MarioWiki:Proposals

Current time: Tuesday, January 6th, 11:19 GMT

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 GMT).
   • 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 GMT.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. All proposals are archived. 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 can ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.
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. 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.
18. 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.
19. Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. However, proposers can request that their proposal be canceled by a staff member at any time, provided they have a valid reason for it. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.
20. 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.
21. Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and handled by the bureaucrats.
22. No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
23. Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. Oppose, Do nothing) unless the status quo itself violates policy.

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 GMT

====[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 20 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 GMT

;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 GMT

;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 GMT

;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

None at the moment.

Merges

None at the moment.

Splits

• Determine the scope of Mini Rocket (discuss) by EvieMaybe; Deadline: January 9, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Reorganize Rocket Barrel (splitting the Donkey Kong Country 3 and Donkey Kong Country Returns iterations; split or remove the Donkey Kong: Barrel Blast iteration) (discuss) by Arend; Deadline: January 10, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Split Mask Gate (boss) from Mask Gate (discuss) by Sorbetti; Deadline: January 18, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Miscellaneous

• Deciding how to handle contestant articles (discuss) by Rykitu; Deadline: January 7, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Do not consider Lucky Isle to be a level of Bowser's Fury (discuss) by Salmancer; Deadline: January 10, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Determine what qualifies as "Mega Mario" (discuss) by Wandering Poplin; Deadline: January 11, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Consider "LUCKY" misses from Paper Mario to be a game mechanic (discuss) by Pizza Master; Deadline: January 13, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Add the Flag list template to all browser game articles (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: January 13, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Make abbreviated redirects for each browser game article that doesn't have one (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: January 13, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Make signatures use GMT (discuss) by Yoshi18; Deadline: January 17, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Tighten Toad (discuss) by DesaMatt; Deadline: January 17, 2026, 23:59 GMT
• Add browser games to the list of games by date (discuss) by Nelsonic; Deadline: January 19, 2026, 23:59 GMT

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

Split Mario & Luigi badges and remaining accessories, Camwoodstock (ended February 1, 2025)

Merge intro/outro sections, rename Gameplay section to "Overview" for Mario Party minigame articles, ToxBoxity64 (ended March 1, 2025)

Note: Not yet implemented in any Mario Party game, except Mario Party 8

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

Split every song from the "List of (show) songs" articles, Kaptain Skurvy (ended May 31, 2025)

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

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

Decide how to handle images on Mario Party board pages, Altendo (ended July 24, 2025)

Permit creation of categories based on microgame themes, PawPatroler (ended August 3, 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)

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)

Talk page proposals

Split all the clothing, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 12, 2021)

Note: Not yet split for Partners in Time, Bowser's Inside Story, Dream Team, Paper Jam, and Brothership

Split machine parts, Robo-Rabbit, and flag from Super Duel Mode, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended September 30, 2022)

Note: Missing Robo-Rabbit and flag articles.

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, 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), Kaptain Skurvy (ended February 12, 2025)

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

Restore general coverage for Pyramid, Doc von Schmeltwick (ended May 9, 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)

Make all featured article nominations use GMT, Yoshi18 (ended January 11, 2026)

Writing guidelines

None at the moment.

New features

Reception sections for characters

We already have reception sections for games, and characters have also received critical analysis. This would not be a requirement of course, but a possible addition. Characters like Bobby from Origami King have gotten a lot of discussion and including at least a bit of it at the bottom would improve the articles; personally I believe the sections should be shorter than the average ones on Wikipedia articles, which seem to heavily focus on them which isn't good for a fan wiki. Characters with minimal notable reception should not get super minor stuff crammed-in as that is not helpful for an article. A random Paper Mario enemy, for example getting ranked on a content-mill "top ten best enemies" list should not get included. Inclusion criteria would be roughly what the game reception sections seem to have; from what I've read, none have low quality reception like that in the quotes. We could be a little less strict than Wikipedia on sources, which I see is already done for games. Sylux (talk) 12:25, January 4, 2026 (EST)

Proposer: Sylux (talk)
Deadline: January 18, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Sylux (talk) Supporting as creator

Oppose

1. Xiahou Ba, The Nasty Warrior (talk) I do believe certain characters can get a legacy and cultural impact section, especially the main cast (Mario already has such a section and it should be far more expanded upon than it currently is right now, being the most recognizable video game character, plus others like Luigi or Peach or Bowser could use one) but I don't believe we have enough tangible information and sources for a general reception for most characters overall outside from anecdotal sources (such as random social media posts that gaming journalism just reports on purely for engagement) and convenience sampling polls, as opposed to video game reviews which are much more quantifiable as a source for information. In Wikipedia, much of the reception of several characters are tied as a mechanic to the video game they're in than a general reflection of the character himself (Nabbit's reception in his Wikipedia article mostly goes over his role as the easy mode character in New Super Mario Bros. U article rather than the character himself, with only some sparse editorial quips in the end with his roles in Dr. Mario World). Plus, it's just very difficult to write analysis about these characters in a series that historically portrays their characters as vessels for gameplay than actual defined characters, hence why there aren't many online pieces written about why Mario is a great character in the Mario movie or something.
2. Arend (talk) Thing is, most official game publication websites really only review the games, not individual characters, songs or levels (nor soundtracks for that matter), so there's not a whole lot of critical reception on Mario characters, considering it's sprinkled in the reviews every now and then. This means that such a section on a character page would have to be mostly covering fan reception, which is quite large and could differ a lot, but most of all is extremely subjective with varied reasons; hence why we don't cover such things at all in the reception sections on games (after all, the wiki already doesn't cover fanmade content (normally, at least)). If we do allow this side to be covered due to a lack of official reception, this would additionally open the floodgates to cover a wiki user's own bias towards a certain character, which similarly may also differ from the overall reception.
3. Ahemtoday (talk) Per Arend.
4. Hewer (talk) Per my vote here, more or less.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Hewer. That is to say, per our own vote on the similar proposal for song/level pages. It's not like there's a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic for fictional characters, so the only real sources you'd have for these are from assorted listicles and. Tubers. Making arbitrary top/bottom lists for fictional characters. We feel like just mentioning the fundamental concept of a "reception" section on Birdo's page where sources indiscriminately include what Tubers circa 2008-to-2012 thought of her is enough to tell you that "reception" sections for these sorts of things just... Aren't really that smart of an idea, at least in a form that actively relies on rankings such as this.
6. LadySophie17 (talk) Per Xiahou Ba and Arend. There very few characters in Mario that span enough games and have had enough of an impact to warrant a reception/legacy section in their own page. Certainly not Bobby. Anything noteworthy about a particular character's reception can most likely be covered in the relevant game's reception section.
7. Wandering Poplin (talk) I think I only need to link to this page to explain why that would be a terrible idea.
8. Salmancer (talk) I sadly do not have a vote on the level/song reception proposal to refer back to. But as with everyone else, the same sentiment applies. Aside from the core cast, there probably isn't enough per character analysis on the internet that we are willing to cite to make this work. What exists is probably better off being sentences within paragraphs of game reception sections. "The character whatever is noted to be a highlight of the experience as..." and other similar structures. (I fear loosening the standards on what we are willing to cite just to have reception sections will lead to anachronistic reception sections, which plague people's understanding of gaming history as it is. I don't want to contribute to that.)
9. FanOfYoshi (talk) Per all.

Comments

To elaborate a bit further on how the wiki doesn't cover fan reception: You see the reception section of Paper Mario: Sticker Star you've linked? Notice how the section only covers reviews from actual critics and journalists from those publication websites, such as IGN and GameSpot. Notice how the wiki only covers Metacritic's generally favorable Metascore of 75, which was aggregated from those reviews by critics and journalists, and not at all mentions the rather middling user score of 5.3 (or how those user reviews have come in as late as November 2025 when the critic reviews are from at the time of Sticker Star's release, with February 2013 at the latest). Notice how the only YouTuber mentioned in the reception section is André Segers of GameXplain, which in of itself is also presented as a publication website on top of being a YouTube channel.
This goes on to show that we on the wiki do not cover fan reception, only those of critics and journalists. And given that none of these publications have reviews on certain characters, that means that, if we continue not covering fan reception and not risk the potential outcome of user bias being included, these character reception sections are going to be completely empty for 99% of the time, making them unnecessary to be included. rend (talk) (edits) 09:47, January 5, 2026 (EST)

The body text in Sticker Star's article *does* talk about the noticeable discrepancy in user vs aggregate score in Metacritic, and imo, I think it should be noted because there is quantifiable data there than vague gossip you read on social media sites. A lot of games get meta-bombed on Metacritic if they're controversial, one of the worst examples are Warcraft III: Reforged and Diablo Immortal, which are enough for games journalists to note and write articles about. Now I don't think Mario games will ever got on that scale of metabombing, but I do think it's at least worth noting if there is a noticeable gap between critic satisfaction and anonymous reviews. How big should that discrepancy should be until it is noteworthy to opine about is another topic I guess. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 20:21, January 5, 2026 (EST)

Removals

Remove the Community Poll

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 10, 2026 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

We are now at a time where heated debates can happen with anything at any time, and there are people like myself who just want to enjoy themselves without even thinking about them. The polls themselves have also become increasingly cliché'd, to the point where it's predictable on which vote most will vote for (e.g. #WaluigiForSmash) and other votes feel like "joke votes" that some only ironically vote for (e.g. liking the free update model in Mario sports games, not liking any 2D Mario art style, etc.). Stopping polls altogether would help not only those who get mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion, but also higher-ups of the wiki like administrators, bureaucrats, etc. to focus more on anything else. For those who still want to share their opinion with others, they can visit forums, social media, the talk page (if others want to, of course), and so on. But thinking about the opinions of each person should not be one of the first things a user wants to think about when they visit an editing site like this, especially if they go through the main page.

Proposer: Sarantis (talk)
Deadline: January 17, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. Sarantis (talk) Per proposal.
2. SGoW (talk) woke has ruined opinions

Oppose

1. Camwoodstock (talk) ...This is quite possibly the first time we've ever heard somebody acknowledge the community poll on the front page. Admittedly, we're not too versed on the broader "community" on the wiki, for all we know people on Twitter are mailing napalm to one another over saying they prefer CDs to Plushies in terms of merchandise, but looking at the poll discussion thread on the Mario Boards that we actually link to on the poll itself, the entire thread is just. A lot of people, very civilized, saying their votes and occasionally explaining rationale. What few replies there even are in the last 5 pages of responses are mostly people replying to... The post that mirrors what the current poll was, and the closest you get to any sort of vitriol is. A single Simpsons meme, that was clearly directed at Nintendo, rather than any individual in the community. If the argument is literally just that "people can argue about anything, so we need to stop that before it can start", we have bad news about what happens when you make a collaborative writing project like a wiki.
2. Sparks (talk) Hi! Member of the Poll Committee here. Removing polls altogether would result in the loss of a group of people who want to create fun polls for everyone to vote in. For fun! There's no debating whatsoever. The polls we make are harmless.
3. Yoshi18 (talk) I don't see any good reasoning for this other than "I don't like this so it should get removed" or you can't accept that people have different opinions than you.
4. Cloudwalker (talk) Hi, another Poll Committee member here. What they said.
5. Wandering Poplin (talk) While I understand and very much agree with your sentiment, this reaction feels this is a bit... extreme. I think there are other ways of addressing the matter than removing the feature altogether. Especially considering the users (or visitors) who may actually enjoy using the polls.
6. The Dab Master (talk) P(er) oll
7. Arend (talk) This you, proposer?
8. LadySophie17 (talk) There is absolutely nothing wrong with the polls, people are free to share what they like or dislike about anything at anytime. Also what an insult it is to insinuate there are "joke" options. Just like every Pokémon is someone's favorite Pokémon, everyone's opinions are different. The polls are being thorough and there's no reason not to cover such options even if no one would vote for them. Or are you implying no one is "allowed" to enjoy the free updates to sports games? Is everyone mandated to enjoy at least one art style of a series they might not even like? How rude.
9. Salmancer (talk) Now, I could write a whole paragraph here, overexplaining my opinion on the matter, but somehow "Per all" feels more eloquent. Well actually I can't resist adding some more context. The people who are making the polls choose to make them. That's the Poll Committee. No one loses time they aren't willing to spend on making polls. At that point, any community oriented feature is bad because it takes away from people editing the wiki, and that's going overboard. I guess to end this: think about that poll thread, and think about The Shroom's Poll section. Think about the Mario Awards, which technically isn't part of the community poll but has the same spirit behind it. Is removing the poll from the Main Page worth taking away those other things that bring many users joy outside of editing the wiki? ...Darn it I wrote a paragraph.
10. Hewer (talk) It's a harmless feature of the main page that gives it a little more interactivity. Also, this proposal makes no effort to explain what the main page would look like if it were to pass. With the way the main page is designed, removing a large element of it such as the poll would mess up the look of the whole thing unless we added something else to replace its spot, and I don't see much of a reason to bother doing that.
11. Spencer_PK (talk) To me, the community poll has always been something fun to have on the front page of a wiki covering a franchise this big. The polls are quick and easy for someone just passing through the main page to add a vote, and these votes can give some interesting data about certain games. It has always been a fun surprise seeing a new poll, voting, and moving on. I don't want the fun and community insight this brings to go away.
12. BMfan08 (talk) Shall we also remove the ability to have conversations in other people's talk pages for fear of those being heated as well? Or am I going too overboard?
13. 1468z (talk) Per all.
14. Ahemtoday (talk) Per all.
15. Mario (talk) No offense but the issue with polls here seems very much of a "you" problem.
16. Meta (talk) This has inspired me to go vote in the poll.
17. Hooded Pitohui (talk) Earnestly, I do think there is value in assessing the benefits and operation of community projects now and again. It's to the community's benefit to examine something like the Poll Committee and its main page polls on rare occassion, and to freely discuss it, debate it, and affirm that it is something that ought to continue. That all said, I would recommend starting conversations about the Poll Committee or its work within the Poll Committee itself. It would be most courteous to raise concerns and open a dialogue with the Poll Chairperson or to otherwise reach out to a PC member, giving the PC a chance to give input and (in the event there is a change to be made) to have a hand in finding a path forward. All of that, in turn, said, to address the specific concerns and reasoning raised in this proposal... Well, Camwood has already stated it well. There are no major disputes which have arisen over any poll options, and it's simply a necessity of life that one becomes accustomed to navigating disagreement and vigorous-but-polite discussion and debate.
18. Ninja Squid (talk) Per all. This proposal also seems to lack a total understanding regarding the structure of this project.
19. Axii (talk) Removing a part of wiki culture over people "who get mentally easily affected by anyone's opinion" feels ironic, as the proposal itself centers on avoiding exposure to different opinions.
20. Altendo (talk) Per all.
21. Tails777 (talk) Who cares if some polls end up with incredibly obvious answers? Yeah, lots of questions will have that. You ask anyone what their favorite Mario Kart Wii track is and 9 times outta ten, you'll likely hear Coconut Mall. But part of the fun is having a different opinion, sharing it and just being satisfied knowing you're in a different boat. I fail to see how the poll section causes any sort of issue, as I've yet to see anyone get heated over how the results of the polls go.
22. Sorbetti (talk) per all.
23. Reese Rivers (talk) Per all.
24. Yoshi (talk) Per all.
25. Mari0fan100 (talk) I've always found community polls to be more fun than heated. Removing them would be a killjoy. Per all, especially the Poll Committee members who oppose this.

Comments

@Sarantis, why is this poll even a thing? Just because you don't like a community feature doesn't mean that most don't (or can't) like it as well. With this proposal you basically just proofed that you can't accept people having different opinions than you. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:33, January 3, 2026 (EST)

@Yoshi18, if I ever dared to tell my opinion to a wild crowd out there, they would haunt me for eternity. Trust me, I've seen comments from others complaining about the toxicity in games like Super Smash Bros. Sarantis (talk) 16:42, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I personally don't get the impression that they hate it when people disagree with their takes. Rather, it feels more like they think these polls will somehow cause a community-wide discourse on the wiki itself (which is stupid because opinions on the series itself are handled on the forums, and the polls don't really extend to the wiki beyond the main page), on top of being a fun-hater in general with a grudge on """joke votes""". rend (talk) (edits) 16:44, January 3, 2026 (EST)

@Sarantis, trust me: if people would do that here they would definitely get blocked (either for a while or forever) in a hour or max a day. And if they still didn't get blocked yet, you could just go to the Staff Noticeboard and report them there. Yoshi18 (talk/contribs) 16:48, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I do understand the concerns about "toxic fandoms," but I think a better solution, if one were necessary, would be to change how we construct polls, rather than trashing the feature altogether. Mind you, it doesn't look like truly divisive polls are even a very common occurrence on this wiki. (I also think the "fun-hater with a grudge on 'joke votes'" comment was a little uncalled for...) Wandering Poplin (talk) 17:01, January 3, 2026 (EST)

Sorry if that comment of mine came over as rude (and, by extension, if my vote with the "No Fun Allowed" meme came over as rude as well). I felt like that when they've been complaining about "joke votes", and said "joke votes" merely being relatively normal options that, while yes, wouldn't get a lot of votes, but are expected to be included anyway merely to cover everything just in case; in addition of them also not liking increasingly predictable and cliché votes. Removing options like those is like removing the "Yes" or the "No" in a "yes-or-no" type of question, which is extremely biased and not fun. And these polls are made in good fun and are ultimately harmless, despite what the proposer fears.
It kinda feels like the proposer didn't make this proposal in good faith (as if they believe the polls themselves aren't made in good faith either), and thus the rest of the community reacts accordingly. rend (talk) (edits) 09:19, January 5, 2026 (EST)

I'm going to be frank. This proposal is more of a brow-raiser than any one of your likely-dime-a-dozen milquetoast opinions concerning the biggest video game franchise in the world. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 17:22, January 3, 2026 (EST)

IDK, sounds like a harmless proposal to me. I don't agree with it, but I also wouldn't disapprove of it. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 17:51, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I just wish more users had been a bit more polite about it. Several remarks from the opposition ended turning this entire situation even more toxic than the very polls this proposal wanted to remove. It's honestly some depressingly painful irony... Wandering Poplin (talk) 18:01, January 3, 2026 (EST)

I see more users expressing astonishment at the severity of the proposal's aims, the puerile reasoning for it, and the clear lack of understanding about how MarioWiki:Polls is even run; people also express defensiveness over what are personal projects ran by other users. What is immediately noticeable is that, from the surrounding discussions of other proposals, people will be constructive. If one wants more reasoned comments, make a better proposal. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 18:46, January 3, 2026 (EST)

@Wandering Poplin Believe me, I understand how you feel about this: I've wanted to cancel this proposal immediately specifically for these reasons and as per rule 18 (had I been home the day it was conceived, I would have already binned this) but apparently some community members think there will be worthy, respectable, snarkless discourse that'll come out of this. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 14:22, January 4, 2026 (EST)

I just don't want the proposer to feel demeaned one way or another just for opening the topic. Or to make them feel as though they're to blame for "inviting" snark. Already there's some pretty heavy wording being levelled their way. Someone's arguments may be poor and I think pointing that out constructively is fine (EDIT: and, indeed, the claims in the proposal are quite severe and poorly founded, as other users have pointed out), but calling these arguments "puerile" is likely to just make that person resentful--at any rate, I can't possibly see how that fosters good discourse at all, especially seeing as how the proposer's language is pretty mild and doesn't attack other users. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:23, January 4, 2026 (EST), edited 18:30, January 4, 2026 (EST)

I'm also just noticing that the proposer was called rude literally just for stating their personal dislike for virtual polls. I... rest my case. -- KOOPA CON CARNE 18:40, January 4, 2026 (EST)

As I said, I'm no fan of the dogpiling and the snarky votes either. It's very obvious that the community thinks the poll is a bad idea, myself included, because it's inline with rule 18: as a 'crat, I think getting rid of polls in a hastily written proposal is a massive change to ask for that I think would have a highly detrimental impact to the community at large, and I detest the idea that we're even entertaining this at all, and most of the comments section complaining about overall community etiquette than healthy, serious discussion speaks volumes. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 18:49, January 4, 2026 (EST)

@Koopa con Carne to reiterate what I said in my comment, I called the proposer rude for literally being dismissive of opinions they consider "joke votes" that people "only ironically vote for". As you can see, that comment evidently is not related to their opinion on virtual polls. — Lady Sophie ^(T|C) 09:00, January 5, 2026 (EST)

Maybe the next poll should have a joke option instead of a "I don't care" option to see how much users fall for the honey trap. Xiahou Ba^{(the Nasty Warrior)} 20:26, January 5, 2026 (EST)

Changes

Decide how to add the "fandom" interwiki prefix

Fandom launched in 2016 and Wikia was fully phasing out from 2018 to 2021. I was wondering if we could rename the wikia:c: interwiki prefix fandom:, like we did with the {{Fandom}} template on the last proposal that succeeded.

I offer three options:

Option 1

Add the fandom: interwiki prefix remove the wikia:c: prefix.

Option 2

Only add the fandom: interwiki prefix.

Option 3

Keep as-is.

This is what an interwiki link that starts with wikia:c: currently looks like:

[[wikia:c:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]

Gravity Rush

As such, this is what an interwiki link that starts with fandom: currently looks like:

[[fandom:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]

Gravity Rush

Once this proposal passes with either options 1 or 2 having the most votes, then this is what the interwiki link that starts with fandom: will look like:

[[fandom:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]

Gravity Rush

Possibly, if this proposal passes with option 1 having the most votes, this is what the interwiki link that starts with wikia:c: will look like:

[[wikia:c:gravityrush:Gravity Rush|Gravity Rush]]

Gravity Rush

I figured since Fandom got rid of the name "Wikia", the fandom: interwiki prefix would either be a suitable replacement for wikia:c: or a new feature.

Proposer: GuntherBayBeee (talk)
Deadline: January 10, 2026, 23:59 GMT

wikia:c:option1:Add "fandom" and get rid of "wikia:c"

1. GuntherBayBeee (talk) My preferred choice.
2. Salmancer (talk) I guess, since it makes things more consistent and more approachable for people unfamiliar with Fandom's past.

#Yoshi18 (talk) Per Salmancer.

wikia:c:option2:Only add "fandom"

1. [[t:c:e:l|Altendo]]
   Second choice.
2. Yoshi18 (talk) Secondary choice. Having both would avoid confusion if this proposal passes.

wikia:c:option3:Keep as-is

1. LinkTheLefty (talk) ↓ Per Arend (I'd quite like to overturn the previous proposal too).
2. Arend (talk) I don't want to overturn the other proposal like LTL, but I feel that I have to oppose this per my comments below. Given that he proposed to have the :c removed from the interwiki link when Special:Interwiki doesn't list it as part of the interwiki link anyway (and is in fact something from Fandom's part) feels like a change GuntherBayBeee proposes without understanding why it is like that in the first place (which, uh, isn't exactly uncommon for his proposals, either). Also, I REALLY don't like the idea of outright REMOVING the old interwiki code.
3. [[talk:c:editcount:Altendo|Altendo]]
   Per Arend. I would much rather have the new prefix added than the old one replaced entirely (although {{fandom}} does make even this questionable).
4. Camwoodstock (talk) Per Arend. We really shouldn't be outright deprecating interwiki link code senselessly like this, and the fact that one of the suggestions (removing the "c:" portion) is actually impossible to do without fundamentally reworking MediaWiki really doesn't give us the vote of confidence that this is motivated for any reason beyond "change for change's sake."
5. Yoshi18 (talk) Per Camwoodstock.
6. Power Flotzo (talk) Per all (also syntax editor causes this text to show up as pink, meaning the coding is likely broken).

wikia:c:comments:Suggestions

On Fandom wikis, wikia:c: and its shorter equivalent w:c: are still in use there to link to other Fandom wikis to this very day; they didn't rename this to fandom: in the slightest, which is instead attributed to Fandom the main site (which isn't actually a wiki). Beyond that, the c: in both wikia:c: and w:c: is actually really important for linking to other Fandom wikis, since that is the actual parameter that makes it happen. If you were to use wikia: or w: without the c: at the end, the page would link to the Fandom Community Central wiki regardless of what other wiki prefix you add at the end. rend (talk) (edits) 11:32, December 27, 2025 (EST)

In addition, Special:Interwiki only appears to list wikia, without the :c, which would then link to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/$1, just like how it normally works on Fandom wikis. This only cements the fact that c: does all the heavy lifting of linking to other Fandom wikis, and we don't have ANY power to change that, as this is mostly on Fandom's side and we don't even have that as part of our own interwiki list. Frankly, I think it's not even possible for us to link to other Fandom wikis if we link it to anything other than the Fandom Community Central wiki, meaning the :c is pretty much mandatory for the interwiki link to actually work. rend (talk) (edits) 11:50, December 27, 2025 (EST)

@Altendo Your name in the oppose vote is barely readable in Dark mode. Since you're using the {{color}} template to change the text color, may I suggest you to make use of the dark parameter as well? (e.g. {{color|black|dark=white|Text goes here}}) rend (talk) (edits) 20:06, December 27, 2025 (EST)

Thanks for the heads up! I changed it to fit more with the text. Altendo 03:02, December 28, 2025 (EST)

@GuntherBayBeee Given Arend's comment and the oppose votes, I recommend that you add a third option, which would add the fandom: interwiki link without outright replacing the wikia:c: one currently in use. I would support that compared to an outright replacement. Altendo 04:53, December 28, 2025 (EST)

I would also recommend to exclude the c: from the wikia:c: interwiki link, because, again, it's not part of said code being listed on Special:Interwiki and is on Fandom's side of the coding, making it pretty much required to include c: if we want to link to other Fandom wikis regardless of what our interwiki link for it is. rend (talk) (edits) 07:23, December 28, 2025 (EST)

@LinkTheLefty @Arend @Altendo I respectfully disagree. FANDOM got rid of the name "Wikia" between 2018 and 2021. Also, adding the third option to add the fandom: interwiki prefix is actually a bad idea because that prefix is a duplicate interwiki prefix for wikia:c:. To me, Salmancer said that renaming the wikia:c: prefix fandom: already makes things more consistent and more approachable for those who aren't familiar with FANDOM's past. By the way, I added an additional option on adding the fandom: interwiki prefix without getting rid of wikia:c aside from not only an option to both add the fandom: interwiki prefix and remove the wikia:c: prefix, but also keeping wikia:c: as is. GuntherBayBeee 10:10, December 28, 2025 (EST)

You are still completely ignoring the fact that you cannot get rid of the c: part of wikia:c: like you are proposing. As I said multiple times before, the code is listed as just wikia, without the :c portion, on Special:Interwiki, and it links to https://community.fandom.com/. This means that the c: portion is entirely on Fandom's side, not ours. In turn, that means including c: is the only way linking to other Fandom wikis will actually work. Hence why I'm suggesting to leave the c: out of this mess, as we cannot do anything about it.
Also, again, wikia:c: its shorter version w:c: are still in use on Fandom wikis with the exact same function as our interwiki link, and fandom: links to the non-wiki main site instead, so keeping wikia:c: as-is is closer to how Fandom wikis do it than you think. rend (talk) (edits) 10:21, December 28, 2025 (EST)

Not to derail the conversation but is the bolding, italics, and all-caps really necessary? I've noticed you doing this fairly often in discussions, I find it usually distracts from your points and comes across as a bit aggressive. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:23, December 29, 2025 (EST)

I've noticed I tend to do that (well, typically I do just italics when it's available) to emphasize on certain important points (especially if they're being ignored like in that instance). Admittedly, I suppose it's also partially due to frustration of these points being ignored at all like here, or other certain factors. I'm sorry for sounding too aggressive or making it too distracting. I think I'm getting way too easily agitated about these things. I'll tone the previous message down a bit, and I'll try to mind it in the future. rend (talk) (edits) 17:26, December 29, 2025 (EST)

Okay then. Sorry for the late reply. I was wondering if there's a possibility to cancel the proposal so that you'll try to mind it in the future. GuntherBayBeee 10:13, January 3, 2026 (EST)

You are aware that the "I'll try to mind it in the future" was from a response directed at Hewer question, and not you, right? And that Hewer's question in turn was about my behavior, and is not actually relevant to your proposal, right? rend (talk) (edits) 16:13, January 3, 2026 (EST)

Remove images from infoboxes of musical themes that aren't in Nintendo Music

Based on the vote so far, this proposal may be eligible to close one week early. Please use {{proposal check|early=yes}} on January 5, 2026 at 23:59 GMT and close the proposal if applicable.

In short: unlike themes that have an official NM screenshot, they're unofficial and have potential for subjectivity.

Proposer: RickTommy (talk)
Deadline: January 12, 2026, 23:59 GMT

Support

1. RickTommy (talk) Per proposal.

Oppose

1. Altendo (talk) While I do agree with the proposer's take on "officialness", making sure that the only images attached to a musical track are from Nintendo, I still feel like some sort of image would be nice to guide users into a quick introduction to the track, including where it plays. This would also create a weird inconsistency with tracks that have yet to be added to Nintendo Music, and some tracks might never be added, not just because of the dripfeed, but because some games do have their tracks on official streaming services (the Mario + Rabbids games have their soundtracks there due to Ubisoft being the owner of Rabbids). And if every infobox image has to be "official", then this will affect level pages en masse, since most of the screenshots are unofficial. I think retaining "unofficial" screenshots in the infoboxes is fine.
2. EvieMaybe (talk) these tracks do not exist on their own, they are part of an audiovisual medium in which sound and images interplay to create a complete experience. the images serve as an illustrative example of when the theme plays.
3. Tails777 (talk) I wouldn't say anything about using non-Nintendo Music images is considered unofficial. Using an image of Delfino Plaza in the infobox for the Delfino Plaza theme is as clear as clear can get. So long as the image showcases a scene of where the song originally plays, I don't see anything wrong with using any proper image to convey the points, at least until they're added to Nintendo Music.
4. The Dab Master (talk) Per all.
5. Camwoodstock (talk) So long as it's properly distinguished that the image in question is not sourced from Nintendo Music, we couldn't particularly care to remove it if they weren't sourced from Nintendo Music so long as they do an adequate job of showing where the song plays.
6. Arend (talk) Per all. As long as the infobox image properly depicts where the theme plays, it should be OK to include.
7. Cloudwalker (talk) Per all.
8. Yoshi18 (talk) I don't feel like this proposal really gives a good structured reason as to why images should be removed. Per all.
9. GuntherBayBeee (talk) Per the others.
10. Sorbetti (talk) Per all.
11. Mari0fan100 (talk) A song not being on Nintendo Music does not mean the track names are unofficial at all. For example, most of the Mario Party games have a music shop or some other feature which allows someone to listen to all of the soundtracks the player has unlocked, and they have official names. Per all.

Comments

@RickTommy re: "unlike musical themes that have an official NM screenshot, they're unofficial and have potential for subjectivity"
That's not fully true. Multiple Mario Party songs/themes do not have an official NM screenshot, but that doesn't make them unofficial since the official names can be easily accessed by going into the music shop or some other equivalent and checking the names of songs/tracks the player has unlocked. For example, songs with board names (such as "Mega Wiggler's Tree Party 1") are the official name(s) of the song(s). Mari0fan100 (talk)

...are you aware this proposal is not about names? Ahemtoday (talk) 01:08, December 31, 2025 (EST)

This is what happens when I fail to properly/thoroughly read a proposal during a late evening. Regardless, I still feel opposed to this, mostly because there are other official music websites asides from Nintendo Music that various soundtracks have been listed or released on. Mari0fan100 (talk) 22:40, December 31, 2025 (EST)

What does that have to do with the proposal, either? As shown in the proposal's very title, this is about removing the images from infoboxes on articles of songs that aren't on Nintendo Music yet (e.g. removing File:WWMM DribbleSpitzStage.png from the Drifting Away infobox), purely because they're "unofficial Nintendo Music screenshots", unlike those officially released on the app (such as this one for Athletic BGM (Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island)). Why are you mentioning "other official music websites" instead? rend (talk) (edits) 18:33, January 1, 2026 (EST)

Also, I'm well aware that (nearly) every track in the Mario Party series has an official name (in-game, no less), thank you very much, having 1) been one of the most prolific users in adding track names to mini-game articles (in fact, doing so was when I was at my most active on this Wiki), 2) created the List of Mario Party series music names in other languages article, 3) created most of the Mario Party sound test articles, and 4) shown an interest in this very subject since before MarioWiki even existed. As for "potential for subjectivity", I'm referring to an image being chosen solely out of personal preference. RickTommy (talk) 00:41, January 2, 2026 (EST)

Miscellaneous

None at the moment.