|
Current time:
August 13, 2026, 14:03 (UTC)
|
|
Proposals can be new features, the removal of previously-added features that have tired out, or new policies that must be approved via consensus before any action is taken.
- Voting periods last for two weeks, but can close early or be extended (see below).
- Any autoconfirmed user can support or oppose, but must have a strong reason for doing so.
- All proposals must be approved by a majority of voters, including proposals with more than two options.
- For past proposals, see the proposal archive and the talk page proposal archive.
|
If you would like to get feedback on an idea before formally proposing it here, you may do so on the proposals talk. For talk page proposals, you can discuss the changes on the talk page itself before creating the TPP there.
How to
If someone has an idea about improving the wiki or managing its community, but feel that they need community approval before acting upon that idea, they may make a proposal about it. They must have a strong argument supporting their idea and be willing to discuss it in detail with other users, who will then vote on whether or not they think the idea should be implemented. Proposals should include links to all relevant pages and writing guidelines. Proposals must include a detailed description of the proposed changes and may link to a draft page. Any pages that would be largely affected by the proposal should be marked with {{proposal notice}}.
Rules
- Only autoconfirmed users may create or vote on proposals. Proposals can be created by one user or co-authored by two users.[Proposal 1]
- A given user may author/co-author a maximum of five total ongoing/unimplemented proposals. Any new proposals over this limit will be immediately canceled.
- Anyone is free to comment on proposals (provided that the page's protection level allows them to edit).[Proposal 2]
- Proposals conclude at the end of the day (23:59) two weeks after voting starts (all times UTC).[Proposal 3][Proposal 4]
- For example, if a proposal is added at any time on Monday, August 1, 2011, the voting starts immediately and the deadline is two weeks later on Monday, August 15, at 23:59 (UTC).
- Proposals cannot contradict an already ongoing proposal or overturn the decision of a previous proposal that concluded less than four weeks (28 days) ago.
- Proposals must have a status quo option (e.g. "Oppose", "Do nothing") unless the status quo itself violates policy.
- Users may vote for more than one option, but they may not vote for every option available. Keep in mind that we use approval voting, so all of your votes count equally regardless of preferred order.[Proposal 5]
- Every vote should have a strong, sensible reason accompanying it. Agreeing with a previously mentioned reason given by another user is acceptable (including "per" votes), but tangential comments, heavy sarcasm, and other misleading or irrelevant quips are just as invalid as providing no reason at all.
- Users who feel that certain votes were cast in bad faith or which truly have no merit can address the votes in the comments section. Users can ask a voter to clarify their position, point out mistakes or flaws in their arguments, or call for the outright removal of the vote if it lacks sufficient reasoning. Users may not remove or alter the content of anyone else's votes. Voters can remove or rewrite their own vote(s) at any time, but the final decision to remove another user's vote lies solely with the wiki staff.
- Users can also use the comments section to bring up any concerns or mistakes in regards to the proposal itself. In such cases, it's important the proposer addresses any concerns raised as soon as possible. Even if the supporting side might be winning by a wide margin, that should be no reason for such questions to be left unanswered. They may point out any missing details that might have been overlooked by the proposer, so it's a good idea as the proposer to check them frequently to achieve the most accurate outcome possible.
- If a user makes a vote and is subsequently blocked for any amount of time, their vote is removed. However, if the block ends before the proposal ends, then the user in question holds the right to re-cast their vote. If a proposer is blocked, their vote is removed and "(blocked)" is added next to their name in the "Proposer:" line of the proposal, which runs until its deadline as normal. If the proposal passes, it falls to the supporters of the idea to enact any changes in a timely manner.
- If one week before a proposal's initial deadline, the first place option is ahead of the second place option by eight or more votes and the first place option has at least 80% approval, then the proposal concludes early. Wiki staff may tag a proposal with "Do not close early" at any time to prevent an early close, if needed.
- Tag the proposal with {{early notice}} if it is on track for an early close. Use {{proposal check|early=yes}} to perform the check.
- Any proposal where none of the options have at least four votes will be extended for another week. If after three extensions, no options have at least four votes, the proposal will be listed as "NO QUORUM". The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and there is a tie for first place, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- If a proposal reaches its deadline and the first place option is ahead of the second place option by three or more votes, then the first place option must have over 50% approval to win. If the margin is only one or two votes, then the first place option must have at least 60% approval to win. If the required approval threshold is not met, then the proposal is extended for another week.
- Use {{proposal check}} to automate this calculation; see the template page for usage instructions and examples.
- Proposals can be extended a maximum of three times. If a consensus has not been reached by the fourth deadline, then the proposal fails and cannot be re-proposed until at least four weeks after the last deadline.
- After a proposal passes, it is added to the appropriate list of "unimplemented proposals" below and is removed once it has been sufficiently implemented.[Proposal 6]
- The original proposer must take action accordingly if the outcome of the proposal dictates it. If it requires the help of an administrator, the proposer should ask for that help. Proposals that result in changes to policy pages or general guidelines must be cited accordingly.[Proposal 7]
- All proposals are archived. Please note that canceled proposals must also be archived, including their date of cancellation.[Proposal 8]
- Proposals can only be rewritten or canceled by their proposer within the first four days of their creation. If a proposer cancels their own proposal, they must provide a reason and wait three days before submitting any new proposal.[Proposal 9]
- A proposer cannot cancel their proposal and then implement it anyway. Only wiki staff can cancel a proposal and immediately put it into effect.
- Proposers can request their proposal be canceled by a wiki staff member after the self-cancellation cutoff, but they must provide a valid reason for doing so. In most cases, the proposal should simply run its course.
- If the wiki staff deem a proposal unnecessary or potentially detrimental to the upkeep of the Super Mario Wiki, they have the right to cancel it at any time.
- Unless there is major disagreement about whether certain content should be included, there should not be proposals about creating, expanding, rewriting, or otherwise fixing up pages. To organize efforts about improving articles on neglected or completely missing subjects, try setting up a collaboration thread on the forums.
- Proposals cannot be made about promotions and demotions. Staff changes are discussed internally and carried out by the bureaucrats.
- No joke proposals. Proposals are serious wiki matters and should be handled professionally. Joke proposals will be deleted on sight.
Basic proposal formatting
Copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the proposal deadline will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]". Proposals presenting multiple alternative courses of action can have more than two voting options, but the objective(s) of each voting option must be clearly defined. Such options should also be kept to a minimum, and if something comes up in the comments, the proposal can be amended as necessary.
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}<br>
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
====[option title (e.g. Support, Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
====[option title (e.g. Oppose, Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
Autoconfirmed users will now be able to vote on your proposal. Remember that you can vote on your own proposal just like the others.
To vote for an option, just insert #{{user|[your username here]}} at the bottom of the section of your choice. Just don't forget to add a valid reason for your vote behind that tag if you are voting on another user's proposal. If you are voting on your own proposal, you can simply say "Per proposal".
Poll proposal formatting
As an alternative to the basic proposal format, users may choose to create a poll proposal when one larger issue can be broken down into multiple subissues that can be resolved independently of each other.[Proposal 10] Poll proposals concerning multiple pages must have good justification for using the poll proposal format rather than individual talk page proposals or else will be canceled (for example, in the case of the princesses poll proposal, there are valid consistency concerns which make it worthwhile to consider these three articles simultaneously, but for routine article size splits, there is no need to abandon using standard TPPs for each).
In a poll proposal, each option is essentially its own mini-proposal with a deadline and suboption headings. A poll proposal can have a maximum of 15 options, and the rules above apply to each option as if it were its own proposal: users may vote on any number of options they wish, and individual options may close early or be extended separately from the rest. If an option fails to achieve quorum or reach a consensus after three extensions, then the status quo wins for that option by default. If all options fail, then nothing will be done.
To create a poll proposal, copy and paste the formatting below to get started; your username and the option deadlines will automatically be substituted when you save the page. Update the bracketed variables with actual information, and be sure to replace the whole variable including the square brackets, so "[insert info here]" becomes "This is the inserted information" and not "[This is the inserted information]".
===[insert a title for your proposal here]===
[describe what issue this proposal is about and what changes you think should be made to improve how the wiki handles that issue]
'''Proposer''': {{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}}
====[option title (e.g. Option 1)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 2)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====[option title (e.g. Option 3)]: [brief summary of option]====
'''Deadline''': {{subst:#time:F j, Y|+2 weeks}}, 23:59 (UTC)
;Support
#{{user|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}}} Per proposal.
;Oppose
====Comments ([brief proposal title])====
For the purposes of the ongoing proposals list, a poll proposal's deadline is the latest deadline of any ongoing option(s). A poll proposal is archived after all of its options have settled, and it is listed as one single proposal in the archive. It is considered to have "passed" if one or more options were approved by voters (resulting in a change from the status quo), and it is considered to have "failed" if all options were rejected by voters and no change in the status quo was made.
Relevant discussions
- ^ Proposal "Allow co-authorship of proposals" (passed on January 24, 2025)
- ^ Proposal "Allow unregistered users to comment under talk page proposals" (passed on November 14, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Proposals Should End At The end of the day one week after voting starts (In UTC)" (passed on March 3, 2010)
- ^ Proposal "Revise how long proposals take: "IT'S ABOUT (how much) TIME (they take)"" (passed on October 16, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Vote For More Than One Option On Proposals With More Than Two Choices" (passed on May 10, 2016)
- ^ Proposal "Delete Links to Passed Talk Page Proposals ONLY Until Action Has Been Taken" (passed on May 2, 2013)
- ^ Proposal "Cite relevant proposals and discussions on policy pages and guidelines" (passed on October 17, 2024)
- ^ Proposal "Include the date a proposal was withdrawn within the proposal (when applicable)" (passed on September 9, 2017)
- ^ Proposal "Allow users to put a reason for canceling proposals" (passed on May 8, 2026)
- ^ Proposal "Introduce a new type of proposal" (passed on February 14, 2025)
Talk page proposals
Proposals concerning a single page or a limited group of pages are held on the most relevant talk page regarding the matter. All of the above proposal rules also apply to talk page proposals. Place {{TPP}} under the section's heading, and once the proposal is over, replace the template with {{settled TPP}}. Proposals dealing with a large amount of splits, merges, or deletions across the wiki should still be held on this page.
All active talk page proposals must be listed below in chronological order (new proposals go at the bottom) using {{ongoing TPP}}. Include a brief description of the proposal while also mentioning any pages affected by it, a link to the talk page housing the discussion, the proposal author(s), and the deadline. If the proposal involves a page that is not yet made, use {{fake link}} to communicate its title in the description. Linking to pages not directly involved in the talk page proposal is not recommended, as it clutters the list with unnecessary links.
List of ongoing talk page proposals
Deletions
None at the moment.
Moves
Merges
Splits
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
Unimplemented proposals
Proposals
Note: Implemented for all except Bowser's Inside Story's Bowser's Castle and Kingdom Battle's Peach's Castle
Note: Article for "Battle Without Honor or Humanity" has not been created yet
Talk page proposals
Note: Missing Rainbow Bridge, Blue Bonus Game House, and Yellow Bonus Game House articles.
Note: Currently split clothing should be merged back
Writing guidelines
Determine if certain "notable" versions of characters and species without their own articles should have their specific sections linked to
To quote myself from a year ago:
So, a user (who I will not name to avoid harassment of them) has been updating links for Pauline in the context of her younger appearance in Donkey Kong Bananza so that they link to that game's section of her article, like so:
[[Pauline#Donkey_Kong_Bananza|Pauline]]
My sentiment on doing this is...more negative than positive. While I see the rationale behind it—a prominent younger version of a character that isn't portrayed as a distinct entity is somewhat unprecedented for this franchise, and thus linking to a page where the infobox artwork depicts said character with their usual adult appearance could be considered a little weird—it also has problems of its own. There's no indication that these links would lead to just a section of Pauline's article instead of the beginning of it until they are hovered over—and said article beginning happens to include relevant information for her appearance in Bananza, such as her voice actress, Jenny Kidd.
My biggest complaint with this, however, is also my hook for this discussion: Why single out Pauline? While we often link to certain sections of recurring locations in the context of specific games (though this is becoming less common as more iterations of such locations are being split off via proposals), this is the first time (to my knowledge) we're consistently doing this with a character. One would think some of the articles we chose to merge—such as some of the 1993 live-action film versions of characters and species (relevant proposal here) or the various representations of species as individual characters in the Mario Party series (relevant proposals here, here, and here)—would be ripe for this treatment. However, besides articles where we forgot to update links following a merge like John Leguizamo, the only article I could find with such a link was Koopa Krag in reference to his grandson...but Koopa Troopa is already linked there twice without a redirect in reference to Koopa Krag's species, so that probably doesn't count either.
I do recognize that we have no rule for or against linking to a specific version of a character or species when needed. Still, given the potential user-unfriendliness of doing this with Pauline, yet also considering the possibility of applying it to more versions of characters and species, I do think some action must be taken. Heck, even though I agree to merging the 1993 film characters with their main counterparts, they're probably more at odds with them than 13-year-old Pauline is with her adult self. Assuming we do establish an official policy for this kind of linking instead of nipping it in the bud, where would we put said policy? Could it be added to one of our existing policy pages, or would it take a new one? How would we determine if a version of a character or species is notable enough to have their specific section linked to? Such a policy may well encourage people to link every instance of King Boo in the Luigi's Mansion series to King Boo#Luigi's Mansion series (or a specific game therewithin) because of his different design and crueler characterization there, or further subjects down the slippery slope.
One year later (and with some advice from LadySophie17 (talk) on Discord), I'm finally ready to discuss adding a potential policy for this! To summarize my long spiel above, there have been a few instances where a character or species is portrayed in a way that is exceptionally different from their usual depictions, yet this portrayal is not treated as distinct from their usual self in the way that, say, Baby Mario is considered a distinct subject from adult Mario. Whether or not links for such depictions of a subject are piped to the specific section involving said depiction is inconsistent across the wiki; there are pros and cons to each approach, yet we have no official policy encouraging one or the other. This proposal seeks to remedy that.
If the addition of a policy encouraging piped links to specific version of characters passes, this paragraph (or a reworded version of it) would be added to the "Linking, linking, linking!" section of MarioWiki:Manual of Style:
Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. For such instances, it is encouraged to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article where this depiction applies (e.g. [[Pauline#Donkey Kong Bananza|Pauline]]), or that of said subject's history article if they have one (e.g. [[History of Bowser#Super Mario Bros. (film)|President Koopa]]). This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.
Inversely, if we choose to discourage piped links to specific version of characters, something like this would be added instead:
Occasionally, a character or species may be portrayed in a way that is notably different from their usual depictions, yet still not treated with enough distinction for their own article. Examples include Pauline as a 13-year-old girl in Donkey Kong Bananza, or Bowser as a human-like evolved dinosaur known as "President Koopa" in the 1993 film Super Mario Bros. While it may be enticing to use piped links to the specific section of the subject's article (or separate history article) where this depiction applies to avoid possible confusion, doing so is discouraged to avoid confusing those looking for more general information on the subject instead, as well as to prevent skipping information earlier in the article that may also be relevant to the specific version of them in question. This also applies to certain depictions of species as individual characters, such as the Goomba who serves as one of the hosts in Mario Party 4.
Proposer: SolemnStormcloud (talk)
Deadline: August 22, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Establish a policy encouraging linking to such sections
- Wandering Poplin (talk) I think I prefer this option the best. For instance, if I am currently trying to find information and images relating to Nurse Toadstool, it would be more helpful to be redirected the the relevant section of the History of Princess Peach page which covers the character (albeit somewhat poorly, but that's a separate issue for another time.) than immediately being linked to Princess Peach, wasting time fruitlessly searching the page for any info on Nurse Toadstool and not finding it, opening the History of Princess Peach article, and then having to scroll through walls and walls of text until I finally find what I'm looking for.
Establish a policy discouraging linking to such sections, and remove piped links in question
- Hewer (talk) Full vote reasoning moved to comments per request. Tldr, this style of linking is unhelpful for finding information and invites weird inconsistencies.
- LadySophie17 (talk) Per Hewer. Pauline and President Koopa seem like reasonable use cases but Goombob and Nurse Toadstool being brought up as examples convinced me this guideline will be abused from the start. As per Arend in the comments, I also disagree with the use of section linking in navboxes.
- SolemnStormcloud (talk) Per Hewer, as well as myself from a year ago. Unless we were to have dedicated proposals on who should or shouldn't receive this treatment, it'd just be a slippery slope as to who does.
- Rykitu (talk) Per all.
- Arend (talk) Per all. As I explained in the comments, I would prefer to avoid linking to specific section of an article in navbox templates (at least until we have a link template that can convert anchor links to bold text when you're on its page, which may be more trouble than it's worth), and with Hewer pointing out that certain notable versions of a character can appear in multiple games (sometimes alongside the character's normal version!), then I think even splitting that notable version in its own article would be more preferable than this. Also, as they and LadySophie pointed out, this could be further abused to a ridiculous degree.
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
- Wilben (talk) Per all.
- Dominoes § 2026 (talk) Per all.
Do not create a policy, and remove piped links in question
Do not create a policy, but keep existing piped links (status quo)
My main concern is whether or not navigation templates will be affected. Navboxes are usually a whole collection of links, and normally, when you check such a template on a page featured in there, that link will be made bold and unclickable to indicate you're already there, which helps quite a bit with navigating through the template. However, when you make it a link to a section instead, this does not happen: instead, it's an anchor link, which means you can still click it when you're still on said page, given that it directs you to a specific section instead of the page as a whole (even when you're already in that section). This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine given that it makes navboxes more difficult to navigate than necessary, and in the end wouldn't be all that helpful: it's kind of like putting a redirect link in a navbox template.
So if we were to make a policy in which linking to sections like this is encouraged for specific versions, I'm kinda hoping that navboxes would be exempt from this. 
rend (talk) (edits) 23:24, August 8, 2026 (UTC)
- Huh. I originally imagined that the piping would apply to navboxes as well (I can imagine it would make sense to link Goombob in {{MPA}} to the Mario Party Advance section of Galoomba's article, especially since "Goomba (Super Mario World)" is also linked in the "Enemies and species" row), but this is a valid issue. Honestly, something like this seems like it would require a second proposal—lest I complicate this one any more. Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}. (See what I mean by this piping currently being treated inconsistently?) —
SolemnStormcloud (talk) 23:42, August 8, 2026 (UTC)
Do note that this issue of yours currently affects Pauline in {{DKB}}, but not Mario, Luigi, Yoshi, Bowser/President Koopa, Goombas, and Snifits in {{SMB film}}.
That's because one uses an anchor link while the other uses links proper, the former perfectly showcasing the problem I'm talking about. I'm really not talking about how we're treating the linking to specific versions thing inconsistently (that much is obvious and should be handled), but rather how we should treat this in navboxes. While I think using anchor links is really useful in various cases, I personally think we should avoid using them in navboxes for the reasons I stated earlier. Again, it's like using redirects in navboxes. rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- I was mainly just pointing out an instance of an anchor link currently in one of our navboxes. — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 12:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
@Wandering Poplin: I think this issue is better solved by using Ctrl+F than by implementing these sorts of links. Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 09:48, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- Or simply using the table of contents... rend (talk) (edits) 11:43, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. But that "solution" assumes that the average casual reader would:
- Know which page the information is stored on to begin with. (The main page, the History of [subject] page, etc.)
- Knows which section of the table of contents that the information is contained in. This issue isn't the most important point, but it is a supporting problem found on pages with literal dozens of listings.
- Actually knows about the "Ctrl+F" feature, and what it does. (I didn't until you brought it up, just now. And I doubt the average casual viewer knows about it either.)
- Is actively using a device which even has the aforementioned "Ctrl+F" feature. Not all devices do.
- This issue also gets worse if you account for [subject-the-character], alter-ego appearances, and other such subjects which do not have their own pages, or even their own redirects. (Which is something I wish I'd brought up when casting my vote.)
- I do acknowledge the concerns brought up by the opposition, but I feel that abolishing these links outright isn't the most favorable solution, as it does not provide a (suitable) alternative for the navigation issues which these links had otherwise resolved. I am not saying this system should be used everywhere, and for everything, but it does have some use cases which should not be ignored. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)
- I had also assumed that the fact that a guideline for "what subject qualifies for being specifically linked to" and would need to be created ... was kind of a given.
- The reason I never brought it up during my vote is because I'd assumed it was something we were already planning to do if this proposal succeeded. Perhaps I was mistaken. Wandering Poplin (talk) 16:50, August 10, 2026 (UTC)
- The issue is that creating such a guideline would be more trouble than it's worth due to all the arbitrary judgement calls it would require about what is and isn't a "notable version". It's not something that can be easily defined, and I can't imagine there being a consistent set of criteria that would determine whether or not something "counts".
Regarding your other comment: if the reader actually knows what information they're looking for when they click on a link (which I think is a reasonable assumption) then they should probably be able to find it with a little scrolling. In the Nurse Toadstool example, I assume a reader who knows what Nurse Toadstool is would know that she's from the Dr. Mario series, so they could go to Peach's history page and click the section for the Dr. Mario series. Or alternatively, if they were really trying to find Nurse Toadstool coverage, they could just type "Nurse Toadstool" into the search bar. I don't think it's the job of regular links to do this kind of basic navigation for the reader, especially since, as I've already pointed out, linking to history sub-sections like this will usually still miss out other relevant information that the reader could've been looking for, due to the way character articles are organised. (I will note that I'm actually not a huge fan of the history page splits myself because of the hindrance to navigation, but I don't think this is the solution to that issue.) Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 17:58, August 10, 2026 (UTC)
@Hewer Could please truncate your vote and leave your entire comment here? It is a bit too lengthy for a vote section. — Lady Sophie_17 
(T|C) 11:52, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- Didn't know there was a length limit for votes now, but sure I guess. Here's my full vote reasoning:
- I don't like this style of linking because I find it strange and unhelpful to link to a specific part of a character's history section rather than linking to the character normally, as the way that character articles are structured means not all information specific to that appearance will necessarily be confined to that section on the article (such as the proposal's example of Bananza-specific information being covered in the intro to Pauline's article, and other cases like profile and statistics sections). It's especially annoying for characters like Bowser whose history sections are now split into separate articles, meaning the link doesn't even take you to the article about the character. Another problem with linking things in this way is that it arbitrarily implies some appearances of the character to be more "distinct" than others, despite the fact they're all appearances of the same subject, otherwise they wouldn't be covered on the same article. What actually determines whether any given appearance is a "notable version" or not? There's really no more reason to always link Pauline's appearance in Bananza to that game's section than there is to always link her appearance in, say, Mario Tennis Aces to that game's section, or to distinguish her appearance in the original Donkey Kong (after all, her name and design were different in that game). I also don't like the mention in the proposed policy addition that "This can also apply to certain depictions of species as individual characters", because those concepts really aren't as distinct as the wiki often makes them out to be. Would that apply to, say, Koopa Troopa's appearance in Super Mario Kart? Better to cut out the ambiguity and just link to things normally. EDIT: Oh yeah, another issue is that sometimes the same "notable version" will make multiple appearances, meaning linking to a single appearance in a history section doesn't even encompass all the appearances of that version of the subject. For example, links to Dr. Bowser originally led to Bowser's Dr. Mario World section, which was later complicated by Dr. Bowser showing up again in Mario Kart Tour. What do you do in that situation? Hewer (talk · contributions · edit count) 15:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- There is no strict length limit for votes (yet), but making several paragraph-length arguments opposing a proposal can be disruptive to the voting section, and might not provide a decent space for debates and clarifications. Typing the reasoning in the comments section also allows voters to use paragraph breaks, which make for better legibility. — Lady Sophie_17 (T|C) 16:13, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
I'm just now realizing: If the policy to discourage this usage of piped links passes, how would we treat the one on Koopa Krag's article in reference to his grandson? Since Koopa Troopa is already linked in the context of Krag's species, should we remove the link outright; have a redundant, second link to Koopa Troopa; or even keep the piped link anyways? — SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:26, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
- Just unlink it, I suppose. That's how it was initially presented anyway, after all, until a link was added six years ago when it turns out MPDS Koopa was split into its own article years prior... until 2022 that is, when it merged back to Koopa Troopa. rend (talk) (edits) 15:26, August 10, 2026 (UTC)
Removals
None at the moment.
Additions
None at the moment.
Changes
Remove composer credits that are not officially known for music from Super Mario 3D World
The wiki currently credits the composers for each music from Super Mario 3D World, and claims that it is from Super Mario 3D World Original Soundtrack. However, the actual album doesn't actually credit any composers, so the composers are technically still unknown. So far, the info for who the composers are are actually entirely based on internal file names. You can see how they obtained them here: https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/Super_Mario_3D_World_%2B_Bowser%27s_Fury/soundtrack - these are obtained through internal file names, not any official confirmation, so they are still technically unconfirmed, so we can't technically put them here yet.
So far, we use the VGMdb pages (here and here) for their information, but they likely obtain them from the file names.
An analogy is how the Nintendo Wiki (https://nintendo.fandom.com/wiki/New_Super_Mario_Bros./soundtrack) claims that the composers for New Super Mario Bros. are known based on internal file names (like "does not use samples", "mentioned by Koji Kondo", etc.), but we don't use them for this. (e.g. our Underwater Theme page still says the composer is unknown, even though the Nintendo Wiki says that the composer is Asuka Hayazaki, based on the sole fact "does not use SWAR “WAVE_WAKAI_SHARE” samples; when discussing the "Ground Theme" composition, Koji Kondo mentions that "the other songs were made by other staff members"").
Proposer: GamermanX2354 (talk)
Deadline: August 23, 2026, 23:59 (UTC)
Remove the composer credits for those that are unknown
- GamermanX2354 (talk) Per proposal.
Keep the composer credits
- Hewer (talk) If we know the composers, we should document that. Doesn't matter what the source of that information is (as long as it's reliable, which the filenames appear to be). It's true that we should stop citing the soundtrack release for this information if that's not actually where it's from, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Ahemtoday (talk) Per Hewer.
- Wilben (talk) Per Hewer.
- The Dab Master (talk) Per Hewer.
- Yoshi18 (talk) Per Hewer.
Super Mario 3D World, Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, and Super Mario Odyssey all contain composer initials in track file names. The credits given in the Super Mario Odyssey Original Soundtrack match up with that game's track file names, so why not treat the other file names as reliable sources of composer credits? B700465189a9 (talk) 15:09, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
We should definitely start incorporating internal name sections in theme articles to use as citations for composer credits. The references could simply say "See § Internal names." 
The Dab Master 17:09, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
None at the moment.
(T|C) 11:52, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
SolemnStormcloud (talk) 18:26, August 9, 2026 (UTC)
