MarioWiki:Proposals

Image used as a banner for the proposals page

Current time:
May 10, 2026, 07:45 (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

Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.^{[Proposal 1]}
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.
Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).^{[Proposal 2]}
Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).^{[Proposal 3]}^{[Proposal 4]}
- 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).
Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
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.^{[Proposal 5]}
Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
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.
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.
After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.^{[Proposal 6]}
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.^{[Proposal 7]}
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.
All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.^{[Proposal 8]}
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.^{[Proposal 9]}
- A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
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.
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.
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.
Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
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.^{[Proposal 10]} 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.

Relevant discussions

^ Proposal "Allow co-authorship of proposals" (passed on January 24, 2025)
^ Proposal "Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals" (passed on November 14, 2024)
^ Proposal "Proposals Should End At The end of the day one week after voting starts (In UTC)" (passed on March 3, 2010)
^ Proposal "Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"" (passed on October 16, 2024)
^ Proposal "Vote For More Than One Option On Proposals With More Than Two Choices" (passed on May 10, 2016)
^ Proposal "Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken" (passed on May 2, 2013)
^ Proposal "Cite relevant proposals and discussions on policy pages and guidelines" (passed on October 17, 2024)
^ Proposal "Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)" (passed on September 9, 2017)
^ Proposal "Allow users to put a reason for canceling proposals" (passed on May 8, 2026)
^ Proposal "Introduce a new type of proposal" (passed on February 14, 2025)

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 11, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

Split Recorder into Recorder (Paper Mario: Color Splash) and Warp Whistle or Magic Whistle, keeping in line with how other Color Splash "Thing" items are categorized alongside their respective similar or identical items, mechanics, etc. across the franchise (discuss) by Fun With Despair; Deadline: May 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
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)

Miscellaneous

Decide how to handle terminology regarding levels (discuss) by TheCatLover738; Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Establish that Terrormisu is based on Princess Peach's design (discuss) by rendumguy; Deadline: May 11, 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)

Establish a "character article" structure, LadySophie17 (ended January 27, 2026)

Replace profiles with infoboxes for enemies and bosses from the Paper Mario series, Sorbetti (ended February 3, 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)

Establish a standard for formatting links to series and franchise pages, Dive Rocket Launcher (ended April 23, 2026)

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

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 Tour and 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

None at the moment.

Additions

None at the moment.

Changes

Move "General Information" above "History"

Okay so: for any articles about common subjects, the General Information section is mercilessly buried underneath a gigantic History section. For especially common subjects we are talking about literal hundreds of appearances to scroll through. So many appearances that it's even a small hassle to navigate to the General Info section in the contents table.

Now, what specifically makes this an issue? Well, have you taken a look at some of these sections? I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. They are plain inconvenient to get to, after all. But, if you didn't, a lot of readers probably didn't either - and a lot of other editors too.

The quality of general info sections is a massive mixed bag across the board. Some of the most notable enemies and characters in the franchise have sections that are filled with strange decisions and out-of-date references. I'm talking about the sort of writing you otherwise only see in hyper-niche articles that haven't been touched since the dawn of the wiki.

Clearly the location of this section is not helpful in its current state. It's unpolished information that's being presented to no audience. And I do think that that's a huge shame! Something like the basic description of a Goomba really shouldn't be this easy to miss! And it frankly would make a lot more sense if General Information was able to serve as an intro to the History section. Yaknow, it would be quite helpful to tell you what a Koopa even is before telling you about every single time it shows up. Aaand it would remind editors of these sections, ideally motivating them to improve them! The goal is to have better information that we can present to a bigger audience, in a more sensible location.

Also, just for the record, we've crunched the numbers and the work involved is relatively reasonable. "Only" about 220 articles would need to be updated, which I think is a fair and manageable amount of work for the long term benefit of this.

Proposer: Velvetslugs (talk)
Deadline: May 10, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Move General Info above History

Velvetslugs (talk) Per proposal.
EvieMaybe (talk) After editing WiKirby for a while, I have to admit I'm kind of down for this! Describing a subject broadly and then narrowly makes more sense than narrowly and then broadly. Plus, building off of Hewer's comment, articles without a General information header just have all their general information in the intro paragraph, while ones that have it have the info bifurcated by a gigantic History section in the middle. Moving the General information section to just under the intro header would ensure the flow of information doesn't differ as drastically depending on scale. I am not sold on the "it would encourage editors to improve them" argument, but I do find it more appealing from an organizational perspective. As a bonus, it does mean that pages with a split-off History section don't immediately whisk you off to another article the second you get past the intro paragraph, which is a better look.
The Dab Master § General information (talk) This just kind of makes sense to me. Per all.
I... am R.O.B.#General Information - Per the convo in the comments.
Someone1234 (talk) Per all (especially EvieMaybe). It is reasonable to put their general info before their history.
Wilben (talk) Per all.
Yoshi18 (talk) Per all.
Dominoes § General information (talk) Per all.
ThePowerPlayer § General information (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Do nothing

#I... am R.O.B.#General Information - Per Hewer in the comments. The introduction already gives a brief overview of the subject, and the General Information section just serves to illustrate specific information about the character, as an expansion of the introduction. Not to mention that the section can be incredibly long, and personally, I am more interested in seeing a character's evolution throughout the series, but maybe that's just me. And as you said, "it's unpolished information". I feel like putting this unpolished information in front of the history would only make the pages look worse from a brisker perspective. I feel like the better solution is to improve these sections first, then move them near the top of the page. And I don't think that the History sections are that "gigantic" - the ones that are have been split into their own pages, so this isn't such a big deal for me (I think that the General Information sections can be even longer than the History sections, but again, maybe that's just me).

Comments (Move General Info)

Giving a basic overview of what the subject is before getting into the history is the job of the intro paragraph(s). I see "General information" as being for more in-depth details, many of which would also be covered in history when relevant. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 19:55, April 26, 2026 (UTC)

I know that "General Information" is there for more in-depth stuff. My concern is that it fails at actually conveying that in-depth info as intended, if it comes after the history section where most readers don't look. "History" and "General Information" are both usually the most important sections of articles about common subjects. Neither of them should be buried to a point where they are easy to miss!
To address ROB's concerns: You said that you are mainly interested in the history of a character, and that's of course fair! The history section is incredibly relevant and important to highlight. But that shouldn't come at the cost of neglecting the general info section. Like you said, general info is a sort of expansion of the intro - so would it not make sense to make these related sections flow into each other, instead of breaking up the flow with history between them?
Your comments about the length of these sections also made me go compare a bunch of them. I genuinely could not find any general info sections that are significantly longer than their related history sections. Most general info sections are a single paragraph, and the few heftier outliers are still quick to scroll past. So, I can assure you that front-loading general info would not hurt people who are only interested in the history section. The history section would remain easily reachable, while people who are seeking relevant basic information about a subject would hugely benefit.
Finally, I don't entirely trust the plan to improve the sections first before moving them. Clearly it hasn't worked out so far. Editors don't edit what they don't notice. And right now no one is noticing these sections. Moving them first would get a hundred new eyes on them, allowing far more work to be done far more quickly. Velvetslugs (talk) 20:28, April 27, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that making the worse section (not in terms of what should come first, but rather how it was written) would make users aware of its problems. Users might have the same awareness of it regardless of its location. I genuinely think that the best way to handle fixing these is to rewrite them first, then move them up once they're fixed (although I'm not sure if this is needed if fixing them is your only goal). Plus, this proposal can show what needs fixing from the get-go, so mistakes and errors in the writing can become more obvious without making it the first thing to jump out after the "creation" section. I'd say fix then move, not move then fix. I... am R.O.B.

Lava Pikmin! 13:50, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if the sections are bad, then it already goes without saying that they need to be fixed regardless of any proposals (or their location on the page). Nothing's stopping anyone from fixing them all right now, it isn't something that's done via proposal. So in theory, there's no functional difference between a "fix then move" proposal and a "move then fix" proposal. Hewer

(talk · contributions · edit count) 16:36, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

Okay I think I was a bit confusing in my reasoning. Sorry for that. To be clear, the prospect of improving the sections themselves was supposed to be more of a cherry on top. My main goal is simply improving the flow of the article, and making this important section more easily accessible. Also, trying to fix these sections first is a very vague and broad goal, and would surely take months or possibly years to chip away at. To me it makes sense to start with the issue that can be addressed immediately - that being the location of the section. The contents of it can be improved at any time. Velvetslugs (talk) 17:21, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Changed my vote :) I... am R.O.B.

Lava Pikmin! 17:32, April 28, 2026 (UTC)

How much stuff is in the ‘General Info’ anyway? It feels like there’s lots of stuff on a character that is important but only a few lines on less important characters. Just asking/commenting (after all, this is the comments section, right?). Someone1234 (talk) May 2, 2026, 03:02 (UTC)

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

Wilben (talk) My preferred choice.
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.
Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice. Per all.

Option B

Option C

Wilben (talk) My secondary choice, though I still prefer Option A.
Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Per all.

Do nothing

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

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
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

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Add to the list, but only as brands

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

Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
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.
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

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

Rykitu (talk) Playsets may be interactive, but they don't have any rules to classify them as games.
Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
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".
Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
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

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
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.
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.
EvieMaybe (talk) per Camwoodstock.
Okapii (talk) Ehhhh.. yeah, per Camwoodstock.
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

Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
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.
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.
Power Flotzo (talk) Per N101.
TheCatLover738 (talk) Per Jdtendo.

Do we add art tools?

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

Yes

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

Rykitu (talk) Adding physical versions of games that are just tools is a bit too far in my opinion.
Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
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.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
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

Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

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.)
Power Flotzo (talk) Per Rykitu.
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.
Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.
Mario4Ever (talk) Per Nintendo101.
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)

Decide if medias that mention a subject before their first appearance or after their last appearance should be included in their infobox

There are subjects who have been mentioned in a media after their last appearance, or, conversely, was mentioned in a media before their first appearance. I can think of several characters and location in these cases :

Wrinkly Kong first appeared in Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, but was previously mentioned in Donkey Kong Country by Cranky Kong.
Kazooie first appeared overall in Banjo-Kazooie, then first appeared alongside Super Mario characters in the N-Gang comic Freeze Frame, but was previously mentioned in the manual of Diddy Kong Racing.
The Mushroom King was mentioned in the manual of Super Mario Bros. before appearing in the strategy guide How to win at Super Mario Bros.
Kolorado, Koopa Koot, Buzzar and the Dry Dry Desert only appeared in Paper Mario, but were later mentioned in Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and its remake.
Captain Syrup last appeared as a spirit in Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, but was later mentioned in Animal Crossing: New Horizons.

As you can see, the way these cases are handled in their infobox is not consistent, therefore, I propose different options to fix this inconsistency :

Option A : mentions are never listed in the subject's infobox as their first or last appearance.
Option B : mentions are listed in the subject's infobox alongside their first or last appearance if the mention precedes their first appearance or succeeds their last appearance.
Option B (alt) : proposed by LinkTheLefty, mentions that precede a subject first appearance are listed in their infobox, but not mentions that succeed their last appearance.
Option C : "First mention" and "Last mention" syntaxes are added in infoboxes for subjects, this would concern the Character infobox, the Form infobox, the Group infobox, the Item infobox, the Location infobox, the Move infobox and the Species infobox.
Option C (alt) : same as option C, except it's only for the syntax "First mention".
Option D : the status quo option, if this option gets chosen, no changes would be made.

Proposer: Brett (talk)
Deadline: May 13, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)