MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive/81

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Proposal archives
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84
All past proposals are archived here. This page is protected to preserve the discussions as they were.

Large proposal: Merge form articles with their respective power-up ones

vetoed by the administrators
Proposed by a ban evader's account
To start off, I am aware that this would be a massive change and likely would take a long time to pass. However, I do still think it is a worthwhile topic of discussion. Currently, the wiki features power-up articles that list their appearances, with the notice that they transform the player into another form when they do, sometimes listing some basic info; not always, as sometimes a power-up appears but cannot be used. These sections (where the item appears as a usable power-up) are rather short, due to the lack of info to add, which makes the merge not a horrible idea that will massively inflate the length. I am also aware that occasionally, for example, a Fire-version of a character will appear without the flower itself (ie; Nintendo Comics System), but these are rare enough that it will not be too large of an issue, and it is also not unreasonable to treat a Fire form appearing as an indirect Fire Flower appearance. Some forms like Tanooki Mario have this be more common, but I still believe it is better to merge.

Now, I have explained why the merges can happen, but why should they? There are a few issues. Firstly, these form articles feature "Mario-defaultism", which is an issue due to the many games where multiple playable characters appear. This is especially strange when looking at the Infobox's title and then the "Applies to" section (Those sorts of sections would need to be added to power-up infoboxes after merging to avoid losing content). The size of the power-up articles are also often an issue, and provides little important info to the average reader. I will use Fire Flower as an example. Assuming the reader is looking for Super Mario content, they will look up the power-up to further understand it. They will then find out what games the flower appears in, and very basic info for each one, with no useful gameplay information to someone who has played the game. Then at Fire Mario, they will STILL get all that old information, and now also get useful information about the form. There is no reason to read Fire Flower outside of when it appears as just an item without a form; since the power-up is the article that will remain (to avoid the Mario-title issue), this is not an issue. For cases where they want info on the form's appearance in a game without an item, its location on the item page is understandable, and these form titles will remain as redirects. We have to take the average reader's experience in account as well. Power-ups provide a gameplay function, and are the actual interacted-with item. Someone searching them up will likely desire in-depth information.

Due to the immense amount of work required to fulfil this proposal, I believe that if passed, the merges should first be done on the shortest articles (ie: Bubble Flower and Bubble Mario)

In all, while I am certain this will be a controversial proposal that will likely fail, and that changing this will take a lot of effort, I still believe it is the right move for the wiki.

Proposer: Sylux (blocked)
Deadline: February 8, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Cancelled on January 23, 2026, 20:31 (UTC)

Support

#Sylux (talk) Support as creator.

Oppose

  1. Altendo (talk) This will create a lot of problems. First off, these are distinct things, and I think these deserve their own pages. Second, overlap is an issue, but one that this wiki does often and often relies on (like characters and games). Third, some powerups can have different forms, and some forms can come from different powerups, creating a massive inconsistency, especially with the latter. (And no, we cannot merge the Tanooki Suit with the Super Leaf because they appear in the same game with different functions). A lot of these items also appear on their own without connections to the power-up (like the Mario Kart cups and how the Mushroom and Flower items don't transform the character like in the Super Mario games), and these forms also exist on their own without connections to the item (like Mega Mario in Super Paper Mario). The concept of this proposal makes sense, but it doesn't work fundamentally because these are separate things that can exist (and sometimes do exist) on their own, and overlap (which is already common on this wiki) can cross-cover information, but in a way that interconnects these pages while allowing them to stand on what they do without any connections to the other topic.
  2. Wandering Poplin (talk) In the current era, Power-ups and Power-up forms are simply not interchangeable enough to share the same article, especially not in the manner presented here.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) The fact we have an entire proposal that is still ongoing about what even counts as Mega Mario should tell you all you need to know about how what counts as a form is not as clear-cut as "it comes from an item."
  4. LadySophie17 (talk) Per all.
  5. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all.

Comments

@Sylux You forgot to vote support for your own proposal (yes, you're allowed to do that). Also you don't need to add a signature at the end of the explanation. — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 16:09, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Follow up on this comment, you need to format your vote as #{{User|[your username here]}}, follow by a comment with no signature. — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 16:13, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Given the proposal maker outed themself as a ban-evader, should this just be canceled? Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 20:07, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Limit the amount of game series logos in their infoboxes to one

Move extra logos to gallery 7-2-0-1
I have noticed a major inconsistency with some of the game series pages, and that their infoboxes have multiple logos, whether to represent the multiple eras, different formatting, or both. While most game pages have only one logo in their infobox, some of them have multiple logos, creating a weird inconsistency, not to mention that only showing the latest version of the logo in the infobox would be enough to get readers to understand the franchise.

This proposal will aim to limit the amount of logos in their infoboxes to just one, and extra logos will be moved to the gallery. This will not only remove unneeded bulk from the infoboxes, but would also make them consistent with each other. Extra logos, like alternate formatting and historical logos, are important enough to keep on the page, but only in the gallery where they don't take up the main bulk of the page.

"But Altendo, these logos signify different eras of a game series and can give a look at the past!" Well, they can still get that look through the gallery, but even if this argument is taken into account, it still wouldn't be consistent. Take Mario Party (series), in which the logo used for the first three games and would inspire the logo for the future Hudson Soft-era games isn't even on the page. And don't even get me started with Super Smash Bros. (series), which has five logos, yet only the one used for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is in the infobox.

The affected pages include:

Hopefully this will lead to more consistent series infoboxes without any additional bulk (good god, Donkey Kong Country has THREE logos).

Proposer: Altendo (talk)
Deadline: January 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Move all of the extra logos to the gallery

  1. Altendo (talk) Per proposal.
  2. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal.
  3. Wandering Poplin (talk) Especially for any series that might've never had a consistent logo to begin with. (Not that I can think of any at the moment...)
  4. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us. Per proposal.
  5. SuperGamer18 (talk) Per all.
  6. Mario (talk) The extra logos only serve to clutter the infobox. There may be special cases but I don't think they're enough to undermine the guideline being proposed here.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.

Move only the historic logos to the gallery, but leave the alternate formatting intact

  1. Altendo (talk) Second choice.
  2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice.

Do not move logos

NUKE: Bring ALL of the logos into the infobox

  1. Yoshi18 (talk) Tertiary choice.

Logo comments

Will passing the proposal add the note: "For alternate logos, see the related gallery." like box art in the infobox? LinkTheLefty (talk) 13:29, January 22, 2026 (UTC)

This is something I admittedly haven't thought about until you brought it up, but as of now, I'm going to have to say no. First off, there usually aren't as many series logos, regardless of era, formatting, language, or region, to dedicate an entire gallery page on these (this is something I might rethink if we do get an influx of new logos, but for now, there are not enough). Speaking of which, secondly, the game infoboxes link to these gallery pages because there are a lot of boxarts, with even the smallest of changes (like the Canadian Mario Kart World box art replacing the secondary ESRB text from Spanish to French) warranting a separate upload, but with logos, we don't have that small change between regions, and this is already true for game logos (where only three variations for MKW, the JP, KR, and HK/TW subtitles, exist), but for series logos, this change becomes even more trivial because we often don't have access to enough logos for a single series to warrant a series gallery split. I mean, we could just link to the gallery section, which is fine, but reason number 3 should let you know why I'm not doing this yet: the pages that already do what this proposal aims to do (like Mario & Luigi) for the pages that have yet to be affected (like Mario & Sonic) don't do this. I might consider a change to {{Series infobox}} if needed, but so far, I don't see the need for this yet, and adding this would likely require another proposal, as it hasn't been written into my proposal at all. That said, I don't think that such is needed overall, given my reasons, and especially the third one. Altendo 14:51, January 22, 2026 (UTC)

End the use of "new course" and "classic course" as universal definitions within the Mario Kart series

Define courses on a case-by-case basis 13-0
With the introduction of the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass came Mario Kart courses which debuted in one game, but are known to have originally been developed for another. For example, data relating to Sky-High Sundae in both Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Mario Kart Tour is labeled to suggest that it actually originates from the latter. Likewise, despite debuting in 8 Deluxe and Nintendo acknowledging 8 Deluxe as Sky-High Sundae's first appearance, Nintendo has also referred to all courses in the Booster Course Pass as "remastered courses". This has resulted in the definition of a "new course" becoming significantly less clear than it was previously (an issue which was also the subject of another recent proposal).

Likewise, the definition of a "classic course" also became muddied as Nintendo chose to not include returning Mario Kart Tour courses Merry Mountain, Ninja Hideaway and Piranha Plant Cove in that category (as evidenced by their lack of in-game prefixes and exclusion from the associated Nintendo Music playlist). Since Mario Kart: Super Circuit, there has been a trend of bringing back courses from previous titles, with each game using its own Nintendo-derived labels and terminology (such as "Extra Tracks" in Super Circuit and "retro courses" in Mario Kart 7). From Mario Kart 8 onwards, the line between returning courses and brand-new ones has become less and less clear, with Mario Kart World going as far as having no direct in-game distinction between returning courses and new ones.

With all of that in mind, I believe it no longer makes sense to rely entirely on such terms when they are either lacking the necessary nuance or are ultimately defined at Nintendo's discretion.

With this in mind, the goals of this proposal are as such:

  • Redirect the New course and Classic course pages to the existing Course (Mario Kart series) page and include all relevant information there. The latter page already offers a sufficient overview of all courses across every title both debuting and returning.
  • Use appropriate terminology depending on the courses and/or games in question, with official terminology such as "classic courses" only being used when its use verifiably applies to the situation (Mario Circuit 3 is an Extra Track in Mario Kart: Super Circuit, SNES Mario Circuit 3 is a classic course in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Ninja Hideaway is a returning course in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Sky-High Sundae first appeared in the Mario Kart 8 Deluxe – Booster Course Pass and later appeared in Mario Kart Tour).

A notable example of what I mean by "verifiably applies" in the latter point is with Block Fort in Mario Kart DS. Mario Kart DS itself makes no distinction between it and the new battle courses, in stark contrast to the race courses in the "Retro Grand Prix" (which one can reasonably refer to as "retro courses", or "classic courses" as they have been called in promotional material). As a similar case to the previously mentioned Ninja Hideaway, we would generally refer to it as a "returning course" rather than using specific official terminology, unless evidence is provided to support using said terminology.

Proposer: Polley001 (talk)
Deadline: February 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on January 26, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Define courses on a case-by-case basis

  1. Polley001 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. The Dab Master (Switch/Tour) Per proposal.
  3. LadySophie17 (talk) Can't believe I'm here but I agree. It's natural for a wiki to have a tendency to "over-categorize" things that seem to fit within certain definitions, and it definitely irked me how the Extra courses from Mario Kart: Super Circuit were lumped in with the classic courses. Like our previous proposal to axe classic prefixes from page names, I think this change in mindset will go a long way to shifting the perception of what a classic course is. On that note I apologize for being somewhat bull-headed about this topic in the past, but this has given me some clarity.
  4. Tails777 (talk) Still have my support here. I don't think we need a concrete dividing line to live by here; Nintendo has become far more loose with the distinction between new courses and classic courses and Mario Kart World was the final nail in the coffin. I feel not much else needs to be said.
  5. Hewer (talk) This makes much more sense for organisation. I feel like "classic course" and especially "new course" have had no reason to be separate pages ever since the relatively recent development of the Course (Mario Kart series) page being created, which would be a handy centralised page to hold all the information.
  6. Altendo (Switch/Tour) Per all.
  7. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  8. EvieMaybe (talk) per all. our coverage of games should be descriptive, not prescriptive.
  9. DS Kingoffire U (talk) Sure, why not.
  10. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - Remembering when the wiki strictly used "Nitro" for new courses even though, as someone who doesn't have MKDS, that meant absolutely nothing to me. It's best to not try a "one size fits all" to this sort of classification.
  11. Wii Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal. Mainly considering how confusing courses like Sky-High Sundae are.
  12. Dominoes (Mario Kart World) Per all - what I would have said had already been stated above.
  13. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per proposal. And on the Sky-High Sundae topic, apparently there's evidence that it actually was intended for Mario Kart World from the beginning.

Oppose: Define courses using the existing binary system

Comments (Mario Kart course definitions)

Back in 2023, a proposal passed to create Mario Kart course redirects with game prefixes for any course that lacks them, with the exceptions of Mario Kart 8, the Mario Kart: Arcade GP series and Mario Kart Live: Home Circuit, due to them not having an established course prefix. What do you propose would happen to the redirects Tour Sky-High Sundae, Tour Squeaky Clean Sprint and Tour Yoshi's Island? — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 21:51, January 19, 2026 (UTC)

I feel like they're probably popular enough with fans to warrant existing anyway, doesn't seem so different from how Intermission redirects to Route. Polley001 (talk) 21:58, January 19, 2026 (UTC)
I think the redirects should stay but we should also make redirects with a "Switch" prefix (Mario Kart 8 Deluxe tracks are unofficially known (but well known) by that prefix) Orange Yoshi from Mario Kart Tour Yoshi18 (talk | contribs) 17:35, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

Establish a "character article" structure

Establish a character article structure 17-0
This proposal is partially inspired by Nintendo101's proposal to standardize sectioning for Super Mario series game articles.

While our character articles largely already follow a decent structure, they aren't entirely consistent with each other. We have their creation, their history, their general information, then... everything else?... and then a nice and easy Naming, Notes, See also and finally References and sometimes External Links. Everything between the "General information" and "Naming/Names in other languages" sections is vaguely defined and usually varies in at least some way between articles. This also includes subsections of "General information". Mario and Luigi have their "List of game appearances" and "Profiles and statistics" swapped. Bowser has "Portrayals" between both of them. Mario and Princess Peach have sections about their most recurring themes in different places. Luigi also has his "See also" in the middle of the article between "Quotes" and "Voice samples", and had two creation sections until I merged them. Rosalina has her "List of appearances" all the way at the bottom.

Not to mention the inconsistent section names themselves. Sometimes "Creation" is "Creation and development", sometimes it is "Concept and Creation". "List of appearances" can also be "List of game appearances" and "List of appearances by date", among others.

So that's why I'm here. The aim of this proposal isn't to demand that every article have these sections but, but to provide a structure for the sections an article already has. For sections that are specific to only a few characters, their positioning can be decided on a case-by-case basis, such as Mario's cultural impact or Donkey Kong's identity. Without further ado, here's my proposed character article structure guideline, with further notes detailing wiggle room between them:

  1. Creation: Presented first since it covers how they were first conceptualized and created.
  2. History: The main bulk of information in most articles its own sub-structure is already well established in our guidelines.
  3. General information: Usually the second largest section, and usually also divided into its own subsections
    1. Physical description: Perhaps the most objective, apparent and easy to glance information about a character. Should always come first unless a character needs a section talking about their overall identity as a whole, such as Donkey Kong's. Per article needs, can also have its own sections such as Alternate outfits.
    2. Personality: Should always follow physical description.
    3. Speech: Not the most common section to have, but a character's speech is almost always determined by their personality, physical appearance, or both, hence its placement here.
    4. Power and abilities: I don't have a strong reasoning for this section, but it ended up here and it feels like a natural progression from talking about how a character looks and acts.
    5. Other subsections: Other miscellaneous sections can fall here, such as Theme(s), Occupations, Gender, etc. Decided per article needs.
    6. Relationships: How a character relates to other characters should be the last subsection, as it no longer pertains to just the character itself. Relationship subsections generally go from family, to friends, to enemies.
  4. Profiles and statistics: As profiles and statistics are kind of official "general information" about a character, this section follows it in the structure. Marks the start of the chunk of the article where lots of lists in various forms go.
  5. Gallery: Not much to say, it falls here as it is one of the "big list sections"
  6. Portrayals: Which actors and voice actors have portrayed a character should go close to the list of voice lines of that character, along with quotes they might've recorded themselves.
  7. Quotes: See above.
    1. Voice samples: Contained within quotes as it is a very simple section by itself.
  8. List of appearances: Usually one of the longest pages without much information. Placed at the bottom, out of the way of most of the article.
  9. Naming/Names in other languages: Unless it relates to another section, information on their names should be moved here. If the name is related to a character's creation then it can be included in the top section instead, for example. By now everything is generally as you'd expect it. Not much else to say.
  10. Notes: See above.
  11. See also: See also above.
  12. Footnotes and references: See above. Although unlikely to happen for characters, External Links would go below this section.

Once again, I'd like to emphasize that this structure is meant as a general guideline for the order of existing sections, and does not imply the creation or removal of any section. Character articles are often tailored to emphasize different aspects of them, so this proposal hopefully ensures a consistent standard while allowing room for variation when necessary. A big thank you to users in our Discord server who offered their feedback while I made this structure.

Proposer: LadySophie17 (talk)
Deadline: February 3, 2026, 23:59 (UTC) Closed early on January 27, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Establish the structure

  1. LadySophie17 (talk) Per proposal.
  2. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal
  3. The Dab Master (talk) Per proposal.
  4. Jdtendo (talk) Per proposal.
  5. Sorbetti (talk) Per proposal.
  6. Nintendo101 (talk) Per proposal.
  7. Camwoodstock (talk) Makes sense to us, and good to have this codified. Per proposal.
  8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  9. Tails777 (talk) Per proposal.
  10. Yoshi18 (talk) Per proposal and Cam.
  11. Mario (talk) An icon of prizes from Down the Hatch in Super Mario Party Jamboree. This has irked me, Mario.
  12. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Per.
  13. Sparks (talk) Yes!
  14. Mushroom Head (talk) Per all.
  15. Altendo (talk) I don't see why not.
  16. Rykitu (talk) I like this structure. Per all!
  17. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Oppose: Status quo

Comments (Character article structure)

Before voting, I have a question: what will happen to the Battle section used on some boss pages? Sorbetti Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 15:02, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

I can't think of many examples besides your namesake, but I imagine the section can just stay where it is, effectively replacing its History section. Any boss with more than one appearance should probably just have a History section instead. Not sure I even like the idea of a Battle section when it can be reworked into a regular History section anyway, but changing that section is outside of the scope of this proposal — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 16:03, January 20, 2026 (UTC)
I thought this proposal might remove it, but I see it won't, that will require another proposal. Thanks for the clarification. Sorbetti Mr. Sorbetti (talk) 20:04, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

Can the General information and History sections instead swap places? It irks me a little that the section giving a base description comes after the one telling the more specialized and exclusive to maybe one game info. SmokedChili (talk) 07:46, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the History section to come first, since it is the most substantial and direct type of information that can be documented: Which games they appear and how they act in it. I'd say most people interested in an article are looking for that sort of information. It then also acts as sort of a build up to the General information section because it lays down all of the foundation we then use to describe their general traits, personality, etc. — Lady Sophie_17 Wiggler Sophie.png(T|C) 14:26, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Change the order of media navigation templates at the bottom of pages

Keep strict chronological order 5-0-8

True story: Category:Super Smash Bros. series objects is oddly empty. There are like, 22 different stages within our purview as a wiki (inexact count), including monstrosities that are full of distinct objects like Super Mario Maker (stage), Rainbow Cruise, Golden Plains, and 3D Land. (Curse you scrolling and randomized stages!) There's no way there are only 30 or so objects that already have articles on the wiki that have appeared at least once in Super Smash Bros. So on October 10, 2025 I added about 14 more... then got too agitated to continue. Why?

Okay, so adding game categories to articles is dead simple: place the new category with the existing categories such that alphabetical order is maintained. Everyone understands that. But when I was adding the Smash object category, I also had to add the corresponding navigation template for each Super Smash Bros. game, since obviously interactive objects are important enough to have each game's navigation template even if they are not being listed within the navigation template. Let me tell you, adding a series worth of navigation templates to pages is a colossal pain. Navigation templates are placed on articles in the order of the release dates for each game. This means, to place the one to three navigation templates most of these articles required, I had to flick between the articles for the Super Smash Bros. games and games released around their release dates to make sure I was getting the order right. This was taking several orders of magnitude of forever, and I hate when things take forever. Admittedly, it would have taken a couple fewer forevers if I remembered List of games by date exists, so I would have only needed to use the Find tool to scroll up and down and all around one page, but that's still one forever too many.

Drawing board: Every Super Mario Wiki article has three different game orders to keep in mind when adding to it:

  • History sections: MarioWiki:Manual of Style#History defines that each article's History section is ordered in two tiers. Series headers are placed in chronological order, with the date for each series being the first entry in that series the subject is featured in. Then, underneath series headers, the headers for each piece of media for that are in chronological order.
  • Categories: MarioWiki:Categories#Order on pages says that categories regarding media should be placed in alphabetical order
  • Navigation templates and Gallery images: MarioWiki:Navigation templates#Order on pages says that navigation templates for media should be placed in chronological order, with no tiering like History sections use. Galleries for articles work identically regarding the order their images should be placed, though I could find no corresponding policy.

I think that keeping track of three different orders is too much for the average wiki user, let alone me, and so I think we should change navigation templates to use one of the other two orders. (Yes this means that articles would still have three orders overall, but galleries benefit from strict chronological ordering because something's visual depiction in one series can very easily directly affect its visual depiction in a different series. Therefore, having galleries maintain strict chronological order is worth the cost of them using an order system that the rest of the wiki does not use. Also the galleries with the most entries, and therefore requiring the most release date comparisons, are on separate Gallery namespace pages anyway.)

Pros and cons of navigation template orders
V> Pros Cons
Chronological series, then chronological media
  • Wiki editors know this order by heart
  • Easy to add to as long as the relevant media just released or an entry in the series already has a navbox on the article
    • It is more likely for an editor adding content about media to an article to forget to add its navboxes than forget to add its History section, meaning an editor going through adding navboxes would be able to use the History section as a refererence for correct navbox order.
  • Navboxes for media in the same series always stay together
  • Could allow for navboxes for the same series to be hidden within a dropdown for that series, making articles with a large number of navboxes more manageable without having to use Template:Navboxes as quickly.
    • Especially useful if the majority of an article's navboxes are for a single series, because then with a series specific dropdown for the offending series Template:Navboxes would not be necessary to use. This would make the navboxes unrelated to that series faster to access for the readers that need them, but not make accessing the navboxes for that series and slower to access than the current system.
  • Not intuitively understood
Alphabetical
  • Intuitively understood
  • Extremely easy to add to
  • Navboxes for media in the same series are usually kept together
  • Sometimes grouping is broken up by Nintendo's... quirkiness when naming their products
  • Gets harder to add to when more media with similar names are released.
Strict chronological (current)
  • Intuitively understood
  • Easy to add to if the relevant media just released
  • Hard to find specific games at times. While the coloring of navigation templates by series is supposed to help with this, it does not succeed on articles with a lot of navigation templates.
  • Separates navboxes for media in the same series.
  • Hard to add to if the relevant media did not just release, as in my Super Smash Bros. series anecdote.

Changing the order that media navigation templates are listed on pages will make it easier to add such templates to pages that mistakenly do not have them, which will make more people able and willing to do this wiki busywork. For instance, if this proposal passes, I would be able to finish categorizing all of the Super Smash Bros. series objects without it taking an inordinate amount of time compared to the comparatively not very impressive result of having a fully populated category. (Okay, technically I could just add the categories to the articles without adding the navboxes, but I dislike doing jobs halfway so therefore I cannot.)

Proposer: Salmancer (talk)
Deadline: February 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support: Media navigation templates are placed in an order matching History sections

  1. Salmancer (talk) This proposal isn't just me trying to shirk work, honest! I just don't want to have "adding navboxes" be a task best performed by first memorizing the release dates of games relevant to the wiki. Plus, this change would make the wiki able to make navbox dropdowns specific to each series, which is a legitimate improvement over the current "if there are 10+ navboxes, hide all of them under Template:Navboxes."
  2. The Dab Master (talk) Per Salamancer
  3. LadySophie17 (talk) I like the idea, but I'd like clarification on when would series navboxes be collapsed, and what would happen if there are still 10+ rows of navboxes left in an article after series are collapsed.
  4. Ahemtoday (talk) I like the consistency with history sections, and I think grouping navboxes by series is a much cleaner way to lay them out than a purely chronological one.
  5. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per all.
  • EvieMaybe (talk) i wasn't sold, until you mentioned being able to collapse groups of navboxes by series. very much into this now

Support: Media navigation templates are placed in alphabetical order

Status Quo: Media navigation templates remain ordered strictly chronologically

  1. Hewer (talk) I'm not really seeing the issue here. I personally think chronological order for all games without having to worry about series classifications is much more intuitive and straightforward. You claim that "wiki editors know this order by heart" but personally I don't find this to be the case, I'd find strict chronological order more memorable (especially since it's always the same order, whereas the series order changes for each subject due to how it lists the series in the order that particular subject first appeared in them). If you don't know what order the games should go in when adding them, just look at List of games by date and all your problems are solved. And if you want to just look at navboxes of one series, you can do that fairly easily since they're colour-coded by series. History sections are different because the way they are written often assumes the reader to be familiar with the subject's previous appearances in that series (e.g. saying that an item works the same as it did in previous games without elaborating), which would be unreasonable if the sections for one series weren't all kept together; navboxes don't have this quirk.
  2. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) - I just find list of games by date works well rather than having to remember what order these subseries are meant to go in on a per-page basis. (Granted, I'm unclear why it's not the default list of games, but that's a separate issue.) Note that at this point, navtemps are mostly added for new games to existing pages, and it's a lot simpler to be able to just add them to the bottom in those cases, and is again fairly intuitive.
  3. Camwoodstock (talk) Honestly, we have the opposite problem, where we could tell you games on, at the very least, a by-year basis, but couldn't tell you that same order if you divvied it up by series. We very much do not know that order by heart, and we've been lurking this site since around 2008 or so. Combined with the fact we already color code series navboxes anyways, the practicality of this is... Dubious, to say the least.
  4. LinkTheLefty (talk) As much as I'd like the wiki to have One True Order, this doesn't affect galleries/categories and, as other have said, navboxes are already color-coded. I would think it's easier to maintain the current setup and add to it at the bottom whenever there's new media. Maybe add a small series note on navboxes if colors aren't doing it.
  5. Altendo (talk) Yeah... no. Per all. I do not "know this order by heart", and I don't expect most people to do so either, regardless of their time on this wiki. Having the first game first and last game last is the most intuitive, and I feel like this would make it more confusing, especially if the series are sorted chronologically rather than with respect to the page they're on (for example, if Donkey Kong is placed first just because Mario debuted there, then Donkey Kong would take precedent over the actual Super Mario franchise, for every page, and if Super Mario is placed first, then this undermines that "chronological order" this proposal aims to do). If Camwoodstock, an editor for 9 years and a lurker for 18, struggles to memorize the games by date, I doubt other users will. Also, this might require a series split on basically everything else, as LTL said. I wouldn't want to cross the line, so I feel like the best solution is to leave this as is.
  6. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) Don't fix what isn't broken. Also, long time editor from 2009 like hell I know any of this shit by heart, per all.
  7. Mario4Ever (talk) Per all.
  8. TheFlameChomp (talk) Per all.

Comments (Change the order of media navboxes)

I was thinking in a somewhat if statementy sense:

  • If there are 10+ navboxes for one article (The current criteria for Template:Navboxes):
    • If four or more of those navboxes are for the same series and there are at least two navboxes of different series
      • Put the navboxes of each series that has four or more navboxes in a corresponding series specific dropdown.
      • If, after making series specific dropdowns, there are still 10+ combination of series specific dropdowns and navboxes that are not in dropdowns
        • Do not use series specific dropdowns at all, and use the single Template:Navboxes dropdown instead
    • Else put all navboxes under the single Template:Navboxes dropdown

The breakpoint of "four or more of those navboxes are for the same series" isn't set in stone, we could adjust up and down, but I think four is a good enough "series mainstay" criteria. The goal of these rules is to ensure users only ever have to open two dropdowns: one for revealing navboxes and one for opening navboxes, the exact same as how the wiki currently works. Allowing for series specific dropdowns in combination with Template:Navboxes could result users having to open three dropdowns reach the contents of their desired navbox, which would worsen the user experience.

So for some examples:

  • Bumpty: All of the Yoshi series game navboxes would go under a Yoshi series dropdown. After doing so, we have 5 dropdowns and non-dropdown navboxes total, the one Yoshi series dropdown and the four navboxes for games that are not in the Yoshi series. So we would implement series specific dropdowns for that article.
  • Muncher:All of the Super series game navboxes would go under a Super series dropdown. After doing so, we have 5 dropdowns and non-dropdown navboxes total, the one Super Mario series dropdown and the four navboxes for media that is not in the Super Mario series. So we would implement series specific dropdowns for that article.
  • Whomp: All of the Mario Party game navboxes would go under a Mario Party series dropdown, and all of the Super Mario game navboxes would go under a Super Mario series dropdown. After doing so, we have 10 dropdowns and non-dropdown navboxes total, the two series dropdown and the six navboxes for games that are not in either series, and the two for Thwomps and Platforms So we would not implement series specific dropdowns for that article, there's still too many navboxes.
  • Blue Space: While it has more than 10 navboxes, since all of them are for games of the Mario Party series, there is no point in adding a Mario Party specific dropdown for it.
  • Shadow (character): All of the Mario & Sonic series game navboxes would go under a Mario & Sonic series dropdown. After doing so, we have 5 dropdowns and non-dropdown navboxes total, the one Yoshi series dropdown, the three navboxes for games that are not in the Yoshi series, and the one crossover characters navbox. So we would implement series specific dropdowns for that article. If a new Smash Bros. game comes out, the Smash Bros. series navboxes would go over the threshold of 4 and so a Sm Smash Bros. specifc dropdown would be added.
  • Save Block: All of the Paper Mario game navboxes would go under a Paper Mario series dropdown, and all of the Mario & Luigi game navboxes would go under a Mario & Luigi series dropdown. After doing so, we have 4 dropdowns and non-dropdown navboxes total, the two series dropdowns, the one navbox for Super Mario RPG, and the one navbox for Blocks. So we would implement series specific dropdowns for that article. Salmancer (talk) 15:45, January 20, 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think colors are the best system for locating media on long list of navboxes. To explain this, please locate the following three navboxes on Mario#References: Mario Party DS, Mario Super Sluggers, and Paper Mario Sticker Star. The first two should be especially difficult. If Option 1 passes, they will be easier to find because they would form blocks with their series: so instead of hunting for the one Yellow Mario Party DS in a long list of games, you could look for the large yellow Mario Party block then within that much shorter group look for Mario Party DS. Salmancer (talk) 16:57, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

I mean, Ctrl+F exists. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 18:04, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

Altendo, this is matching the order that History sections use. The only times Donkey Kong game navboxes would be listed before Super Mario game navboxes would be for things that appeared in Donkey Kong (game), Donkey Kong Jr. (game), and/or Donkey Kong 3. The only entities where that's relevant are Mario, Donkey Kong, Hammer, Jump, and Barrel. Of them, the only ones where its theoretically a negative are Mario and maybe Jump, and its a negative that History of Mario already takes on the chin by putting the Donkey Kong franchise sections earlier than the Super Mario franchise sections. Salmancer (talk) 16:57, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

That is a good point, and one I will likely remove from my vote. However, I still agree with the opposition due to everything else they've brought up, even after removing my argument from the situation; I especially don't buy that "Wiki editors know this order by heart". That said, I don't really care about the outcome of the proposal as much as the other voters do, so I might revoke my vote and take on a stance of neutrality. Altendo 17:06, January 23, 2026 (UTC)

"Could allow for navboxes for the same series to be hidden within a dropdown for that series, making articles with a large number of navboxes more manageable without having to use Template:Navboxes as quickly."
You know, you can also solve this solution with the current standard of the strict chronological order if instead using dropdowns for each series, we use dropdowns divided by decade. It's also how we divide extremely large galleries such as Gallery:Mario. ArendLogoTransparent.pngrend (talk) (edits) 23:29, January 29, 2026 (UTC)

Rename articles about forms used by multiple characters

Do not rename 2-1-10

EDIT: I have updated this proposal to take into account criticism I've received. I would appreciate y'all looking at the updates.

The recent proposal about forms, cancelled though it may be, inspired me to put forth this, finally — I'd been thinking about it for some time. I'm messing with a longstanding element of the wiki, here, but here goes:

A lot of form articles have titles that misrepresent their scope. They're named "[something] Mario" when they're actually about the form as it applies to anyone. Here is a fairly comprehensive but not necessarily exhaustive list: