MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: April 20, 2026, 11:15 (UTC)

Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken. Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below). Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so. All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options. For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.

If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.

How to

If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.

Rules

1. Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.
2. A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
3. Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).
4. Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).
   • For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
5. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
6. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
7. Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.
8. Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
9. Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
   • Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
10. If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
11. If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
    • Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
12. Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM". The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
13. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
14. If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
    • Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
15. Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
16. After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.
17. The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.
18. For sizeable projects, a proposal author or wiki staff member may create a PipeProject page to serve as a portal for an unimplemented proposal. This is linked from the unimplemented proposals list and can contain progress tracking, implementation guidelines, resource links, a list of users working on the project, etc.
19. All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.
20. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must wait three days before submitting any new proposal.
    • A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
21. Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a wiki staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
22. If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
23. Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
24. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
25. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.

Basic proposal formatting

Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.

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

Poll proposal formatting

As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other. Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).

In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.

To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".

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

'''Proposer''': {{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}

====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)

;Support
#{{User|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.

;Oppose

====Comments ([brief proposal title])====

For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.

Talk page proposals

Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.

All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.

List of ongoing talk page proposals

Deletions

None at the moment.

Moves

• Move Mario Bros. (game) to Mario Bros. and move Mario Bros. to Mario Bros. (disambiguation) (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: April 26, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

• Split Weight (Wario Land II) from Pouncer (discuss) by GuntherBayBeee; Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Split The Play Nintendo Show from Play Nintendo (discuss) by Rykitu; Deadline: May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Reconsider Big Boos in the Yoshi series to be the same thing as regular Boos (discuss) by Arend; Deadline: April 24, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Clean up the Mini Boo page (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Refocus the Inkling article on coverage solely pertaining to the standard playable Inklings rather than the Inkling species as a whole (discuss) by Wilben; Deadline: April 28, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
• Decide how to cover King Koopa's alter egos (discuss) by GuntherBayBeee; Deadline: May 1, 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 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)

Note: Not fully implemented for Super Mario Party Jamboree

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, Kaptain Skurvy (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)

Move the April Fool's Day Archives from BJAODN to the April Fool's Day page, Camwoodstock (ended April 11, 2026)

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

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

Create an article for Arwing, Polterpup (ended April 18, 2026)

Writing guidelines

Prioritize numerical time signature notation

I have noticed that the wiki seems to favor using "common names" to refer to time signatures (e.g. "common time", "cut time") rather than numerical notation (e.g. ⁴
₄, ²
₂). Sometimes editors even go as far as to replace the numerical notation with the common name. Currently, the documentation for the time signature template also encourages "including a prosaic name for the time signature alongside this template" due to readers who may be "unfamiliar with music notation", yet it prioritizes the common name, giving examples such as "common time (⁴
₄)". This feels like putting the cart in front of the horse, if the metaphor is appropriate.

• Numerical notation is one of the most basic items in music theory, and also one that is taught very early on during music classes. Readers can be expected to know at least a bit about reading numerical notation if they are reading the "time signature" section of an infobox.
• Numerical notation is also the professional way of describing time signatures agreed upon by most music communities, owing to its simplicity. Discarding numerical notation feels to me (as a musician with good knowledge in music theory) rather unwise and detached from de facto conventions.
  • Wikipedia also favors using numerical notation in music analyses. The Wikipedia link "common time", for example, is a redirect to the main "Time signature" page where it is used as a supplement to the ⁴
    ₄ notation.
• Ironically enough, not everyone is familiar with "common" names. For me as an example, I have never used these names myself, and I have rarely seen them used (even less so for cases without referring to the numerical notation). For people like me, removing numerical notation for common names adds a degree of mental burden.
• Only three of the time signatures have agreed-upon common names.
  • Even "agreed-upon" is a bit of a misnomer, as multiple common names exist for one time signature. What is ²
    ₂? Is it "alla breve", "cut time", "duple time" or "cut common time"?
  • There are also other common time signatures without obvious common names. What is ⁶
    ₈? Maybe a common name expert would say "compound duple time" or "compound cut time", but that sounds foreign unless one knows what "compound" stands for - at which point they would be knowledgeable enough to know about numerical notation. This defeats the purpose of using "common names" in the first place.
  • Consider this as well: ⁵
    ₄ (⁶
    ₈ + ²
    ₄). The ⁶
    ₈ + ²
    ₄ in parentheses notate the specific subdivision within ⁵
    ₄. How would you notate that with common names? Would it be "⁵
    ₄ (compound cut time + cut time)"? That makes it even more confusing, and ⁵
    ₄ does not even have a common name anyways - we still have to use numerical notation after all.

On the contrary, I do not think that common names should be completely eliminated. If they have been in use on MarioWiki for this long, then surely they benefit people to some degree. But I would say that eliminating the use of numerical notation because of this would cause more problems than it solves.

As such, I would propose that we prioritize numerical notation for time signatures. Applicable common names can also be added as supplement, unless there are multiple numerical notations listed together consecutively. For example:

4 4 (Common time) 3 4 (Waltz time)	6 8 23 16 (3+3+3+4+3+3+4 16)
"Breaking Through (Heart of Gold)" has a time signature of 4 4 (common time). "Dandelion Depths" has a time signature of 4 4 (3+3+3+3+4 16). Before the track loops, the time signature briefly changes into 12 16.

Proposer: Dominoes (talk)
Deadline: April 26, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support in C major: Prioritize numerical notation

1. Dominoes (³
   ₆) Per proposal.
2. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per proposal.
3. Polley (⁰⁰¹
   ₄) Per proposal.
4. The Dab Master (²
   ₄) Primary choice; per proposal.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) per proposal.
6. I... am R.O.B. (¹⁹
   ₈₅) Per proposal.
7. Yoshi18 (⁹⁺¹⁰
   ₂₁) Per proposal.
8. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposal.

Support in E major: Use numerical notation only

1. The Dab Master (⁴
   ₂) Secondary choice; I personally don't think stating the name is necessary.

Comments (atonal, free time)

Regarding "Dandelion Depths", is that time signature actually supposed to be formatted like that? How would it be different from writing it as "³
₁₆ + ³
₁₆ + ³
₁₆ + ³
₁₆ + ⁴
₁₆"? The Dab Master 00:01, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

If the denominator (unit of subdivision) is consistent, then it can be merged together like this by convention. Dominoes (talk) 06:39, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

Establish a standard for formatting links to series and franchise pages

One thing I've noticed from scouring this wiki over the past year is that it is very inconsistent about the formatting of links to series and franchise articles when written with the definite article (e.g., when writing "the Super Mario franchise" instead of just "Super Mario"). Sometimes the term "series" or "franchise" is included in the text of these links (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise"), but other times it is not part of the link (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise"). There are even cases where both are used in the same page, like the Luigi page's intro section using the former for the Super Mario franchise and the latter for the Luigi's Mansion series. The Manual of Style kind of implies that the latter is the intended method, but doesn't explicitly state it, and it isn't being enforced as far as I can tell.

To make this consistent, I propose two options:

• Option A: never include the identifier in the text of a link (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise")
• Option B: always include the identifier in the text of a link (e.g., "the Super Mario franchise")

There are some series that don't have the "series" identifier in their page titles (Mario Kart, WarioWare, Game & Watch), and option B would entail including the term "series" or "franchise" directly in the text of links to these anyway (e.g., "the Mario Kart series"). I did consider including a third option to only include the identifier if a page has a "series" or "franchise" identifier, but it would be bizarre to format a link differently depending on the identifier because identifiers aren't really part of the name of a subject, they're just devices this wiki uses for disambiguation.

I should probably clarify that this doesn't affect the Mario Discovery Series or Arcade Classics Series because the word "Series" is explicitly part of those series' names. EDIT: I should also explicitly state that this only applies when referring to a series or franchise as "the ___ series" or "the ___ franchise", and does not mean replacing instances of referring to a series or franchise by just its name (so, for example, "Mario Kart is a series" does not need to be replaced with "the Mario Kart series is a series").

Proposer: Dive Rocket Launcher (talk)
Deadline: April 30, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Option A

1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) My preference.
2. Jdtendo (talk) It makes more sense that the text of the link only contains the actual title of the subject, whereas "franchise" and "series" are descriptors, so they should be outside of the linked text. Moreover, when the subject's page name does not have an identifier, it's much cleaner to type the ''[[Mario Kart]]'' series rather than the [[Mario Kart|''Mario Kart'' series]].
3. Hewer (talk) I already sometimes change links to this when I come across them while editing. Makes more logical sense and, in my opinion, looks slightly better.
4. The Dab Master (series) Primary choice; per proposal and Jdtendo.
5. EvieMaybe (talk) easiest one to link to. "series" and "franchise" aren't part of the title here, so they shouldn't be part of the link unless we do something goofy like [[Mario Kart|the ''Mario Kart'' series]].
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Voting for this option on the assumption that it does not become a requirement to add "the _ franchse" around links that don't need it, like Mario Kart or WarioWare. If I understood the proposal correctly, that is.
7. Yoshi18 series (talk) Secondary choice. Per all
8. R.O.B. Cinematic Universe (media franchise) Per all.
9. Arend (talk) I remember that from the beginning, most people would write the [[Super Mario (series)|''Super Mario'' series]] as if that was the norm, even though the ''[[Super Mario (series)|]]'' series or even the ''[[Super Mario (series)|Super Mario]]'' series would be much easier to write, and supposedly more correct as well. Seeing that even the proprietor agrees with that makes me feel validated.
10. Brett (series) Per all.

Option B

1. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Second choice, though I very heavily favor option A.
2. Yoshi18 franchise (talk) Primary choice. There are two types of Super Marios, so I prefer to include the identifier on "franchise" or "series" as well. It emphasizes more that it's really the franchise or series that's being talked about. Also per TheCatLover738 below.
3. TheCatLover738 (talk) By including either "series" or "franchise" in the link, it highlights which article it is linking to.

Do nothing

1. The Dab Master (franchise) Secondary choice. I ususally only change them if the series article being linked to does not have an identifier (such as Mario Kart); otherwise, I just leave them be since changing it doesn't remove any byte space whatsoever.
2. Arend (talk) Secondary option. While I highly prefer going with Option A, I don't mind if it's not being enforced, either; as long as it's still allowed.

The comments franchise

I always do Option A because it can be typed as the ''[[Mario Party (series)|]]'' series using the pipe trick. --Steve (talk) 15:13, April 16, 2026 (UTC)

Wow, didn't know you could do that! Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 10:46, April 18, 2026 (UTC)

I recall this was discussed in a prior proposal from last year. I thought this was common knowledge back then, but I was clearly mistaken. rend (talk) (edits) 15:26, April 18, 2026 (UTC)

Removals

None at the moment.

New features

Create "General/misc" color classes for Luigi

Brace yourselves, this is going to be a lot of words and a little technical, but ultimately, we're just asking you to look at one table, and tell us if you think it looks good enough and its circumstances are justifiable.

So this is a silly one. During our escapades with deploying series coloration, we've been stuck on the tables for New Super Luigi U. Are they some herculean effort? No, not really. There's nothing to them other tables haven't done. No, it's. Well. The colors. With the exception of the Worlds table (which is its own can of worms that's unrelated to coloration) Luigi U's tables sport this set of colors at the moment:

Name	Description
Luigi	The game's protagonist. Luigi is flung from Peach's Castle by Bowser when sieges the castle. Unlike New Super Mario Bros. U, Luigi scuttles his legs when he jumps and has poor traction on the ground, similar to his appearance in some prior games. Unlike the prior game, his brother is not in this game.

This is not fully series coloration. The backgrounds use lm (or Luigi's Mansion), but those headers hard-coded into the each table itself. They actually lack any dark mode equivalents whatsoever, so on dark mode specifically, this is just a Luigi's Mansion table. Normally, we would peel this sort of thing away without much thought, but... Well, Luigi U is just such a weird edge case in every way, that we feel these colors are justifiable. They help visualize something that normal Super Mario series colors wouldn't; that this isn't your average Super Mario series game. So if you can't beat 'em... Why just just canonize 'em? In addition to lm, we would add luigi (likely updating all instances of lm to luigi lm via PorpleBot for good measure)

We've made a quick fuller set of colors for light and dark mode right here, and pay attention, this is what we are asking you about even if the technical stuff flew over your head:

Mode	Border	Banner	Subbanner	Header	Subheader	Backgrounds		Notes
						Standard	Alternative
Light	#000	#47820D	#6B2	#78C829	#B1E48D	#EFE	#DFD	Not much to say here. We used Luigi's Mansion as a basis, and gave it some desaturation from the Luigi U table's header, to help distinguish it from the lime of Yoshi games and the "pure dark green" of Luigi's Mansion.
Dark	#090	#070	#007000	#116011	#252	#002C00	#000	Second verse, more-or-less same as the first. Though, in dark mode, Sports is a de-saturated lime, so we made sure to keep it distinct from that. No trying to bias it towards lime; just a straight de-saturated green, please.

This is all fine and good, but there are two key problems remaining. What exactly is the use case? Obviously Luigi U is one, but are we seriously going to have a set of series colors for a "series" of one game? Well, three things.

• This didn't stop Princess Peach. Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach: Showtime! both feature the same series colors despite being two separate games.
• There are, technically, other things we consider games that could use these colors! Per proposal, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. count as games, so if they had their own tables, they could use them too. They currently lack tables, but it's something that shows there's a precedent for "Luigi games" without involving Luigi's Mansion. And, of course, Luigi's Hammer Toss exists, but since that's a part of its own set, we think it's fair to exclude it for much the same reasons as something like Luigi's Word Jumble. (We're no Luigi Games-ologists, so there may be more cases we're missing...)
• Maybe you're not convinced, as "wait, doesn't this go against the series classification we use for pages?" And... True. But, also, this discrepancy isn't particularly new, and it's nothing to really worry about. Per a previous proposal, Pyoro's minigames count as a series for the sake of categorization, but that same proposal determined Pyoro shouldn't get his own colors, and shares with WarioWare anyways. Series colors are divergent when it makes sense most for them to do so; Pyoro is viewed as a sub-series within another sub-series, so it keeps WarioWare's colors. In turn, we believe there's a good argument that Luigi games outside of Luigi's Mansion are best viewed as being in contrast to standard Mario games, and it makes sense to reflect that contrast by giving it its own series colors, even if "non-Mansion Luigi games" isn't a formally-defined, capital-S Series as far as Nintendo is concerned.
• ...lastly, if anyone's about to ask "wait, why are we giving series colors to something that's not a series?", um. Alternate media and Consoles are right there. (Put a pin in that; we have expressed before we wish to expand the colors of alternative media to fit more kinds, rather than giving all non-game mediums just one golden color, and we haven't forgotten this! Not today, though.)

The other problem would be "what about navboxes?" And to be honest... While it goes without saying that we should add Luigi series colors to navboxes as well, We're not entirely sure what those colors are. There's a lot of overlap, but there's some differences in colors for navboxes compared to tables. As the navbox colors were, to our awareness, mostly created by the proprietor, we feel it's only fair to let him handle it as he deems fit. If that means tasking us with the colors, that's fine too.

tl;dr for what we want:

• The current lm series classes should be renamed to luigi lm.
• We will add new colors for luigi, for non-Mansion Luigi games. These include, but are not limited to as there's a real chance we missed some (games marked with an asterisk do not presently have tables with which to use these colors on):
  • New Super Luigi U
  • Luigi Bros.*
  • Super Luigi Bros.*
• Navbox colors will be made for the sake of New Super Luigi U.

...And, of course, there's two other options.

• Just give the aforementioned title Luigi's Mansion colors, turning it into the de-facto Luigi series colors: If, for some reason, you don't like our colors, but do still want to keep the unique colors for the Luigi-specific games, we've got you covered. Just... Use the Luigi's Mansion colors outright! We might wish to rename the class from lm to luigi, but this means we don't need to implement more colors for, if we're being real here, presently only one page that has tables in the first place.
• Use pre-existing Mario colors/Status Quo: (This being per the status quo of policy, rather than the usual "do nothing", as the offending tables technically violate the style guide policy). New Super Luigi U gets the same red tables as other Super Mario platformers. We feel like this might be a bit contentious, as whether or not New Super Luigi U counts as a Super Mario platformer to begin with is a subject of debate, but per our current policies, we'd default to those colors, not to Luigi's Mansion colors. (And, of course, Luigi's Mansion will keep its unique coloration. There is no world where the Luigi's Mansion titles will be going red in the wake of this proposal, as that's not what we were asking for in the first place.)

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

Gimme It All! (add Luigi (general/misc) colors to co-exist with Luigi's Mansion colors, for use with non-Mansion Luigi games)

1. Camwoodstock (talk) Per proposal.
2. PopitTart (talk) We actively don't consider New Super Luigi U to be a Super Mario series game, so why not?
3. SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) Per all. I'm surprised this hasn't happened, like, at all.
4. Yoshi18 (talk) Primary choice. Per all. Because who knows, maybe one day we'll get more exclusive Luigi games that aren't just a Luigi's Mansion game. Besides, Peach literally has only two games and she gets her own coloration too, so why wouldn't Luigi?
5. Nintendo101 (talk) Please. This would embrace the stylistic choices I was aiming for on the current New Super Luigi U page that helps contrast it with the NSMBU one, and it could also work well with games like Mario is Missing.
6. Sargent Deez (talk) On second thought, if Princess Peach gets her own coloration for two unrelated games, Luigi should too (let's not forget Luigi's Hammer Toss and Mario is Missing!). Yeah, New Super Luigi U is basically DLC for a mainline game, but Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island gets Yoshi colors when it's literally titled as a sequel to a mainline game.
7. TheCatLover738 (talk) Per all.

Gimme Only One! (Luigi's Mansion colors become just Luigi colors, used for both Luigi's Mansion and non-Mansion Luigi games)

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) Primary choice. All those games are Luigi-themed. There is no need to have multiple colours.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Per TheCatLover738.

Gimme Mario! (Non-Mansion Luigi games get Super Mario franchise/series colors, Luigi's Mansion keeps its colors, status quo)

1. EvieMaybe (talk) i've made it no secret in previous conversations that i don't think NSLU starring Luigi should mean it's "not a Mario game". its gameplay is near-identical to that of NSMBU, and giving it an entirely different color just because of the change in protagonist doesn't make much sense to me.
2. Hewer (talk) I don't really want this to become an "is New Super Luigi U a Mainline Super Mario Game" discussion as I ultimately don't think it's super relevant here (I personally wouldn't list it as one, for the record), but just the fact it was originally released as DLC for a Super Mario game means it definitely has enough of a "series" relationship to be allowed to use the Super Mario colours, in my opinion. I think the case brought up in the proposal of how Pyoro is allowed to use the WarioWare colours kinda helps this argument, ironically.
3. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) This isn't really comparable to the Princess Peach games, since those are standalone games that don't belong to any existing series. NSLU may not technically be part of the Super Mario series as Nintendo defines it, but it's still additional content for NSMBU, so it seems close enough to use the Super Mario colors for that game as well. Luigi Bros and Super Luigi Bros are more like minigames than actual games.

#Sargent Deez (talk) There are several games starting Luigi, but outside of the Luigi's Mansion series none of them are related. I think New Super Luigi U should be treated as a mainline spin-off, like Super Mario Bros. Special.

Comments (paint the town weegee)

I think we should avoid using colours that imply a "series" relationship between games that don't actually share a series as much as possible (I don't think Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach Showtime should share that colour for this reason). It especially would be weird for Luigi's Hammer Toss to use different colours from the other Super Mario Bros. Watch games, when those are the games it's actually directly related to. I could be missing something but I don't understand how Pyoro is relevant here, as there is an obvious and direct "series" link between WarioWare and Pyoro (all the Pyoro games being contained within or a direct spin-off of the WarioWare games). (I'm also not sure where you're getting "per proposal, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. count as games" from, there were proposals to split those into their own pages but that doesn't in any way imply that they "count as games" any more than, say, a Mario Party minigame.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:17, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

We're not gonna lie, we see no reason to not give Peach's games the same series coloration; Super Princess Peach and Princess Peach: Showtime! were both marketed as being games with Peach as the lead role, and the latter literally doesn't have Mario appear in it at all, making giving it the miscellaneous Super Mario colors... Incredibly dubious. We'll concede Luigi's Hammer Toss, we kinda forgot the other games in the set, whoops. Pyoro is mostly brought up to mention that "series in terms of colors and series in terms of categorization being different" is nothing new. The Peach colors is actually another instance of this discrepancy existing. We were thinking of the proposals to split the mini-games, but we think we were mis-remembering them a bit admittedly? They're not on the List of games... But then again, neither is Pyoro, who we consider as having a series for the sake of categorization anyways. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 02:28, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

For reference, here's the proposal that split Luigi Bros. (I guess you could argue the comparison to ports like Super Mario Advance implies it was intended to be seen as a distinct game, but that might also just have been because the proposal was framed as splitting Luigi Bros. from Mario Bros., rather than splitting it from Super Mario 3D World), and here's the proposal that split Super Luigi Bros. (again doesn't really make arguments about it being a separate game, identifies them as "minigames"). Anyway, Luigi Bros. and Super Luigi Bros. are both not currently treated as "games" by the wiki to any extent as far as I'm aware, in terms of list articles, navboxes, categories (both are categorised as minigames), etc. (And I do think it should stay that way, for the record.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 02:56, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

I'm not voting yet, but: what are your thoughts on considering Mario is Missing! to be a "Luigi game"? (To be honest, there's an argument to be made that there should be an "Edutainment game" navbox color that game should fall under instead...) Ahemtoday (talk) 08:20, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

Not the proposer but I don't think it should use a different colour from other Mario Discovery Series games, like how Luigi's Hammer Toss should be consistent with the other Super Mario Bros. Watch games. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 13:23, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

The edutainment games default to the general Mario colors, and we think that's reasonable. Mario Teaches Typing and Mario's Early Years are games defined by the presence of Mario, after all. ~Camwoodstock ( talk ☯ contribs ) 15:32, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

@Nintendo101: Why should New Super Luigi U be contrasted with the game it is most closely related to? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 23:47, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

I find colors to be a good contrast tool, and when games look so similar to one another, it can be helpful for identifying which is which when reviewing both articles. Besides, New Super Luigi U is ommitted from the Super Mario series. Nintendo has criteria they outline at the back of the Super Mario Bros. Encyclopedia, and one of the criteria is "Mario is playable in it", and I think that is reasonable. New Super Luigi U should be fully covered like the mainline games, but it in itself is not one. - Nintendo101 (talk) 16:03, April 17, 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that only this game should receive such distinctions. And refer to my vote reasoning regarding the "it's not a mainline game" argument. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 07:56, April 20, 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused now. So New Super Luigi U will get Luigi colors despite being part of the New Super Mario Bros. series, but Luigi's Hammer Toss and Mario is Missing! won't? I think we should take an all-or-nothing approach to this.  — 11:40, April 17, 2026 (UTC)

I would have to agree. If anything, I think it's extremely strange how the only things we're applying the Luigi colors to are counterparts of Mario games and not original games starring Luigi. (Admittedly, Luigi's Hammer Toss doesn't have tables or infoboxes of any sort, currently, but the point stands for Mario is Missing!.)
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahemtoday (talk).

---

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

So, as of right now, when listing courses for the Toad Brigade Training Camp and Attractions, ones that appear in the base game are linked to. The problem is that these variations have completely different things to note; while base game courses' articles mention what other course(s) and Wonder Seeds are unlocked, Attraction courses' articles would have to mention what Attraction they are from, and Toad Brigade Training Camp courses' articles would have to mention modifiers and gimmicks unique to the variation. Despite sharing a name and are likely modified duplicates, they are completely different. Moreover, layout and statistics are not shared. My idea is to have base game courses have no identifier, Attraction courses have the identifier of the Attraction title (e.g. Pole Block Passage (Think Fast: Boo's Coin Spree)), and Toad Brigade Training Camp courses have the category as the identifier (e.g. Condarts Away! (Clear course and stay invincible!)). For the "Extra training" category, the objective is used instead (e.g. Here Come the Hoppos (Clear course and avoid enemies!)).

Proposer: TheCatLover738 (talk)
Deadline: April 23, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support (seperate into different articles)

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) Primary Choice. As proposer.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) this seems like the most reasonable way to cover these for now.
3. Nelsonic (talk) Per.
4. Dive Rocket Launcher (talk) Per proposal.
5. Someone1234 (talk) Per all.
6. R.O.B.'s challenge (extreme) Per all.
7. Yoshi18 (talk) Per.

Partial support (only for Toad Brigade Training Camp)

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) Secondary choice. Having individual articles for every course in attractions can be confusing for readers who have not read the overview of the attraction. Additionally, the overviews feel too short without describing course layouts.

Comments

Is a proposal needed to cover training courses in this way, given that Challenge Mode in New Super Mario Bros. U already covers challenges in separate articles from courses, with the only difference being that New Super Mario Bros. U assigns its challenges unique names? B700465189a9 (talk) 22:37, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

A major difference to point out is that while New Super Mario Bros. U's Challenge Mode courses feature many original courses alongside ones from the base game, the Toad Brigade Training Camp features mostly courses from the base game, and the only non-original courses are sections of existing ones. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 22:53, April 9, 2026 (UTC)

Like always, someone needs to handle the articles(if the proposal gets approved). Can anyone in support do that?Someone1234 (talk) 18:22, April 14, 2026 (UTC)

yeah. — eviemaybe (talk) 01:33, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

A new infobox template, difficulty template, and possibly a navbox template will probably be required. Also, should layouts be included in these? --TheCatLover738 (talk) 10:25, April 15, 2026 (UTC)

yes, but i think should take into account the fact that it is a preexisting level, and describe the layout in terms of how it differs from the base. would make it easier to write. — eviemaybe (talk) 20:08, April 17, 2026 (UTC)

I have just realized that there are two Toad Brigade Training Courses set in Wavy Ride through the Magma Tube with the objective "Clear course in time!". This is an issue—and not one I have a solution for at the moment. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 23:02, April 16, 2026 (UTC)

we'll have to add another identifier. "Wavy Ride through the Magma Tube (Clear course in time!, Safety Bounce) and Wavy Ride through the Magma Tube (Clear course in time!, Spring Feet)"? — eviemaybe (talk) 19:01, April 17, 2026 (UTC)

I suppose those will be the article titles. The only other descriptors that differentiate those two are their difficulty and Time Limit. --TheCatLover738 (talk) 20:02, April 17, 2026 (UTC)

Changes

Rename the "New features" header on this page to "Additions"

The intent of this proposal is entirely in the title. One common type of proposal placed under the "New features" heading are new article creations. No one really refers to articles as "features". "Additions" is a more neutral word to sum up all the proposals placed in that category.

Proposer: TheCatLover738 (talk)
Deadline: May 2, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Support

1. TheCatLover738 (talk) As proposer.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) This is a short, one-worded, straightforward name that matches the others (excluding "Writing Guidelines" which just cannot be shortened to one word), so per proposal.

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?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Add individually

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

Add individually, but add Dot-S as a brand

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

Add to the list, but only as brands

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

Don't add

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Do we add playsets?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

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

Do we add activity books?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.
2. Rykitu (talk) Per proposal. I was actually considering making a proposal to split all the physical games found in activity books. While this isn't exactly what I had in mind, sure. If the My Very First Nintendo Game Boy books have a spot in the physical games list because of their water games, so can these activity books for their games.
3. Camwoodstock (talk) A game book is literally a game in a book! It's in the title. It makes sense to denote these in the physical games list, as an overlap between publications and physical games.

No

1. Nintendo101 (talk) Per my comment below.
2. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Nintendo101.

Do we add art tools?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

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

Do we add Magic 8 Balls?

Deadline: April 25, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)

Yes

1. Nelsonic (talk) Per proposal.

No

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

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)