MarioWiki:Proposals

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Image used as a banner for the proposals page

Current time:
April 1, 2026, 09:02 (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.[Proposal 1]
  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).[Proposal 2]
  4. 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).
  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.[Proposal 5]
  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.[Proposal 6]
  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.[Proposal 7]
  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.[Proposal 8]
  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 wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
  21. Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a 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.[Proposal 9] 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

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

Moves

None at the moment.

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

Miscellaneous

Unimplemented proposals

Proposals

Break alphabetical order in enemy lists to list enemy variants below their base form, EvieMaybe (ended May 21, 2024)
Standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles, Nintendo101 (ended July 3, 2024)
Note: Not yet integrated for the Super Mario Maker titles and Super Mario Run.
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
Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)
Allow English Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia names to be mentioned on articles where they are not the title, Hewer (ended March 27, 2025)
Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 2025)
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)
Implement "to-do" template, replace "stub", "construction" and "rewrite" templates, EvieMaybe (ended March 15, 2026)
Make an article for the New Super Mario Bros. series, Yoshi18 & Sargent Deez (ended March 18, 2026)
Establish a consistent format for non-game enemy and obstacle lists, TheCatLover738 (ended March 22, 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), Kaptain Skurvy (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)
Merge Bob-omba, Goombob and Hulu with Bob-omb Buddy, Galoomba and Bamboo Dancer respectively, Snessy (ended December 30, 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)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

Removals

Allow us to detonate the server rack the wiki is hosted on

A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
A bomb's distinctive "BOMB" explosion effect
Wario start round sprite

We think there's too much information in the world. We don't need this information anymore.

Proposer: Camwoodstock (talk)
Deadline: April 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

It's okay! I read all of it!

  1. Camwoodstock (talk) The free online encyclopedia that no one will ever edit again!
  2. Mario (talk) I'll get some pie ready.

All the articles are online for FREE!

  1. Maw-Ray Master (talk) What!? And have the information stored on the wiki lost forever? No way! (But if this proposal were to pass, at least we would still have archives of the website on the Internet Archive.)

Welcome to Super Mario Wikipedia SERVER ROOM

Um... are you okay? Have you been hypnotized? Rendered model of a nesting Unagi from New Super Mario Bros. Maw-Ray Master (talk) 04:52, April 1, 2026 (UTC)

Repeal Proposal #1

I feel this incredibly dated proposal no longer adheres to our personal beliefs, is inapplicable to our current practices, and is impossible to enforce so long we maintain a hierarchical structure of user rights that run in opposition to the notion of fairness and that the right to free speech in most countries exists. I believe we should cease the inefficacy and questionable benefits it has instilled in our wiki's culture and we should distance ourselves from it in order to maintain transparency and integrity for our community.

Proposer: Mario (talk)
Deadline: April 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Repeal

  1. Mario (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I am THE nasty Warrior and I never liked that proposal to begin with.

Do not repeal

Comments

New features

Create categories for non-video game characters

For some time now, I thought of making categories for Mario characters that did not originate from video games. My idea would be to have one category to encompass all of these characters, sub-categories specific to a certain medium and sub-categories for certain specific adaptations with a significant amount of original characters. Here are my proposed categories :

  • Category:Non-video game original characters
    • Category:Comic original characters
      • Category:KC Deluxe original characters
      • Category:Super Mario Bros. (Valiant Comics) original characters
      • Category:Super Mario-kun original characters (I already made a proposal for this one)
    • Category:Film original characters
    • Category:Television series original characters
      • Category:The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 original characters
      • Category:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! original characters

You can also propose in the comments other categories that could be made.

Edit : some of the proposed categories' names were changed as suggested by Altendo.

Proposer: Brett (talk)

Category:Non-video game original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Non-video game characters" instead like in the main proposal text, otherwise per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:Comic original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Comic characters" instead, otherwise per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:Television series original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:Film original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) This should be named "Category:Film characters" instead, otherwise per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master (film) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:KC Deluxe original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. TDM Deluxe (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:Super Mario Bros. (Valiant Comics) original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master (Valiant Comics) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Adventures of The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Category:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! original characters

Deadline: April 12, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support
  1. Brett (talk) Per proposal.
  2. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. I... am R.O.B. (talk) Per proposal.
  4. The Dab Master Show! (talk) Per proposal.
Oppose

Comments (Non-video game characters)

...Isn't this what this presently-ongoing proposal is seeking to do, at least for comic characters? Wait, no, it was only when we hit save changes that we realized you made that proposal. Our apologies. Camwoodstock-sigicon.png~Camwoodstock ( talk contribs ) Camwoodstock-sigicon2.png 19:48, March 29, 2026 (UTC)

I am currently supporting the creation of the categories for characters who debuted in other media (on top of the Super Mario-Kun one), but I am iffy on the overarching categories, because their naming makes it seems like it encompasses every character who appeared in a type of medium even if they did not debut there, like how Mario could be categorized as a "Film character" due to his role in the Super Mario Bros. film and The Super Mario Bros. Movie, and the naming of categories like "Non-video game characters" could be invalid if an original character appears in a video game later (not that I can think of any, but still). I would recommend renaming these categories, or at the very least adding further sub-categories to:

  • Category:Non-video game characters to Category:Non-video game original characters
  • Category:Comic characters to Category:Comic original characters
  • Category:Film characters to Category:Film original characters
  • Category:Television series characters to Category:Television series original characters

Adding these as subcategories would also make it consistent with existing categories like Category:Super Mario-kun characters, which already has a category for every character who appears in the manga but is also getting one for original characters. The current names seem misleading for what they are aiming to do, so renaming them or adding a further subcategory could help avoid confusion. I... am R.O.B. Pixel Character in Super Mario Maker Full set! 17:44, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

Invent time travel to the past

Hello there, future wiki users of 2026! Long time no see, I guess?

Now, I'm not sure if you denizens of the future would happen to be aware of the previous events that led to this, but to summarise, after devising my genius proposal to invent time travel to the future, I was hard at work on my plans to jump ahead by one day, ready to watch the Nintendo Direct: Nintendo Switch 2 presentation. My time travel technology may only be rudimentary, but it was good enough to send me forward just as I had expected. Everything was going swimmingly. (Come to think of it, I did forget to check whether or not the proposal actually ended up passing before I left...oh well, I'm sure it did. There's no way such an amazing idea could have failed, anyway.)

But then, tragedy struck. Rather than only a single day, the time machine went forward an entire year! Maybe I should have heeded the opposition to that proposal...no, of course not. These are mere teething troubles. More urgently, I am now stranded in 2026, dodging spoilers for the Nintendo Direct: Nintendo Switch 2 presentation! And though I didn't think it would be possible to find a flaw in my previous proposal, find one I did: I had failed to also allow time travel to the past.

So please, people of 2026, I am requesting your aid! I can't have just missed a year of my life! Think of all of the wiki editing I could have done in that time! You must support this proposal to invent time travel to the past and send me back a year! Well, preferably one day less than a full year so that I can view Nintendo Direct: Nintendo Switch 2 when I return, but beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes. Hopefully that's still a saying in 2026.

Of course, the wiki would benefit tremendously with the power to visit the past. We could recover every piece of lost media in existence, and discover new ones! We could overcome the limitations of time to finally become the most complete and comprehensive Super Mario encyclopedia possible! I doubt a better idea will ever be put forward on this page for all time to come.

Oh, and about my idea for the "Time Button". Unfortunately, based on a bit of research I conducted, it seems that humanity still somehow hasn't invented the technology for that yet, even here in the future of 2026, so I'm afraid the idea shall have to be scrapped. I suppose it was too good to be true...

That aside, it is my sincere belief that this is the best course of action the site could take, and I only hope I have convinced all of you as well. After this inevitably passes, the wiki will certainly have a lot to look back on. If you doubt that, well, support the proposal anyway so I can find out myself.

Proposer: Hewer (talk)
Deadline: March 31, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Yes-terday

  1. Hewer (talk) Let Me Go Back to My Home!
  2. Utsubo-chō no Ninjō Gekijō (talk) If this means we'll get to watch all of the broadcasts of Shitamachi Ninjō Gekijō.

Not today

  1. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Saw Rick and Morty attempt it, caused a Snake War and Time Lords to come in and beat the shit out of them, not risking it for the sake of our race.
  2. Murphmario (talk) While time travel would have a lot of benefits, the risk of a vandal going back in time and irreversibly messing up the wiki is simply too big to ignore.

Comments of Time

Changes

Decide how to handle the Wonder forms of Koopalings

I just saw that the "Mighty" prefix for specific Wonder forms only appears in the Training Camp rematches. Here are the following attributes to the Koopalings:

  • The course featuring the regular fight with Wendy is actually simply known as "Wendy's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Lemmy is actually simply known as "Lemmy's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Larry is actually simply known as "Larry's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Roy is actually simply known as "Roy's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Iggy is actually simply known as "Iggy's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Morton is actually simply known as "Morton's Showdown!"
  • The course featuring the regular fight with Ludwig is actually simply known as "Ludwig's Showdown!"

Well, lucky for me, I offer three options:

Option 1
Merge Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig with Wendy, Lemmy, Larry, Roy, Iggy, Morton, and Ludwig respectively.
Option 2
Move Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig to Wendy (Wonder form), Lemmy (Wonder form), Larry (Wonder form), Roy (Wonder form), Iggy (Wonder form), Morton (Wonder form), and Ludwig (Wonder form) respectively.
Option 3
Keep Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig as-is.

In case the proposal passes with option 2 being the most voted, here is what the first sentence from the pages will read:

Wendy (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Wendy is a Cheep Cheep-like form that Wendy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Lemmy (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Lemmy is a jester-like form that Lemmy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Larry (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Larry is a crystalline form that Larry takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Roy (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Roy is a massive, ghostly form that Roy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Iggy (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Iggy is a pitcher plant-like form that Iggy takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Morton (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Morton is a marionette-like form that Morton takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.
Ludwig (Wonder form)
The Wonder form of Ludwig is a storm cloud-riding form that Ludwig takes using Bowser's Wonder power in Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park.

Perhaps either options 1 or 2 will solve the issue with Mighty Wendy, Mighty Lemmy, Mighty Larry, Mighty Roy, Mighty Iggy, Mighty Morton, and Mighty Ludwig only being fought in the Training Camp rematches.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: April 13, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option 1: Merge Wonder forms

  1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My preferred choice.

Option 2: Rename Wonder forms

  1. Tails777 (talk) Having seen the talk page discussion, I still believe that renaming the forms is a better option. They are powered up forms unique to the Koopalings that come with some different abilities and appearances. I do believe they can have their own articles, but the "Mighty" part feels more like its describing the rematch rather than being a name for the form.
  2. Sorbetti (talk) We have Wonder Bowser, Wonder Bowser Jr. and now Wonder Koopalings. That's how I see it.
  3. Arend (talk) Per my reasonings and findings over at the prior discussion. The "Mighty" prefix only appears in conjunction with the rematches, the Japanese version makes it seem more like a descriptor with the usage of kanji instead of katakana, and other languages such as Dutch or German don't even make a distinction between the "buffed-up" and the "mighty" terms (Japanese also uses the same kanji for either term equivalent, but it's pronounced differently). The reason for why I'd keep the Wonder forms split is so it's consistent with other Wonder forms, such as Wonder Bowser Jr.
  4. Brett (talk) Per all.
  5. Soshi The Yoshi (talk) Per all.

Option 3: Keep Wonder forms as-is

Mighty Comments

I feel obligated to point out, for the context of voters, that this discussion began at Talk:Super Mario Bros. Wonder – Nintendo Switch 2 Edition + Meetup in Bellabel Park§Mighty Koopalings, which I am keeping at its full link so it gets people's attention ;) I encourage others to read it before voting. I'll wait until I decide between options 1 or 2 before I vote.

With that said, @GuntherBayBeee is it really necessary to add the beginning line of every article to this proposal? I feel like it's missing a lot of context from the discussion and has a lot of padding which makes it a bit messy to read. — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 21:37, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

Of course, it really is. It's not that messy, you know. GuntherBayBeee.jpgGuntherBayBeeeGravity Rush Kat.png 21:51, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

If option 1 were to pass, would the wiki continue to refer to the Wonder forms of Koopalings as "Mighty Wendy", "Mighty Lemmy", and so forth? TheCatLover738 (talk) 22:01, March 30, 2026 (UTC)

@GuntherBayBeee, additionally, I personally have an issue with the opening statement for Lemmy's Wonder article; Lemmy not only takes a jester-like form, but also a Spike-Ball form during his battle. The article does not mention his alternate form despite being mentioned in the non-Wonder form Lemmy article. Furthermore, I believe titling the Wonder form Koopaling articles "Wonder [Koopaling]" is the better option because it matches the naming scheme used for Wonder Bowser and Wonder Bowser Jr., and due to that, it is more likely to be searched by a user seeking information on the subject. TheCatLover738 (talk) 18:05, March 31, 2026 (UTC)

@GuntherBayBeee While I understood the general premise of the proposal and agree that changes need to be made about these """mighty""" forms, I also noticed that your proposal contains a lot of needless repetition. And, I do mean a LOT:

  • After stating "Here are the following attributes to the Koopalings", you basically repeated the exact same sentence 7 times, each as a different bullet point, only changing the Koopalings' respective names, when you could've simply compressed the info in one single sentence ("However, the courses featuring the regular fight with each Koopaling is actually simply known as '[Koopaling]'s Showdown!' e.g. 'Wendy's Showdown!'"), and remove the preceding "here are the following attributes" sentence, as it implies the following are all different attributes when it's in fact a shared issue amongst all of them.
  • Similarly, all the options state every single one of the articles individually, when it could've easily been shortened like this:
    • Option 1: Merge each of the Mighty forms with their respective Koopaling (e.g. Mighty Wendy merges to Wendy)
    • Option 2: Move each of the articles from using the "Mighty" prefix to instead using a "(Wonder form)" identifier (e.g. Mighty Wendy gets moved to Wendy (Wonder form)
    • Option 3: Keep the Mighty form articles as-is
  • The explanation of each option is immediately being followed up by how each article's opening sentence would look like if option 2 passes, as previously pointed out by Lady Sophie. And I have to agree with her that this isn't necessary to include, as the changes are minimal enough (i.e. it only changes "Mighty [Koopaling]" to "The Wonder form of [Koopaling]"), that anyone could've figured it out by themselves, meaning it only pads out the proposal even further with redundant fluff.

Mentioning and linking each of the concerning articles is completely fine (and in fact necessary for a proposal or discussion like this, preferably in the way the preceding discussion did it) - but this is kinda overkill. The way you formatted the proposal only complicates things in unnecessary ways, and I feel like I'm reading one of you many previously failed template proposals, where you overexplain every single detail to the precise letter, confusing and alienating readers.
Speaking of the prior discussion, it would've been nice if that were mentioned and linked to as well, especially considering this proposal was obviously inspired by it (previous proposals such as this one from 2022 did that as well).
Also, the final sentence feels confusing to read, but not because of any repetition. It reads as if the issue is that the Wonder forms of the Koopalings are only fought in the Training Camp rematches, instead of it being a separate statement; it feels like a comma needed to be added after "will solve the issue" for it to make sense.
ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 17:08, March 31, 2026 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Creating Miku article in Mario Wiki

Hiiii!!!!!!!, and my Name is Hatsune Miku, all you know me 100% already!, And i Thinking We Needing an Article About Me in This Wiki About Mario Himself?!,

Mario and Luigi at Niconico Chokaigi 3
A Photo With Me And Mario (And Also Luigi) in Same Photo.

Proposer: Hatsune Miku (talk)
Deadline: April 15, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (Miku Is Your Idolツ)

  1. Hatsune Miku (talk) hatsune-miku-dance.gif
  2. Utsubo-chō (talk) Sure. She appears in SMG4.

Oppose (Miku not Is Your Idol :( )

Comments

I believe we will need a draft of how this page looks like. Sprite of Mario's icon in Mario Party DS It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 04:42, April 1, 2026 (UTC)