making that outright proposal. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 01:17, May 15, 2026 (UTC)

Additions

None at the moment.

Changes

Decide how to handle reissues in the History sections of musical theme articles

A while back, I edited the "Forest of Illusion (Map Screen)" article so that the original theme from the SNES version of Super Mario World and the arrangement from the Game Boy Advance remake were combined into one section, but it was reverted, as I was told on my User talk page that reissues with unique arrangements from the original theme should be separated. So with that mind, I went ahead and edited the "Crocodile Cacophony (K. Rool's Theme)" article so that the original theme from the SNES version of Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest and the arrangement from the Game Boy Advance remake were separated into their own sections, but it was later reverted, which I assume is because nearly every musical theme article pertaining to the Donkey Kong Country series has their reissues combined with the original game, regardless if the reissue has a unique arrangement or not. This leads me to believe that the way we currently handle reissues in musical theme articles is not very consistent.

To fix this, I propose two options (EDIT: I added a third option based on B700465189a9's comment):

• Option A: All reissues will be combined with the original game in the History section, regardless if the reissue has a unique arrangement or not.
• Option B: Only reissues with their own unique arrangements will be separated from the original game.
• Option C: Only reissues with distinct soundtracks (as in, most if not every musical theme is rearranged for the reissue) will be separated from the original game.

If Option A passes, all arrangements of musical themes from reissues shall be merged with the original game in the History sections. This means that all of the Super Mario All-Stars and Game Boy Advance arrangements of musical themes from Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 2, Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, the Nintendo 3DS arrangements of musical themes from the Mario & Luigi series, and the Nintendo Switch arrangements of musical themes from Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, will all be merged with their original games in their History sections.

If Option B passes, all reissues with their own exclusive arrangements of musical themes from the original games shall be separated in the History sections. This means that all of the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance arrangements of musical themes from Donkey Kong Country, Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, and Donkey Kong Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble!, will be separated from their original games in their History sections. This also means that the arrangements of "Sweet Sweet Canyon" and "Dragon Driftway" from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe will incidentally be separated from the original Wii U version of Mario Kart 8 in their respective History sections.

If Option C passes, only reissues with completely distinct soundtracks from the original game shall be separated in the History sections. This means that everything that was said about Option B passing will apply, except for the arrangements of "Sweet Sweet Canyon" and "Dragon Driftway" from Mario Kart 8 Deluxe being separated, as Mario Kart 8 Deluxe's soundtrack is not completely distinct from the original Wii U version of Mario Kart 8.

Personally, I prefer Option A, as I think it would make musical theme articles in the future more neatly organized, but I also wouldn't be upset if Option B or C passes, as it would still make it so there will be consistency with how reissues in musical theme articles should be organized going forward, which is what I'm aiming for with this article, so it's a win-win.

Proposer: Wilben (talk)
Deadline: May 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option A

1. Wilben (talk) My preferred choice.
2. Ahemtoday (talk) I strongly believe these sections should be combined in all scenarios, as any other type of article's history section would do. The only reason they're not is because of the old "arrangements" structure.
3. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice; per all.

Option B

1. The Dab Master (Nintendo Switch) Primary choice; this is how we used to do this when a reissue featured at least one other arrangement or remix, and I never really saw a problem with this.

Option C

1. Wilben (talk) My secondary choice, though I still prefer Option A.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice; per all.
3. The Dab Master / The Dab Master Deluxe + Expert in Mewing Secondary choice; per all.

Comments

I personally would separate reissues from their original games in these history sections if the reissues feature distinct soundtracks. After all, articles like that of Koopa the Quick do separate reissues when the reissues can be analyzed separately from their original games. The distinction between the soundtracks of Super Mario Bros. and Super Mario All-Stars should not be handled in the same way as the distinction between the soundtracks of Mario Kart 8 and Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. B700465189a9 (talk) 04:04, May 8, 2026 (UTC)

Could this proposal also account for merged series sections such as Dragon Coin (sound effect) § New Super Mario Bros. series or Fortress BGM § Super Mario Maker series? The Dab Master 16:32, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

Probably not, as I'm simply proposing for how to handle reissues in musical theme articles, not series or sequels. Wilben (talk) 23:13, May 9, 2026 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

What is a Game? IV: A New Scope

As Eminem once said:

(Guess who's back... back again...)

Anyway, let's begin.

We've made a split page for physical games and given that variety of merchandise a location to be covered. However, there are still select varieties of merchandise that could qualify as physical games that currently aren't on the list. This proposal aims to add said games to the list, as most of them are divorced enough from the variety of games currently on the list that there could potentially be discourse on whether to add them or not. These game varieties will be listed below, followed by options on whether to add them or not.

LEGOs / BYGGIS / K'NEX / Dot-S

If this were to be added to the list, each set would be listed under a new section for three-dimensional puzzles (akin to the currently-listed Kumukumu Puzzle) under the section for jigsaw puzzles. These brands are technically puzzles, as the user has to put them together the same way they'd put together a jigsaw puzzle, just in a three-dimensional space. Each set article would presumably be akin to a jigsaw puzzle article (with slightly more content due to LEGO Super Mario's timer / scannable objects, K'NEX's motorized sets, and BYGGIS's cutouts). [On a separate note, I may make a proposal determining what content can be added to pre-existing jigsaw articles to improve their depth, such as - as another editor suggested - making graphics showing what kind of pieces appear in a given puzzle.) In short, I believe these three brands should be added, as they are each at least akin to a jigsaw puzzle, while LEGO Super Mario also features various scannable elements and a timer, and K'NEX features the aforementioned motorized sets.

As for Dot-S, I could honestly go either way on this one. The puzzles don't really have much in the way of names, unlike most of the other sets listed. I would still like these to be added to the list, though I'd understand if they can't warrant their own articles (and thus would be okay with the brand itself being added instead).

Playsets

If these were to be added to the list, they would most likely be put in the miscellaneous section (or a new section, depending on how many varieties of these there are). I believe these should be added to the list, as a playset is intended to bring the world of any given game to life in a physical sense, as each playset depicts either a real in-game location or a unique location fitting with in-game settings (such as underwater playsets, etcetera). A playset is meant to give the user the feeling that they are playing the game, and, while many playsets don't have a goal in that of themselves, this is due to playsets being intended for players to make their own rules. I believe these could comfortably warrant their own articles between the setting, the pieces, the setup, and other miscellaneous information.

Activity books

This one wouldn't change what is currently covered or result in additional articles (as activity books already all receive their own articles), though if these were to be added to the list, they would most likely be placed either in a new section that also includes the Twinkl activities, or in the miscellaneous section. Activity books usually feature various mazes and games, with some (such as The Super Mario Galaxy Movie Activity Kit) featuring full-blown games that the user has to physically print out and cut out to play. Because of this, I think activity books should be added to the list.

Art tools

If these were to be added to the list (depending on how many of them I can find), they would either be categorized under a new section or in the miscellaneous section. These tools include stuff like the Ravensburger-produced Mario-themed "Xoomy" (I believe that's how the toy's name is spelled) drawing toy, which is intended to aid users in learning to draw. I believe these should be added to the list, as - though most of these would comfortably warrant their own articles as merchandise as well - they could be categorized as the physical game answer to Mario Paint and the Mario Artist series.

Magic 8 Balls

These would probably go in the miscellaneous section, as there's most likely not that many of them. These could comfortably warrant their own article(s) once all of their individual answers have been found, as they're sort of like the physical game answer to the online browser games in the vein of Ask Wario or the Ask Dan-style message board-mail bag-things from the early 2000s. In short, I believe these should be considered physical games, as there is a level of interactivity to them, they have unique names, they can fill out their own articles, and they have video game parallels.

To note, some of these could be considered more on the "utility" side as opposed to the "game" side. However, as with the list of games, I believe that it'd be better to group the physical utilities with the physical games, as I don't think there's enough [known] distinct physical utilities to warrant a separate list.

Note: this proposal is sheerly intended to add these things to the list, and ensure that they will eventually get articles. I am not making writing the articles part of the proposal itself, as... well... then it probably wouldn't be implemented for a very long time due to the amount of these things.

Now let's-a vote!

Proposer: Nelsonic (talk)

(How) do we add LEGOs, BYGGIS, K'NEX, and Dot-S?

LEGO, BYGGIS, K'NEX, and Dot-S are not games 2-1-1-5
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Add individually

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) I agree with adding the LEGO Super Mario sets, but only LEGO Mario as they made those sets act like a game. The other sets are just toys.

Add individually, but add Dot-S as a brand

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Add to the list, but only as brands

1. Camwoodstock (talk) We'd prefer each of them get listed with the brand in lieu of individual sets; there are many expansions to LEGO Super Mario that just, don't function as they're intended to unless you have the main LEGO Super Mario.

Don't add

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Jdtendo (talk) They're more like toys than games. I wouldn't consider them "three-dimensional puzzles" since the user has to follow instructions to assemble them, whereas the core gameplay of jigsaw puzzles is having to guess which piece goes where.
5. Okapii (talk) Per Jdtendo, these are toys; toys are merchandise.

Do we add playsets?

Playsets are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) Playsets may be interactive, but they don't have any rules to classify them as games.
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) Unless it's got a specific rules for play, like a board game, a playset is probably better categorized alongside toys than as a "game".
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

Do we add activity books?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 9, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Extended to May 16, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. I was actually considering making a proposal to split all the physical games found in activity books. While this isn't exactly what I had in mind, sure. If the My Very First Nintendo Game Boy books have a spot in the physical games list because of their water games, so can these activity books for their games.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) A game book is literally a game in a book! It's in the title. It makes sense to denote these in the physical games list, as an overlap between publications and physical games.
4. EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock.
5. Okapii (talk) Ehhhh.. yeah, per Camwoodstock.
6. Yoshi18 (talk) I mean, this maybe shouldn't count for all activity books, but some of those books are called game books for a reason.

No

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
3. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
4. Jdtendo (talk) They're better categorized as books rather than games, and I don't see the value in having an overlap between the two categories.
5. WACCA Lily R (talk) Per Nintendo101. I believe we are too liberal with coverage of non-video game "games", and would prefer to reduce coverage then add even more.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Per N101.
7. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per Jdtendo.
8. Kong (talk) Per Jdtendo.

Do we add art tools?

Art tools are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) Adding physical versions of games that are just tools is a bit too far in my opinion.
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) In our opinion, these make more sense to categorize alongside merchandise. It definitely falls under our coverage, but it'd be a little silly to call a stationary set a game on the grounds of "It has Mario, and you interact with it, and can draw like Mario Paint". Just say who made it, explain it, give it an image, and explain any extra bits-and-baubles on the publisher's page; we don't need to try to force the game page format onto a paintbrush with Mario on it, that's a little silly.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

Do we add Magic 8 Balls?

Magic 8 Balls are not games 1-7
Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

1. Rykitu (talk) *shakes Magic 8 Ball* "DON'T COUNT ON IT" (that joke I just made, in all seriousness, is the amount of "gameplay" this thing has.)
2. Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) ...Are there even any Super Mario-branded Magic 8 Balls? We feel like categorizing these amongst merchandise makes more sense, at any rate.
4. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
5. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
6. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
7. EvieMaybe (talk) per Nintendo101.

The Comment Games III: Mockingjay

I think if we broaden the concept of "game" to include interactive toys, "game" becomes so broad of a concept on a site ostensibly about a video game franchise that it loses meaning and utility. An instruction manual is not served well being classified as a book. - Nintendo101 (talk) 22:57, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

To those who oppose on the activity books, some activity books feature actual board games (such as "Super Mario Bros." from Super Mario Bros.: A Big Color/Activity Book and "Board Game" from Super Mario: Mario Time!). The proposal implies that all activity books will be placed regardless if there isn't any multiplayer games in them, which I disagree with. I suggest that we only add the board and card games found in these books by themselves rather than linking the entire book. Rykitu 7:31 PM (UTC) April 26, 2026

@WACCA Lily R I hear your point, though I feel I should note that the alternative for physical game coverage isn't really all that preferable either; currently, the two options I can see are either splitting games off as they are (setting the stuff I'm mentioning in this proposal aside) or merging them all back into merchandise galleries, which... isn't really the best course of action in my opinion, as merchandise galleries don't provide any context as to what X game is and what it does. Certain things that can be done to improve physical game coverage (such as making graphics to indicate certain types of jigsaw puzzle pieces, as mentioned in a previous proposal) simply have not yet been put into place, and these may help improve the coverage of these games. I don't wish to spark any controversy as to what is notable and what isn't, as this was recently the subject of a Mario Boards thread that appears to have (albeit internally) come to a conclusion, though, in short, there's not really anywhere to merge these to in the aim of reducing coverage that doesn't reduce coverage too much, in my opinion. It is my personal opinion that covering these doesn't hurt anything, as they are all (for the most part, barring a couple of distinguish templates) rather self-contained in their own pocket of the wiki. Most of them have been migrated out of mainstream game categories into their own sub-categories (sans a couple of pinball games and a handful of others), so there's not much of the overlap that was a concern initially when these were on the main list of games. Nelsonic (talk edits) 03:22, May 6, 2026 (UTC)

I feel like we need a separate poll proposal for game books. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:45, May 14, 2026 (UTC)

@Yoshi18 I can do that (after the 30-day proposal-on-a-similar-subject-timer-thing is up). I didn't expect activity books to be super divisive, but a second proposal for them makes sense. Nelsonic (talk edits) 17:25, May 14, 2026 (UTC)